While I was answering a question from the other post, I remembered a trial jury my husband was on.

They had to commit someone to a mental health place. I guess there is a law now that people cannot be committed without a trial. A couple of people gave testimony. The person being committed did NOT give testimony. The person being committed was NOT even in court.

Sort of a rubber stamp thing if you ask me. But, I wasn't there.

I guess I don't much see the point of having a trial if the person being committed doesn't get to be there.

Advertisement

Maybe I watch too much TV.

But, after seeing The Changeling and such, I don't think I could do this. At least, I like to think that I wouldn't do this. I mean, don't we need to see Angelina Jolie scream that she isn't crazy and wants her son back?

I suppose there are violent people that they would rather not risk bringing to court. And, I suppose I'd have no way of knowing if the person on trial was really crazy or just drugged to appear crazy.

Advertisement

Still, not seeing the person at all would have really bothered me.

This did not bother my husband that much. He's had plenty of experience with crazy people, and he's all for having them committed whenever possible.

About half the people on the jury were ready to rubber stamp the thing and go home, and the other had questions, but a few hours later the people who had questions still couldn't figure out what else they were supposed to do. So the person was committed all legal like, and the jurors went home.

Advertisement

The people on the other jury my husband was on were going to vote guilty or innocent based on which lawyer wasted the least amount of time. But maybe one of them was really sure the case was going to be settled and was stalling or something.

I've never been picked to be on a jury.

In college, I took Speech 101. This mostly turned out to be a waste of time, but for some reason students are pressured into taking it. I do remember an assignment that was sort of like a trial, except that it only took like fifteen minutes.

Advertisement

At least, our first group took about fifteen minutes. The groups got much quicker at determining guilt, even though they all had different stories and such. The last group took about two minutes, and they hardly had any discussion at all. And I remember wondering if people on real trials did that. Apparently, that's common. People just want to get done and go home.

My brother-in-law was a juror for a trial that had to do with selling drugs or maybe just drug possession. Anyway, there were drugs. And there were two guys, but just one of them was on trial. And there were no pictures and no witnesses other than the arresting officers, and maybe they didn't even find the drugs on the guy being tried.

So, five minutes later, most everyone except my brother-in-law are ready to go home. They think the guy is obviously guilty. My brother-in-law has a feeling that they guy might be guilty, but he doesn't think that's the way a trial is supposed to work. Aren't the lawyers supposed to convince you that a person is guilty with some evidence?

Advertisement

But, my brother-in-law got tired of talking to himself, and eventually he went along with everyone else and convicted the guy.

And yes, this is Texas, but I'm sure that happens everywhere else too.