- Community Blog
- Daily Crasher
Samuel Jackson on Jury Duty
I got home from some late night racquetball just in time to catch Samuel L. Jackson on Jimmy Kimmel Live.
This reminded me of the time I worked at the post office, and told this woman she looked like him. She didn't like that. But, Makia was attractive. All the guys always hit on her. I didn't mean she looked just like him. She had a great body, and a pretty face. But if you looked closely, she looked like she could be his sister. I tried explaining that, to no avail.
Jackson started talking about being on jury duty recently. He said that it was some big drug case, and when they brought the two guys in, they looked up at the jury, saw him, and waved. The judge then said, "Okay, Mr. Jackson, you can go now."
So, now we know another way to get out of jury duty. Became a famous actor.
I had always gotten out of jury duty. But the last time I got the notice, I decided I'd do it. I got to the final portion of the process, where I'm one of the 12 people.
It was funny, because one retired judge was in the jury pool. The judge saw him and laughed. He was then excused.
As the prosecutor and defense attorney start asking us questions, and what our profession is, it became such a weird process. They basically want idiots on the jury and anyone that has a brain, they'll try to get rid of.
That is why people like O.J. and Robert Blake get away with murder. And, Phil Spector had a 10 - 2 split, and is now being re-tried (even though he's pulled guns on everyone, including John Lennon; When I talked to musician John Prine, I asked if Spector pulled a gun on him when they worked together. He basically said that Spector does that to everyone. Yet, the jury still has two idiots that think he could be innocent of shooting a woman in his own house, even after running out and telling a limo driver he "thinks he just killed someone." Wow, are you allowed to write this much in paranthesis? I'll have to ask the next editor I see roaming around the office).
The short, pot-bellied Latino defense attorney, was walking around, talking a lot louder than he needed to. He'd ask a few of us questions. He asked me, "If you had to vote on a verdict right now, what would you find my client over there?" I said, "Uh, we haven't heard anything yet." He said, "Right, well...then what would you vote..guilty or not guilty?" I said, "Uh, well...we were just told that the case involves the possibility of him punching his ex-girlfriend. I don't know the facts." He then started getting angry and said "If you don't know the facts, then what do you vote?" I said, "Right now, I'd vote 'not guilty', but that's because I haven't heard any of the evidence." He then said "Exactly! You would vote 'not guilty'. And I hope all of you listen to every bit of evidence...."
What I wanted to add, was that my logic is that if the prosecutor took the time to bring this person in, they probably think he's guilty. Which means I'm leaning in that direction, too. It doesn't mean I've got my mind made up. Who would, without hearing any evidence. But, it does mean you have a big up-hill battle to climb with me, because I'm going with "guilty until proven innocent" in my mind.
I was the first person excused from the jury.
And by the tall, blonde, female prosecutor. I wanted to say "I was on your side. Good luck with the rest of 'em."