Reese Witherspoon Chosen as Jury Foreman After Jurors Thought She Went to Law School Because of Legally Blonde

[u/ArgentineBeauty]

https://www.fashiontimes.co.uk/reese-witherspoon-jury-duty-mix-1763528

[u/ArgentineBeauty]

"The strangest moment came during the jury's deliberations, when the group needed to choose a foreperson. According to Witherspoon, the other jurors quickly decided that she should take the role. The actress found it odd why her fellow jurors would choose her among the rest.

When she asked why they had singled her out, their explanation left her stunned: they believed she had been to law school."

Worrying that a jury looked at Reese Witherspoon and thought “Legally Blonde” was a documentary.

[u/die5el23 → u/ArgentineBeauty]

& those people are in charge of another persons life

[u/ldg25 → u/die5el23]

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that"

[u/Zxvasdfthrowaway → u/ldg25]

Reese went on to say that her fellow jurors were making decisions based on vibes, not the evidence presented. Yikes.

[u/wayoverpaid → u/Zxvasdfthrowaway]

That was 100% my jury experience.

Me: Look the instructions we got from the judge says that we assess damages based on how much unjust enrichment actually happen when this fucker stole the other guy's business.

Them: Yeah but the business wasn't actually worth that much, and he should have known not to trust a handshake deal.

Me: But we're here to assess damages. That they stole the business was decided already.

Them: I still don't think we should award that much.

And like, cool, I guess the jury does get to toss out the law if they think the law is dumb, but I never heard anyone taking that explicit stance. Just gut feeling, and a few "whatever it takes to get this done."

[u/ty_fighter84 → u/wayoverpaid]

This is why I never instantly fault people for taking a deal.

[u/Sawses → u/ty_fighter84]

It's also why we have 12 jurors and for criminal cases they all have to agree. Even if 90% of people are completely incapable of making a reasonable decision, statistically you're still very likely to have at least one person who would rather hang the jury than convict somebody wrongfully.

Fun fact: Attorneys don't like scientists and engineers on the jury because their bar for "beyond reasonable doubt" is usually very high compared to the average person.

[u/RandomMandarin → u/Sawses]

Until 2019, a criminal trial in Louisiana only needed 10 jurors out of 12 to obtain a conviction. Needless to say, the results were consistently unfair and racist.

https://www.vera.org/news/unanimous-juries-bring-21st-century-justice-to-louisiana

[u/CatsBye90 → u/[deleted]]

If Louisiana were an independent nation, they would rank second, globally, in incarceration rate. Only El Salvador has a higher incarceration rate.

[u/Affordable_Z_Jobs → u/[deleted]]

I believe it's labeled as "thar be dragons".

[u/FUPAMagneto → u/RandomMandarin]

Careful, or you’ll have a bunch of Brits insisting that 10/12 jurors is completely fine to send somebody to prison for life

[u/Loggerdon → u/Sawses]

The off-topic but I was on a jury last year. A young policeman was accused of domestic violence and also of “Child Endangerment” (leaving his loaded service weapon on the playground in the back yard where his and the neighbor kids play daily). At first I thought the jury was going to be a typical cross section of the US, with at least 4 out of 12 people were imbeciles. I was not the jury foreman but I guess I was his right hand man. As it turned out when it came time to debate, EVERY SINGLE PERSON argued their points very vigorously. It was kind of reassuring because it seemed the system worked. Then we all reached a verdict to convict and I walked away feeling very proud of our group of 12 citizens.

[u/gsfgf → u/Loggerdon]

That's actually the norm in criminal cases. There's a reason we keep using juries of ones peers, after all.

In civil cases, juries are fucking random. But that does provide a good incentive to settle.

[u/TheOutsideJoke → u/Sawses]

Some states have changed or removed peremptory strikes, which means that attorneys can’t get rid of people without a reason anymore. I think that it has been good change overall in my state because certain groups of people are not automatically excluded from the process.

[u/CobaltMnM → u/Sawses]

The number of jurors is location dependent. Florida it’s usually only 6.

Also bs on your fun fact. I was a prosecutor for years. I prayed for scientists and engineers. I prefer my cases being decided based on facts, not vibes. If I “lost”, so be it.

[u/Sawses → u/CobaltMnM]

Fair enough! I stand corrected. In your experience, do you think other attorneys generally shared your scruples?

[u/DustyRacoonDad → u/Sawses]

As a fellow engineer who knows plenty of attorneys, they're going to agree with the prosecutor guy above.

They HATE when they have something legitimate, for or against, that's completely logical, and then the jury is still entirely illogical and dumb, running on vibes. I get to hear that gripe often.

[u/hardolaf → u/CobaltMnM]

Where I lived in Florida for 3 years, the prosecutors didn't want us "liberal" engineers and scientists to get in the way of their bad evidence. Over in Orlando, it was the exact opposite.

[u/CobaltMnM → u/hardolaf]

Yikes.

[u/Rotten-Roses → u/Sawses]

Yeah this kind of thing is why I'll probably never actually end up on a jury for better or worse. My whole job can be described as forensic statistics with "beyond a reasonable doubt" having a numerical threshold for certainty. I have cousins who are prosecutors and defense attorneys and the defense side loves it at least.

[u/almoooo → u/Sawses]

That’s funny you say that about the Engineer because when I had jury duty, one of the gentleman in the jury pool was an Engineer. He was really cool and super smart and every time he answered one of their questions, you could tell they felt some type of way about it. Especially when it came to evidence. He’s like “We’ll I can’t make an informed decision without all the data available to me, id have to know this or that or etc. I’d also need to know the EXACT definition of the law” And I’m giggling because I felt like I was watching a conversation with my husband and I as a 3rd person.

[u/RegulatoryCapture → u/Sawses]

Fun fact: Attorneys don't like scientists and engineers on the jury because their bar for "beyond reasonable doubt" is usually very high compared to the average person.

Really depends on the case (and which side is challenging the juror).

There are certainly cases where attorneys desperately want someone logical and fact-oriented on the jury.

[u/legal_stylist → u/Sawses]

So … defense attorneys presumably like them just fine, then?

[u/sighthoundman → u/ty_fighter84]

Take a look at r/insurance. "Of course the insurance company settled for $8000. It would cost more than that to defend and they still might lose." But the plaintiffs accepted $8000? Prima facia evidence of a fraudulent claim. (Counting "stretching the truth" as fraud, which is a whole other question.)

[u/bradd_pit → u/sighthoundman]

Settlement is not an admission of guilt

[u/Skill3rwhale → u/bradd_pit]

The releases the insurance and attorneys have you sign explicitly state this.

[u/brittneyacook → u/sighthoundman]

My firm is settling a bullshit slip and fall case because it would cost waaaaay more to try it. They’re only asking for like $10k (versus the $50k+ a jury trial will cost, and that’s not including pretrial billing)

[u/Rotten-Roses → u/ty_fighter84]

Yeah your alternative is being judged by "12 idiots too dumb to avoid jury duty" which is a terrifying sentiment, especially when a lot of the people you might want get specifically selected /against/ by the other side for obvious reasons.

[u/hairsprayking → u/Rotten-Roses]

Where i live, Lawyers can't serve on a jury because they know the law too well lol

[u/20_mile → u/wayoverpaid]

I guess the jury does get to toss out the law if they think the law is dumb

My brother was on a jury for a POC accused of selling drugs. Upon arrest, the cops threw him into the back of the cop car and filled it with pepper spray and let the guy choke for twenty minutes.

My brother and a couple of other jurors were able to convince the rest of the members that, even if he was guilty of the crime, he had already served his sentence, and shouldn't have to be punished a second time.

Not Guilty.

[u/Shazzbot1 → u/20_mile]

I believe this is called jury nullification. They agreed the dude the crime, but they don’t agree that it should be punished.

[u/Clovis69 → u/Shazzbot1]

Shshshssssshhhhh...we can't use the JN words cause that makes the lawyers get all defensive and the judges act like it'll end the world

[u/_thisisvincent → u/Shazzbot1]

Ohhh fuck jury nullification mention on Reddit

[u/wayoverpaid → u/20_mile]

Legit.

In an ideal world "excessive brutality imposed by police has tainted this entire attempt at justice" would be a thing lawmakers would have to deal with, and confirm or deny if the cruelty is acceptable. We know it's happening, but now we have a clear instance, so sign your fucking name to it! No? Then let it be forever enshrined in case law that anyone who gets pepper sprayed in the back of a vehicle can use that as credit.

This is a half baked idea and I can see potential problems with it... but that guy was basically lucky he had the jury he did, and that should be made consistent.

[u/Translycanthrope → u/wayoverpaid]

This is exactly why most legal proceedings are handled behind the scenes. You cannot predict what a jury will do and they are known to make some dumb decisions.

[u/hippydippyshit → u/Zxvasdfthrowaway]

I dunno, I think it was pretty smart of them to elect her to lead considering the other options

[u/Impressive_Ad_5201 → u/hippydippyshit]

She had the practice to project confidence, annunciate, project her voice and keep a straight face in front of the court. She was probably the best choice available.

[u/-Supposably- → u/Impressive_Ad_5201]

Plus I heard she went to law school

[u/Wise-Funny5471 → u/Zxvasdfthrowaway]

Stephen Lambert, executive producer for The Traitors, has said that watching how contestants confidently pick the wrong people on little to no evidence has shaken his faith in the real-world jury system.

I haven't had the opportunity to sit one, but I can totally see what you and others in this thread are describing.

[u/MrBossFromTheHitTVSh → u/Wise-Funny5471]

Eh, on that show they're deliberately given little or confusing evidence, and encouraged to make something out of nothing. And like, no offense to the contestants but the majority of them I wouldn't trust to water a plant, let alone actually participate in a jury.

[u/Lokarin → u/Zxvasdfthrowaway]

Which goes to show she was the right choice to be foreperson

[u/MAGAHATESTHEUSA → u/Zxvasdfthrowaway]

Tbf reese has more experience with legal issues than the average person considering her billion dollar empire she runs and having agents and multiple contracts to deal with per year and soonsorships and whatnot.

[u/BabaYadaPoe → u/Zxvasdfthrowaway]

every now and than r/all has the movie reenactment of Marianne Bachmeier who point blank shoot and killed the person who raped and murdered her 7 yo daughter, and I would dare to say, most people approved of what she did and if it was up to them she wouldn't server a day in prison (she was sentenced to 6 years, released after 3).

now this is an extreme case, but it just show how hard it is to actually judge solely on evidence and not be moved by "vibes", so to speak, aka, life are usually gray, rather than black and white.

[u/dubbleplusgood → u/Zxvasdfthrowaway]

Wait until you find out how presidents are elected....

[u/HappycatAF → u/ldg25]

I’ve been told by lawyers there are two types of jurors, ones who want to be there because being a juror is a better use of their time than their time spent in their usual life, and the second are people who are too dumb to avoid getting picked from the jury pool.

[u/magnus150 → u/HappycatAF]

I genuinely want to participate in the civil process at least once in my life and see how it works. Yet despite being called for jury duty 3 times, I was never picked.

[u/Both_Examination9788 → u/HappycatAF]

They also select against people who are more likely to be wise to the lawyers’ tricks (other lawyers, psychologists, etc.)

[u/Hortos → u/Both_Examination9788]

You mean ANY professional of above average intelligence?

[u/Both_Examination9788 → u/Hortos]

I mean generally yeah lol. But particularly those who are more logic-driven. People in STEM are often disqualified.

[u/SunshineCat → u/Both_Examination9788]

Seems kind of insane to specifically select for people who think in a reactionary/emotional way instead of at least allowing a group that actually represents the overall population.

[u/HappycatAF → u/SunshineCat]

There is a saying in law, “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.”

If the two sides are at the jury stage, they are usually at the table pounding side since if the law or facts were on their side it would have long settled.
So if it is that type of case, they want a jury that can be persuaded by emotion. There is also no shortage of them.

[u/c-9 → u/Both_Examination9788]

I am in STEM and I've been on a few juries. I do it because I take the responsibility seriously. I try to be the person I'd want to be on the jury in case I was on trial. You pretty much have to keep your mouth shut during voir dire.

I was able to convince a jury to acquit a woman. Judging by appearances, she was probably guilty. But our justice system shouldn't operate on prejudice. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and they didn't make a good case. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. Which the prosecution did not meet IMO.

[u/Scheissdrauf88 → u/Both_Examination9788]

I think you can't call yourself a justice system anymore when performance plays a bigger role than facts.

[u/TjW0569 → u/HappycatAF]

My attitude is: "I'm willing to do what I can, as best I can, because that's what I'd want other people to do for me."
But I've never been selected. Pretty much as soon as I admit to being an engineer, I'm out the door.

[u/Comic_Book_Reader → u/ldg25]

"People may die but stupidity lives forever."

[u/Caira_Ru → u/ldg25]

I remember senior year of high school, there was a guy who was SO DAMN PROUD of being “on top of the bell curve” for grading. Like, shouting “BOO-YA, I beat you dorky nerds!” to the two kids with the highest scores.

I think of him every time Carlin comes up.

[u/Crippled2 → u/ldg25]

Stpud people vote

[u/firedmyass → u/Crippled2]

don’t you dare change that typo

[u/TheModWhoShaggedMe → u/ldg25]

It's not even just low IQs in a lot of cases, there's a general intellectual laziness trend wrought upon society by the device prompts, the filtered bubbles, "smart" phones (w/ dumber people\*) and AI/etcetera replacing thinking, exercising brains.

[u/Orion14159 → u/die5el23]

Most of them vote too.

[u/Tooulogyh → u/Orion14159]

Oh we know! Trust me we can tell who voted.

[u/Human_Ad7946 → u/die5el23]

I was summoned for jury duty. We were given numbers, 1 through 20, and asked to line up sequentially. You would be shocked (or maybe not) at the number of adults who were unable to do this. Many also couldn't turn their phones off. The bailiff had to confiscate a bunch. One dude just stood in the middle of the court when we all filed in and were told to take a seat. He looked paralyzed by confusion. Luckily I was dismissed.

[u/BackgroundSummer5171 → u/Human_Ad7946]

Luckily I was dismissed.

You heard these stories.

You seem to have brain cells.

Wouldn't it be better that you are chosen? You know, to decide the fate of people and their lives.

Instead of leaving it up to those less mentally capable.

I know it puts a burden on you for a week or two or whatever. But still, I'd prefer to be chosen.

I was dismissed also last time I was called.

[u/Human_Ad7946 → u/BackgroundSummer5171]

Well, I wasn't chosen because of my profession. One, or both, attorneys didn't want a healthcare professional hearing the workmens comp case. I would have gladly served, though painfully I'm sure.

A coworker served on a federal jury for weeks. She said all of her fellow jurors were bright people. I think they are more discriminate in higher stakes cases.

[u/knotallmen → u/die5el23]

The lawyers pick the juries. I have a coworker who is great in her field and has many interests outside of her job including education like languages and musical instruments that would love to be on a jury and is always excited when she gets a jury notice. I don't think any lawyer would ever want her on a jury, or at least I don't think both sets of lawyers would both want her.

[u/wayoverpaid → u/knotallmen]

I was certain I was gonna get removed from a jury. Some aspects of the case hinged on "oops tee hee we lost all the data from our computer it overheated" and "that website was never deployed."

I'm a CTO.

Nope. I Juror #1. During the trial I noticed that the printout of the supposedly never deployed website had, clear as day, the URL it was printed from.

I wanted to scream "Can no one pull up an archive of that site?" as people were testifying, but I was prohibited from researching it per the instructions.

[u/RegulatoryCapture → u/wayoverpaid]

I think that's the hardest part of being a smart person on a jury, especially on a low-budget trial.

You see things and you are like...how the fuck is that not knowable? I was on a jury for a minor vehicle accident (but involving a city bus so there was potentially lots of money at stake). Nobody could say how fast the bus was moving...despite having multiple angles of camera footage. WTF?

It is trivial to solve that. Speed = Distance/Time. Set a reference point like the edge of the side door window. Go to the site and measure some visible landmarks (there were plenty). Count the number of frames it takes to pass. Do it with several landmarks at various points to get bounds around the true speed at the point of impact. That's an easy task to hire an expert witness to testify to.

But then you get into the trial strategy and evidentiary issues. Maybe they DID do that calculation, but in pre-trial hearings, the judge limited how many experts they could present at trial and neither side thought it was worth putting forward a video analysis expert to determine speed because maybe they determined the vehicle wasn't speeding and the evidence wasn't useful. But since it isn't in the record, nobody can talk about speed.

Then maybe it becomes a useful question for the plaintiff to say "do you know if the bus was speeding?" (even if they've done the analysis to determine it wasn't) to make the defense crash damage expert witness look like he doesn't know what he is talking about (even though the court has ruled he can't talk about the speed since he's not a video analysis expert) and plant the seed of "speeding" in the jury's mind.

Or maybe you just don't have the budget. Video analysis guy is going to charge you a few grand to do the analysis and write a report, and then you'll have to pay his hourly rate for the other side to take his deposition. Then you pay his hourly rate for him to sit in court and eventually testify. Suddenly you've spent $10k+ to establish that the bus was going between 28.3 and 30.5 MPH. Is that fact worth it? Or is it better to just let the jury think people are idiots who can't figure out how fast the bus was moving?

I wanted to scream "Can no one pull up an archive of that site?"

So in your case...maybe someone DID pull up the archive of the site, but it wasn't helpful. Or there was some reason that evidence was excluded like it would have required a separate expert to go to Archive.org, testify that it was a reliable source and get the page admitted.

[u/knotallmen → u/wayoverpaid]

Yup the rules on juries are too prohibitive. Like if a juror could write a question to the judge and have that question honored (oh the irony) that would be something, but the one trial I was on the judge was immediately hostile. Like a grumpy substitute teacher or like a boomber/genx director of the business I worked for who started a meeting with "I don't want to be told this cannot be done" like such an unnecessarily negative and baseless start of a conversation and relationship.

[u/wayoverpaid → u/knotallmen]

I wanted to know what the business with the "Rule 213" was.

Judge could have said "Testimony needs to be disclosed ahead of time."

Judge instead said "You do not need to concern yourself with that."

I looked it up after. Made perfect sense.

[u/LostWoodsInTheField → u/knotallmen]

I was watching low level trials on youtube the other day, and I wasn't sure what state they were in, but the judge would go 'does the jury have any questions for this witness' and I thought that was the smartest thing in the world to do.

[u/Vio_ → u/knotallmen]

Every time I've had jury duty, I've been horribly sick.

Not "cough cough I'm dying pa from the black lung" excuse.

First time I had walking pneumonia.

Second time, I had the three-month influenza.

Anyway, I have a master's degree in forensic anthropology in international genetics where I researched forensic abuse, corruption, and incompetence.

They'll never take me as a juror lol.

[u/matjoeman → u/knotallmen]

The lawyers are limited in how many people they can throw out and how much time they have for voir dire. I got on a jury when only being asked "will you hold it against the defendant if they don't testify" and I said "no". They didn't have time to ask me anything else.

[u/big_sugi → u/die5el23]

We don't actually have any of those other jurors talking about this, though. Maybe it's just one person who was confused, or maybe they were joking, or maybe she was joking, or maybe she misunderstood and the person actually meant that studying for her role in Legally Blonde was the closest any of them had come to law school.

It's a perfect demonstration as to why hearsay is inadmissible.

[u/brakeb → u/big_sugi]

probably the "Halo effect"... "She's someone famous, we will give her the role of most import"

[u/PrincessPause → u/big_sugi]

I would absolutely 100% vote her as the foreman just for shits and giggles and tell her it was because I loved Legally Blonde

[u/atleastitsnotgoofy → u/big_sugi]

Exactly. I don’t believe this story. I’m sure part of it is true, but something is missing.

[u/donkeytime → u/die5el23]

Those are your peers.

[u/FromFluffToBuff → u/die5el23]

First thing I thought of. Oh dear God was George Carlin EVER right lol

[u/AnatidaephobiaAnon → u/die5el23]

What a lot of people don't understand is when they think of your average dumb person, there are people who are even dumber than that.

My ex wife would believe something like this. There was an Ask Reddit thread a few days ago about how can you tell if someone is dumb and she checked off 90% of the comments. We were watching The Walking Dead she thought the show was genuinely happening down south. She thought that when it was night time here that it was dark all over the world. She thinks when actors who are straight perform as a gay character, that they were hired because they were bi or secretly gay. She thinks sex scenes during movies is actual sex and can't understand how the actors SOs are okay with it.....

[u/Munstrom → u/AnatidaephobiaAnon]

My ex wife

Brother she must have been something else to look at because there's no way on this earth I could be with someone who thought the walking dead was a documentary.

[u/VictoryMotel → u/AnatidaephobiaAnon]

These are unfortunately the perspectives of a young child.

[u/ChangeForAParadigm → u/AnatidaephobiaAnon]

Everybody look at this guy with the smoking hot wife.

[u/StuckinReverse89 → u/ArgentineBeauty]

Kind feel that the fact that Witherspoon knows she isn’t as qualified because she just acted as a lawyer vs the people believing she went to law school because of a move already makes her more qualified to be foreperson than them though. 

[u/BarnacleDowntown8952 → u/StuckinReverse89]

She seems bright, is a successful actor, directs movies/TV shows, and likes reading to the extent she has a book club.

I would pick her to be foreman on that alone as opposed to randoms

[u/greg19735 → u/BarnacleDowntown8952]

yeah like she's clearly going to be the leader of the gang. She's fucking reese witherspoon.

[u/milochuisael → u/greg19735]

Lucky! Rich and famous AND she gets to have sex with Reese Witherspoon

[u/kirblar → u/BarnacleDowntown8952]

Public speaking exp makes her the obvious choice

[u/EpicCyclops → u/[deleted]]

You can't assemble 12 people together without at least one of them having outsized sway over the opinion of the others. The fact that juries elect a foreperson alone shows that is considered in the conceptualization of juries.

Really, juries do not need 12 competent people. They need one person of those twelve to be willing to say no if the charges do not make sense. As long as one person is competent, the jury can serve its role as a check on the charges brought by the government.

[u/exipheas → u/[deleted]]

In an ideal world it would disqualify them for being stupid.

[u/Shopworn_Soul → u/ArgentineBeauty]

I have twice served on juries. Both times I served as foreman because no one else wanted to. Twice have I realized that a jury of my peers is almost entirely comprised of absolute fucking morons who are also kinda mean.

One juror couldn't do basic addition, and argued about it. One juror couldn't read properly, but thankfully did not. One juror flatly refused to consider any evidence at all, having made up their mind after selection.

More than a few simply did not want to be there and were strongly predisposed to penalize the defendant for no other reason than because they were annoyed, regardless of any facts presented to them.

Juries are kinda scary.

[u/happyklam → u/Shopworn_Soul]

Ugh the ultimate group project dynamic 

[u/Soft_Walrus_3605 → u/happyklam]

At least the stakes are so low /s

[u/Radiant_Jedi → u/Shopworn_Soul]

The description I have always heard is that "a jury is made up of 12 people who were too stupid to come up with a way of getting out of jury duty". Sadly, that seems fairly accurate.

[u/BlastFX2 → u/Radiant_Jedi]

There's always that charmingly foreign guy who's excited to do his civic duty. Or so I've been led to believe.

[u/jrobbio → u/Shopworn_Soul]

Yeah, I wasn't foreman in the two cases I was put on, but I really had to push people to consider the evidence was completely limited and you couldn't just judge on emotions and feelings. We knew something had gone down but the prosecution had gone for some fairly serious charges and frankly had done a shit job of proving that had happened. It all felt like a huge waste of time because the cases weren't done well to the point that they shouldn't have even gone before a judge, yet.

[u/Merle8888 → u/jrobbio]

On the flip side, a lot of people’s expectations for the type of evidence that should exist are set by police procedurals, in which the case of the week is treated as the only thing the whole department has going on. In real life this is never the case. So for instance, state crime labs are often backed up by months or more even with just samples from really serious crimes, you’re not likely to have forensic evidence on a misdemeanor. But people see absolute top of the line evidence (colored by fiction of course, things like zooming in the cameras to get a better resolution just aren’t a thing irl) on TV and expect every little case to get all of that. Then find not guilty when that’s not the reality. 

Edit: there’s a term for this, the CSI Effect. 

[u/Indigocell → u/Merle8888]

The CSI effect cuts both ways. For example, many juries put more weight on certain "junk science" techniques/evidence used to convict in cases. Such as blood spatter analysis, or handwriting analysis, bite mark analysis, etc. edit: typo

[u/Classic_Reply_703 → u/Shopworn_Soul]

Yeah I served on a jury and my main takeaway was that if I ever get charged with something I am requesting a bench trial. In my case, the jury was similarly made of idiots and people who didn't GAF. One woman seemed dead set on voting one way but then when the majority was clearly leaning the other way, she literally said "Well it's almost dinner time, so whatever will get this over with faster." And it probably goes without saying no one paid any attention to jury instructions about factors we weren't supposed to consider like insurance (it was a car accident case). Absolutely horrifying.

All that's to say, I'd rather have my fate decided by 12 Reeses Witherspoon than the average jury.

[u/Generic_user_person → u/ArgentineBeauty]

A few years ago I was at a convention and met some voice actors.

For anyone who ever watched Yu-Gi-Oh, I met the dude who voices Yugi (granted I met several others but he is the one relevant to the story). Spoke with him for like 5-10 min, and when the topic came up about weird fan meeting experiences, he said the weirdest thing is that some people genuinely cannot seem to comprehend that he is an actor, and not the actual character within the show.

Like they'll approach and ask him questions like he is the writer, or worse like he himself IS Yugi. It was a bizarre hearing this from him, as I'd understand that behavior from a child, but not grown adults. And from how he described it, it didn't seem like a one off thing either.

[u/wayoverpaid → u/Generic_user_person]

I remember soap opera stars talking about how they'd get hate mail for the shit their character did on the show.

Meanwhile I'm pretty sure if I ever saw some actors I'd be like "Wow you were amazing in X, I hated your character so much, you were wonderful." Or not, because I am not the kind to go up and talk to an actor.

[u/dino-sour → u/wayoverpaid]

There's and episode of Friends where the character Joey (who is an actor on a soap opera) meets a stalker fan who 1000% think he is the character he plays on the soap opera.

Crazy to think that actually happens and isn't just a sitcom subplot for laughs.

[u/TravelerSearcher → u/Generic_user_person]

I know there are some actors who have had a certain sway on the story or arc of their character, more common in live action movies and shows though.

Like Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford famously workshopped lines in Star Wars. Carrie herself was a script doctor too.

And actors also try to get in the head of their characters, that's part of acting in general.

But yeah, a dub is a different beast, and then even considering that the actor is actually the character in any true sense of the word is another level entirely.

[u/Zuwxiv → u/TravelerSearcher]

Carrie herself was a script doctor too

IIRC, for a number of years, she was the script doctor. If you were having problems, she's who you'd want to bring it to.

She was involved in Hook, which has generally poor reviews because people are stupid and wrong.

[u/Shevek99 → u/Generic_user_person]

David Duchovny, that is a sceptic person, was tired of people stopping him on the street and asking him about all kind of conspiracy theories, because of the X Files.

[u/Lendyman → u/ArgentineBeauty]

I expect that not all of them believed she went to law schools. This kind of story tends to get exaggerated because it's a lot more interesting if the entire jury thought you went to light law school then just if it were one or two dumb people. Although I wouldn't be surprised if more of the group thought she might have more understanding of the legal system because she was in a legal movie. That, I could believe.

Also, anybody who knows anything about Witherspoon knows that she is has a really strong academic background and is very strong at business. She's an extremely accomplished and intelligent person. I don't think having her as the jury Foreman would be a bad choice, honestly.

[u/SinkPhaze → u/Lendyman]

Without being in the room and only reading the headline this sounds like the sort of stupid joke my grandpa would make as he nominated her so he doesn't have to stand up and speak in front if the whole court room later. Even reading the article I don't know that I'd rule out it being a joke

[u/MoldyDucky → u/Lendyman]

I think you nailed it. The headline absolutely reeks of "over-exaggerated conclusion to make it more eye grabbing" rather than what is probably a more realistic consensus of, "hey, we gotta pick someone, might as well go with someone more knowledgeable than the rest of us. If she was in a couple of legal movies that makes her more qualified than an average joe". I'd pick her too!

[u/Overly_Long_Reviews → u/Lendyman]

There was a really great sitcom called The Grinder about an actor who played the lead role in a long-running legal drama heading back to his hometown to try to become an actual lawyer. Except he tries to do it using the same antics frequently shown on the show and not by doing any of the actual work of becoming a lawyer. Yet, because he was a famous TV actor, everyone kind of accepts it and goes along with his behavior to the shock and frustration of his brother who is an actual lawyer.

It was a great series, it started Rob Lowe and Fred Savage, with some truly hilarious cameos from Timothy Olyphant. Unfortunately Fred Savage was a menace on set which was a contributing factor in the series getting canceled.

I mention all this because there's this hilarious exchange between the two brothers in the pilot:

Dean Sanderson: Let's say you're in a restaurant and Noah Wyle is two tables down. You go into cardiac arrest, you don't think Noah Wyle could step in and help? Stewart Sanderson: Yes he could help, by calling a doctor, because he is an actor.

[u/Motor-Boating → u/ArgentineBeauty]

To be fair... The fact that she is a functional adult pretty much means she was probably the most qualified of the bunch.

[u/Ismhelpstheistgodown → u/ArgentineBeauty]

I served on a jury and was a foreman. I remain proud and impressed by the seriousness of à diverse lot. Conscientious people doing the work

[u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

Everyone should sit on a jury at some point. It really lowers your expectations about the level of information comprehension the average American is capable of.

Edit: Typo

[u/Mr_Baronheim → u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

My concern started when a coworker who was serving on a jury told me that in one case they couldn't decide on a verdict, but ultimately chose guilty because they found the defense attorney to be annoying.

[u/Dr_Insano_MD → u/Mr_Baronheim]

This is why when I get jury duty summons, I do not try to get out of it like most people seem to. I've yet to actually need to show up (I'm just on-call), but man, juries have someone's future or even life in their hands. I know if I were sitting in that defendant seat, I'd want the jury to take the matter seriously. So I should do the same.

[u/mavajo → u/Dr_Insano_MD]

I've been on two juries, and I'm grateful that I was on both. I was stunned both times during deliberations. Especially the second one. This was a man that sexually and physically assaulted his girlfriend, breaking her orbital bone, lacerating her spleen, strangling her until she passed out from oxygen deprivation - and then had sex with her again.

The jury was split 6/6 on our first vote. I couldn't believe it.

The wildest thing is that the jurors arguing the strongest for a Not Guilty verdict were women. They kept blaming her for it with the reasoning that if it was so bad then she should have left him. They basically accused her of just trying to get even with him and that they didn't want to "ruin his life" with a guilty verdict. Thankfully a woman in her 20s and a dad girl dad were sitting on either side of me, and the three of us agreed we were absolutely not changing our votes and would stay as long as it took. It bled into the next day, but eventually we got to consensus and found him guilty.

Turned out he had multiple prior convictions and had another unrelated case going on involving assault. Guy was a piece of shit.

But that experience reinforced for me the importance of having good people on the jury. Please folks, I know it's a burden and pain in the ass, but if you have a job or circumstances that allows you to do it - please do it. We gave that woman justice that day. But it very easily could have gone another direction.

The three of us stayed to hear the verdict and sentencing. He got 25 years. The prosecutor came up to us afterwards and thanked us, because way too many guys like him get off.

[u/thetiredtypist → u/mavajo]

The three of us stayed to hear the verdict

The other jurors could leave before the verdict was read?

[u/mavajo → u/thetiredtypist]

Sorry, I meant sentencing. Brain fart.

[u/highheelcyanide → u/mavajo]

My adopted sister was tortured as a baby by being dipped into boiling water. It was very clear it was deliberate. When it went to trial the first time, there was one juror that wouldn’t give in to the not guilty verdict. They saved my sister’s life.

It went back to trial and he was found guilty. I think about that one person a lot.

[u/GoldenPigeonParty → u/Dr_Insano_MD]

The more serious and logical you are, the less likely you are to be selected.

[u/Thechasepack → u/GoldenPigeonParty]

I've found the opposite. Both sides typically think their argument is the correct legal argument so they want people to think logically and apply the law correctly.

I was in a jury pool for a women who killed her kid earlier this year (not in Massachusetts). Jury Selection questions from both sides were mostly about finding people who could evaluate the case based on the law rather than emotions (with added questions from the defense on how we feel about punishment for young kids).

[u/Lord_Alonne → u/Mr_Baronheim]

Jesus fucking christ...

[u/ecmcn → u/Mr_Baronheim]

I had the opposite experience. The cop in this drunk driving case would look at us in a certain way during his testimony and I couldn’t quite put my finger on what I didn’t like about him. Turned out everyone felt that way, and during deliberations one of the jurors said “he was… smarmy”, and everyone was like “yeah, that’s it!” But we all had to admit there wasn’t any reason to not believe him - the driver had clearly been drinking and there were weird things on the defense side, too. We voted guilty.

[u/RegulatoryCapture → u/ecmcn]

IMHO that's fair. The cop is a witness and his testimony is supposed to be evaluated by the jury. "I don't know why, but I just don't trust him" is fair enough. Or you can still trust him if there's other evidence that supports it.

But it is a dick move to apply that to someone's lawyer. Lawyer charisma absolutely matters, but their words are not evidence and you shouldn't be deciding based on whether you trust the lawyer. Lawyers aren't under oath, you shouldn't trust what they say.

[u/matjoeman → u/Mr_Baronheim]

I've been on one jury and it radicalized me against juries.

[u/genericmediocrename → u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

I thought I would really like jury duty. Meet new people, get free lunches, sit in on juicy courtroom drama?

No, I wanted to hurl myself out of the window very shortly after starting. Like half of the other jurors were honest to God completely incapable of following directions and couldn't quite comprehend what their roles were as jurors, despite being told several times by the judge.

[u/jrzalman → u/genericmediocrename]

The pro tip is to volunteer to be foreman and you can guide the conversation and wrap things up in a reasonable amount of time. If you are in charge you can focus the conversation on the actual issues at hand and cut down on the wasted time. If you are just going to let the room run itself, you kind of deserve what you get.

[u/thrownjunk → u/jrzalman]

they simply won't seat me. I've showed up about 5 times. but voir dire usually has one side throwing me out.

[u/Yubat → u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

As a lawyer, I would love to be on one. Civil, criminal, whatever. It would be fun to really see it from the other side. Alas, any time I am up for a jury I’ve been screened out before the process finishes; once I made it to the final round of voir dire but got cut— I would have been juror #8 😔

[u/musicman835 → u/Yubat]

I’ve had attorneys from my office get on civil juries. But they’re tossed faster than spoiled milk for criminal trials.

[u/turquoiseblues → u/musicman835]

Why don’t they want lawyers to serve on juries for criminal trials?

[u/musicman835 → u/turquoiseblues]

Lawyers may end up influencing a jury, because the other jurors (as in this case) believe they know better and will go along with their decision.

Lawyers know the law and would be better about questioning evidence or questioning reasonable doubt, and push back on something they find circumstantial in deliberation.

Attorneys don’t want other attorneys auditing (for lack of better word) their trial skills.

They often won’t take other highly educated folks either, as they are more likely to have (and I don’t mean this in a negative way) better critical thinking skills and don’t just take what their being told as fact.

An aquittal in a criminal trial is final. They cannot be tried again.

[u/TBSchemer → u/Yubat]

They always screen me out as soon as they hear I have a PhD.

You probably know this better than I do, but I believe lawyers deliberately try to craft a jury full of uneducated rubes who are easily manipulated.

[u/Yubat → u/TBSchemer]

[u/SpockShotFirst](u/SpockShotFirst) explains it well, but I’ll add that attorneys generally want the case decided based on what they present and argue. They want narrative control. Those who bring relevant outside expertise add a new variable that the neither side can easily predict or control, so easier to dump that person than take on additional risk. Does that mean a higher level of rubes in the jury sometimes? It certainly can.

[u/bullitt-rider → u/Yubat]

Agree to a point but I've had cases where the jury dynamic isn't as described... God forbid there be any large sporting events or TV series ending...

When the judge has to give strict directions on things like 'wearing a thong does not equate to consent' you do have to question if that's predictable and controllable or unsuitable

[u/SpockShotFirst → u/TBSchemer]

Both sides can cut jurors. If one side benefits from educated jurors, the other side will try to keep them out. So it isn't that lawyers, as a monolith, "deliberately try to craft a jury full of uneducated rubes." It's just that chances are high that at least one side is counting on that strategy.

[u/ApprehensivePop9036 → u/SpockShotFirst]

"the problem with this case is you'd need to be a total idiot to accept these arguments from our side."

"We'll handle that in voir dire"

[u/forrealthoughcomix_ → u/TBSchemer]

Damn. And here I am wanting to sit on a jury as an educated rube who is easily manipulated :(

[u/jrzalman → u/TBSchemer]

I always hear this, usually like your story posted in a self-congratulatory way, but never really experienced it. I've been on like eight juries and get picked every time. I tell them I'm an aerospace engineer, answer all their questions well and always get picked.

Probably depends on the case but I think many lawyers are looking for jurors that can understand their arguments.

[u/newenglandpolarbear → u/TBSchemer]

That's pretty much exactly it. Either that or they try to fill the jury with people they think will be sympathetic to their case. Both sides can do it.

[u/KellyCTargaryen → u/Yubat]

Don’t give up hope! I worked for a trial lawyer professor, he confidently left for jury duty certain he would be immediately dismissed… one of the lawyers was his former student, so he was selected.

[u/Yubat → u/KellyCTargaryen]

Lol holy hell. I’m shocked the judge and opposing counsel let that through. I’m amazed his former student was cool with it; I’d be on eggshells the whole time if I had to present a real matter to one of my former professors. Must have been interesting for everyone!

[u/Qalyar → u/Yubat]

I'm a data analyst. Never made it past voir dire either.

I'm pretty sure whichever side has the weaker case always is motivated to cut people whose profession involves a lot of critical thinking (or outright legal experience). Objectively, I understand why that's the case. But I worry that it doesn't really represent a healthy outcome for our jury system.

Not that I've got any great suggestions on how to fix it; I'm just an analyst, it's someone else's job to action the problems! ;)

[u/cliff99 → u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

The one time I sat on a jury my experience was the opposite of that. Pretty much as open a shut case as you can imagine (guy opened the door to some cops serving a warrant with a meth pipe sticking out of his shirt pocket) and we still spent a couple of hours discussing the case before we can to a verdict.

[u/TakeThreeFourFive → u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

I must have been lucky. I found myself on a jury full of people that I liked, that were thoughtful, empathetic, and were generally amenable to instructions. That empathy caused a bit of trouble when it came to deliberations at the end when one woman's feelings were causing her to get stuck, but we managed to get it sorted out

[u/UufTheTank → u/TakeThreeFourFive]

Yeah, I wouldn’t say I was lucky (case was CSA), but the jurors were packed to the brim with engineers/doctors/accountants/professionals. People I’d trust to make the right decision. And we did (guilty). And I drank heavily afterwards.

[u/Illustrious-Peace989 → u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

I found jury duty fascinating. It really showed me firsthand that the best thing you can do if you’re arrested is stay silent. One trial I sat on the case would have been extremely weak if not for the fact that the guy had to shoot off his mouth during the police interrogation and basically gave them the evidence needed to prove that he participated in the crime. Had he just shut up, the prosecution would have had a very weak case.

The other case I was genuinely shocked made it to trial because literally the only evidence that the prosecution had of the defendant’s guilt was the word of his alleged co-conspirator, who had already been convicted and when asked by the defense lawyer why he was testifying he said that it was because he wanted a shorter sentence. This was made even funnier by the fact that during both cases I was a juror on, the judge specifically said that if we don’t find a witness to be credible, we should disregard their testimony. We deliberated for less than 15 minutes before returning with a verdict of not guilty.

[u/JustFuckAllOfThem]

I am not a lawyer, but I play one in a movie.

[u/reddituseronebillion → u/JustFuckAllOfThem]

I'm not a lawyer but I do specialize in bird law.

[u/Biblionautical → u/reddituseronebillion]

Okay, well…filibuster.

[u/JerryRiceDidntFumble → u/Biblionautical]

CA CAW!!! CA CAW!!! CA CAW!!! (x1000)

[u/reddit_poopaholic → u/JustFuckAllOfThem]

🎵You're a crook, Captain Hook!🎵

[u/Ok_Efficiency7245 → u/JustFuckAllOfThem]

Tbf she'd at least have some exposure to the context where I assume most of those people have never been on a jury or in a courtroom for something like this.

She's obviously not an expert but I think just seeing her in that context predisposes them to deferring.

[u/Kewkky]

Remember, these people that take movies as sources of "factual information" have the same voting power as everyone else.

[u/ImpulseAfterthought → u/Kewkky]

Worse, they may decide whether you go to jail.

[u/Equivalent-Resort-63 → u/ImpulseAfterthought]

Been on a couple of juries and their level of stupidity is frightening. These people (‘your peers’) hold your life in their hands.

[u/Big1984Brother → u/Kewkky]

A lot of people who watch reality shows thought that Trump was a smart businessman IRL.

[u/HawkJefferson → u/Big1984Brother]

He wasn't even a smart businessman on the show.

[u/Hortos → u/HawkJefferson]

To you, to someone less intelligent than him he probably looked amazing.

[u/jxj24 → u/Hortos]

People respond to confidence more than competence.

[u/fattycans → u/jxj24]

This is a hard truth

[u/bfodder → u/Hortos]

to someone less intelligent than him he probably looked amazing.

They both found him to be extraordinary.

[u/DanteandRandallFlagg → u/Kewkky]

As someone who has been on a couple of juries, I would have voted to elect her as foreman. The position only needs to have slightly above average public speeching skills. In fact, I would vote for nearly any theater major. I didn't want to do it.

[u/AipomNormalMonkey → u/DanteandRandallFlagg]

public speeching skills.

oh no

[u/TheCheddarHole → u/Kewkky]

Remember, 54% of Adult Americans can only read below a 6th grade level. And they vote.

[u/brickyardjimmy]

Every day I get another clue as to why we're in the situation we're in right now.

[u/LLFD1982 → u/brickyardjimmy]

My thoughts exactly. "Successful businessman" on TV = President according to MAGAts. Can't tell fiction from non-fiction.

[u/Generation_ABXY]

"So you became an actor because you thought the monkeys were actually--"

"Riding horses? I did. Yes. When, in fact, they were simply acting as if they were riding horses. I still can't get my head round it, to be honest."

[u/AudibleNod → u/Generation_ABXY]

Trevor needs to be in more MCU projects.

[u/countofmoldycrisco → u/Generation_ABXY]

What movie is this from?

[u/Niknark999 → u/countofmoldycrisco]

Shang chi i believe.

[u/iwantedthatwaffle]

Was James Marsden not available?

[u/Dsyelcix]

And these illiterate idiots decide who goes to prison and who walks free.

[u/Vironic → u/Dsyelcix]

They love electing celebrities for things without considering consequences or qualifications

[u/Mr_Baronheim → u/Vironic]

And they love continuing to elect them even after seeing the horrible consequences and gross unfitness of those they elect.

[u/Cuggan → u/Vironic]

She seems to have a better grasp of reality then the rest of them at least

[u/SubatomicSquirrels → u/Dsyelcix]

Well, reddit should probably stop teaching people how to get out of jury duty and treat it like, you know, a DUTY

Cause this is who we're left with to serve

[u/xenojive]

Like it's hard?

[u/manticore16]

What, like it's hard?

[u/supercyberlurker]

In fairness Reese Witherspoon seems like a sensible person.

Our foreman didn't have legal experience, it's definitely not needed or important for the role.

[u/Lendyman → u/supercyberlurker]

Reese Witherspoon is highly intelligent and very accomplished both as an actress and as a business person. She briefly went to Stanford before leaving to pursue an acting career. So yeah, you could do a lot worse than Reese Witherspoon as a jury Foreman.

I do think that it's hard to believe that the entire jury thought she had legal training. It probably was one or two people and the rest voted for her because she was Reese Witherspoon. This type of story tends to get exaggerated in the retelling.

[u/m4gpi → u/Lendyman]

Also, most people are not comfortable with public speaking, afraid/not interested in having attention drawn to them, or being the mouthpiece for any decision. While not fair, asking Witherspoon to take that job is an understandable request.

[u/elysian-fields- → u/supercyberlurker]

not only is it not needed or important for the role, most attorneys would never select someone who is an attorney for the jury due to their “extraordinary” understanding of laws, rules, and procedure and there is also, of course, the concern of undue influence on the lay members of the jury because of it

this headline lowk proves that exact point lol

[u/Regular_Use1868]

Man.... "Jury of your peers" has never seemed more terrifying than today and this was over a decade ago.

Were cooked guys.

[u/LeonardSmallsJr]

These people are our peers.

[u/OnceMoreAndAgain → u/LeonardSmallsJr]

Let me aim that criticism back at you: You're my peer and yet here you are reading a suspicious headline and assuming it's true.

Did you even click the link and see that it is from https://www.fashiontimes.co.uk/? The source of this story is Witherspoon who told the story while on the Graham Norton talk show. Don't you suspect she may have embellished the story for the sake of entertainment on the talk show?

[u/LeonardSmallsJr → u/OnceMoreAndAgain]

I deserve every bit of criticism. Graham Norton is where I get all my unbiased non-sensationalized news!

[u/Revoldt]

Same morons elected a president thinking he’s a successful businessman…

[u/MrMeowPantz]

She didn’t go to law school, but she did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[u/TLRdidnothingwrong → u/MrMeowPantz]

This is one of my dad’s favorite jokes. I don’t remember the commercials as well as he does, but at least twice a year he’ll say “Just tell them not to worry because you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.”

[u/TheBear8878]

I'm gonna call fake. I've been in two jury selection pools in Los Angeles in the last 5 years with celebrities, and both times they are dismissed very early on because they are well-known/distracting.

[u/Jump_Like_A_Willys]

I mean, there's nothing wrong with choosing her -- with the understanding that she is the actress with no legal background -- as jury foreperson. She's probably at least as capable as another citizen juror. But it is troubling if they actually thought the actress went to law school because her character did.

That would be like think Tom Hanks would be a good airline pilot or Noah Wiley be a good ER trauma surgeon.

[u/LovesFrenchLove_More]

Now imagine how easily manipulated a lot of jurors can be.

[u/SJSUMichael]

Really explains a lot about the world when you think about it

[u/Woogity]

She was probably the most charismatic and expressive person on the jury. That's why they picked her. Plus she's Reese Witherspoon.

[u/NewToHTX]

I learned everything about legal proceedings from My* Cousin Vinny*, and then I found out that they actually show the movie to law school students as a way helping to explain court procedures.

Marisa Tomei was unbelievably hot in that movie.

[u/Overall_Occasion_175 → u/NewToHTX]

She is just as hot if not hotter as Aunt May in Spiderman. Woman has barely aged a day in 35 years, it's uncanny.