Jury Duty

I have to report for duty on the 10th. I have a trip leaving on the 12th. Hopefully I'll get selected and get out of the trip, the company has to pay us for any missed trips during jury duty. Besides I enjoy the people watching element of it all.
 
Brad Z said:
Never said it was great. I said it was a civic duty. I don't get paid to go to church, attend weddings, funerals, visit sick friends in hospitals, etc. either, but I manage to make it work.
Click to expand...
Sure, but you are doing those things on your free time, not during working hours. If you're going to lose a day's or more pay (and maybe your job) by serving on a jury, then it becomes more than a "duty." You get on some multi-week or month trial you will take a major financial hit. Many people can't afford that.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I believe that all of my employers' policies for the past 30 years was to pay full pay for jury duty, though I do recall that one subtracted what the court paid.
Click to expand...
A lot of places aren't that generous. And if you are self employed you eat the lost income.
 
paflyer said:
Well if you still get paid, you don't run a risk of losing your job, someone else can carry the weight while you're "away", you don't have young/old who depend upon your presence, then yeah it's great.
Click to expand...
All of these apply to me. That's why I'm kind of hoping to get picked for a jury when I serve this October.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I believe that all of my employers' policies for the past 30 years was to pay full pay for jury duty, though I do recall that one subtracted what the court paid.
Click to expand...
In Massachusetts your employer is required to pay you for 3 days of jury duty. My employer will pay for the first 2 weeks and then require you to use your PTO if it goes longer. If you have no PTO left then they go back to paying you.

The state will only pay you for days that your employer is not.
 
paflyer said:
Sure, but you are doing those things on your free time, not during working hours. If you're going to lose a day's or more pay (and maybe your job) by serving on a jury, then it becomes more than a "duty." You get on some multi-week or month trial you will take a major financial hit. Many people can't afford that.
Click to expand...
I thought it was illegal to fire someone for serving on a jury. If it's not, it should be.
 
Not every employer has platoons of extra people, just waiting to pick up the slack.

But I certainly wouldn't fire someone for serving on jury duty; we rely heavily upon the availability of decent people to serve as jurors. We've always paid employees even when on jury duty, but have never had any stuck on a long trial. Guess we'll deal with that if and when it arises.
 
paflyer said:
How is one "elected" foreman? Do you have to run for the spot?
Click to expand...

In my case, IIRC - it was over 20 years ago, the jury elected the foreman after we retired to the jury room to deliberate. I don't remember why I was elected. This was a strange jury, too. The first 12 people whose names were drawn out of the hat wound up being the jury. Nobody was excused. The judge and lawyers couldn't believe it, they had never seen it happen before.
 
paflyer said:
A lot of places aren't that generous. And if you are self employed you eat the lost income.
Click to expand...

I was called and was in the pool of personal interviews for a capital punishment murder case. After taking the information home that the Court provided about how long the trial would be, and what the Court paid, and working for a rather large California based tech company who has an awful Jury Duty policy...

I calculated that sitting on the jury would cost me almost $18,000.

Even after I burnt all my vacation time.

And the Court also clearly stated that the Court would not consider lost revenue from work as a hardship until someone brought in evidence that it would cause them serious financial harm, because Jury service is a "duty". It hinted at the word bankruptcy being necessary. We weren't going to be bankrupted.

During personal interview, oddly enough, I had brought the printed out spreadsheet as something to make the Judge aware of, but also had pre-paid vacation airline tickets a month or so into the expected trial dates. The judge asked to see them and gave a little speech about how the pool was big enough he was going to consider it a hardship but please make sure to serve if ever called again, and that even a vacation wasn't really a hardship and yadda yadda. And dismissed me.

Never got to the financials. I just brought it to be honest. Hard to be impartial when you're losing $18,000 or more depending on trial length.

I always wondered if there were no plane tickets bought and the Judge wasn't interested in my $18,000 loss, just how interested I would be in sitting there in that box losing that much money. Or if I would want things speeded up to minimize that loss. I'd like to think I would not speed a death sentence trial along, but who knows.

We would have been "okay" back then but it would have been "beans and rice" to make it through that trial on our budget back then, too. And the jury was warned it was likely to be sequestered due to massive media coverage. I think they were. I'm sure spouses would find that just lovely... going slowly broke, spouse locked away somewhere in a hotel for months... ugh. Especially if they had kids. We don't, so that wasn't too bad.

I luckily didn't have to find out how good a person I was, or if I'd patiently sit and listen.

The weirder part was the defendant and his attorneys are there for all of this, of course... so you wonder how a person on trial for murder and possible capital punishment feels when someone says, "I want to go on my vacation..." which isn't how I put it, of course, but it would sound like that.

The jury that ultimately sat, gave him the death penalty. He killed two witnesses who were going to testify in other cases, in 2004. Trial was ten years ago.

One of the jurors lied on her questionnaire about some things, but ultimately the new judge said they were immaterial and she was impartial, and he just lost an appeal for a new trial.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/16/sir-mario-owens-denied-new-murder-trial/

Interesting also that out of all the jury pool, one that managed to make it into the box lied about knowing people involved, but didn't know any of them well. So odd. I suspect very few others (myself included) lied on that massive questionnaire -- there were some pretty stern warnings about jail time for doing so.

Some of those questions were tough, too. It took most folks about an hour to go through. The "Do you know any of these people?" and long lists of names were tedious but not difficult.

Fascinating process. Still cost me numerous PTO days. Can't really decide if it was worth it or not.
 
I used to be all gung ho about going when summoned, then I moved to a suburban Texas county that had a peculiar system. They mailed you a summons. It had a return mailer postcard attached to it that encouraged you to mail it in confirming receipt of the summons. Thats how they knew they reached you. If you didn't show after mailing it in, you went into warrant. They summoned you for a Monday. If you weren't used for Monday, you were put "on call" for voir dire for the rest of the week. You found out at 5pm that afternoon if you were being re-summoned for the next day.

Given that I worked nights, I was just getting up to go into work around the time that call would come. It would be too late to call out from work without disciplinary action, summons or otherwise, and it wasn't reasonable to work, then go to court and sit there all day trying not to nod off.

The case I was voir dired for was felony injury to a child (and i picked up right away in the very first round that it was death of a child, because the punishment range was that for a 1st degree felony.... usually only reserved for that charge when someone dies- used to read the penal code a LOT when I was in EMS dispatch in the pre WWW days). I was excused in the 3rd or 4th round of questions because I answered a question with a statement to the effect of being accountable for ones actions. I took about 20 other people out who followed me in questioning who agreed with that sentiment. The nuts and bolts of the case: boyfriend abused and ultimately caused death of a child. He was already convicted and doing time. Now the DA was going after the mom. She had a hung jury the first time. This was voir dire for the retrial (i later read in the paper). I followed it in the local print media and it ultimately hung as well. I think they went for a third time before finally dismissing against the mom.
 
I live in a small town. We don't get picked for jury duty, we just take turns.

That said it has been about 4 years since I was last called, so it must be getting close to being my turn again.
 
In the case of the $18,000 loss, you should not have to serve. I'd never subject myself or my family to hardship (any type) to serve on a jury. I'm patriotic but there's plenty of single people with no kids that would not be inconvenienced very much by a case like that. But even if the judge won't let you out, there are a couple different ways to make sure that you are not selected:

Race- tell them that you are a racist when the defendant is of a different race than you. I would not blurt out "I'm a racist" because that will get you weird looks but the judge may think that you are purposefully trying to get out of it. Not sure if he can make you stay, especially if the defense excuses you. Be more subtle like "I have a bad history with black people, I hope that it won't affect my objectivity in this case". Excused!
Police- In a criminal case, there will always be questions about police, whether you know any or have them in your family, any dealings with police, etc. Just say "The police are sworn, so whatever they say is 100% true" The defense will excuse you before you finish the sentence. In my case, they made a big deal that the police officers are just like any other citizen and their testimony should be treated the same as everybody else's.
Crime- Say you have been a victim and cannot be impartial. Excused!
Or say "I believe that every criminal deserves a second chance". It just depends on which side will excuse you.
 
In my career, I've had many cases that have gone to jury trial. I think on every one of them, I've been completely surprised by what has worked to get people off of the jury, and what hasn't. I've seen people who say, "I believe everything the police say", as well as "I don't believe anything the police say" both remain on my case juries. I've watched people get excused because their friend is getting married next week, while other people, on the same jury, are kept after they say they are moving out of state tomorrow. I've watched people say, "I don't believe it should be against the law for 'x' ", when 'x' is what the defendant is charged with, and they are kept, while others say they have a daycare issue and are excused. It always baffles me.
The one thing I've seen on every jury selection, is the people that are trying to get off the jury but don't "sell it"...and let me tell you, in nearly every case, the judge has let them have it. So if you're going to try to remove yourself, you better practice in the mirror first!
 
tawood said:
The one thing I've seen on every jury selection, is the people that are trying to get off the jury but don't "sell it"...and let me tell you, in nearly every case, the judge has let them have it. So if you're going to try to remove yourself, you better practice in the mirror first!
Click to expand...
Yep, that's why I said to be subtle. Don't make it too obvious that you are trying to get out of it. LOL
 
orange said:
In the case of the $18,000 loss, you should not have to serve.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Unless you're suggesting salary replacement by the taxpayer, there is someone on trial somewhere who would have lost similar money if they served, sitting in the defendant's chair.

They deserve at least one juror who is an actual peer, and not an unemployed housewife or househusband who can afford to sit in the box, but isn't really a "peer", I suppose.

Or not.

I wasn't any sort of peer to the guy who murdered witnesses who were about to testify against him for various crimes, either.

The jury of "peers" thing is stretched pretty hard.

Not sure what the answer is, but I was glad I could go on the little vacation trip and then back to work so I wouldn't lose that much money that year, I know that to be true and accurate.

I'd have been sitting there losing real money from earnings watching a fleet of highly paid lawyers and a judge making bank. Might have swayed me as much toward the defendant as it could have made me want them to hurry up, in what was a pretty complex and time consuming trial.

Not much respect for a system that does that. I'm expected to lose money to sit and listen to lawyers make it? Talk about a way to nearly guarantee I'm not interested in much they have to say.
 
denverpilot said:
I don't know. Unless you're suggesting salary replacement by the taxpayer, there is someone on trial somewhere who would have lost similar money if they served, sitting in the defendant's chair.

They deserve at least one juror who is an actual peer, and not an unemployed housewife or househusband who can afford to sit in the box, but isn't really a "peer", I suppose.

Or not.

I wasn't any sort of peer to the guy who murdered witnesses who were about to testify against him for various crimes, either.

The jury of "peers" thing is stretched pretty hard.

Not sure what the answer is, but I was glad I could go on the little vacation trip and then back to work so I wouldn't lose that much money that year, I know that to be true and accurate.

I'd have been sitting there losing real money from earnings watching a fleet of highly paid lawyers and a judge making bank. Might have swayed me as much toward the defendant as it could have made me want them to hurry up, in what was a pretty complex and time consuming trial.

Not much respect for a system that does that. I'm expected to lose money to sit and listen to lawyers make it? Talk about a way to nearly guarantee I'm not interested in much they have to say.
Click to expand...
On the "peer" thing - once upon a time there was this king feller and his cronys, they ruled the land and everybody else was a lowlife scumbag not worth a moments notice. Now-a-days we are all lowlife scumbags since the king and his cronys are powerless and pretty much out of the picture. We are peers because we aren't a king or crony or something like that.
 
SkyDog58 said:
So you mean a gangbanger isn't entitled to have a jury made up of fellow gangbangers?

:)
Click to expand...
I mean that a king and/or his crony don't get to decide the fate of the gangbanger. In the eyes of the justice system we are all gangbanger equivalents because justice is blind and can't see if we are wearing colors or flashing signs.
 
denverpilot said:
I don't know. Unless you're suggesting salary replacement by the taxpayer, there is someone on trial somewhere who would have lost similar money if they served, sitting in the defendant's chair.

They deserve at least one juror who is an actual peer, and not an unemployed housewife or househusband who can afford to sit in the box, but isn't really a "peer", I suppose.

Or not.

I wasn't any sort of peer to the guy who murdered witnesses who were about to testify against him for various crimes, either.

The jury of "peers" thing is stretched pretty hard.

Not sure what the answer is, but I was glad I could go on the little vacation trip and then back to work so I wouldn't lose that much money that year, I know that to be true and accurate.

I'd have been sitting there losing real money from earnings watching a fleet of highly paid lawyers and a judge making bank. Might have swayed me as much toward the defendant as it could have made me want them to hurry up, in what was a pretty complex and time consuming trial.

Not much respect for a system that does that. I'm expected to lose money to sit and listen to lawyers make it? Talk about a way to nearly guarantee I'm not interested in much they have to say.
Click to expand...
"Peers" means "non-royalty", in other words, a commoner.
 
I try to get out of it every time. So far 100% in my favor.
 
Zeldman said:
I live in a small town. We don't get picked for jury duty, we just take turns.

That said it has been about 4 years since I was last called, so it must be getting close to being my turn again.
Click to expand...



DANG IT..!!!!! I jinxed myself.

Just received a notice to appear. Jury duty here is for 60 days. Call in every evening to see if the group I am in is needed.

Oh wait...... chest pains....again....

90% of jury duty is for DUI, public drunkenness or domestic violence with alcohol being a factor.
 
RJM62 said:
Tell them you suffer from flatus incontinence.

Rich
Click to expand...

I actually saw this work... no kidding.... when the judge asked the guy how he was able to work he told him with a deap-pan face that his office was out by the shipping dock where it didn't bother anyone... He even had a doctors note... I almost ****ed my pants and was short of giving myself a hernia to keep from laughing... and you could see the judge, bailiff, and attorneys doing all the could do to keep from busting out too.

Just go done with a DUI case as a juror... WTF... why this gal wasted time with a trial is beyond me.. guess she was looking at some time... When the witness; a CHP officer was asked what PC he had to pull the defendant over... he replied... 85 mph in a 25 mph zone would get anyones attention... and then he went on to talk about the field breathalyzer test... .16 and the limit is .08... after that we broke for lunch and when we came back we were dismissed... guess they reached a conclusion.

It is an interesting process if this is something your not doing every day..
 
Last time I went to JD the judge's introduction included a 2+ hour talk about his retirement and other nonsense. The other 29 people in the jury pool were eating it up, like it was some sort of campfire chat. I sat there fuming because I'm paid hourly and was missing work. This followed by a 'Voir Dire' in which the defense attorney asked maybe 3 questions and spent the rest of his hour trying to be Johnny Cochran. Ended with me actually getting yelled at by the judge because I told him that I could not ignore witness statements when asked to do so (i.e. unringing the bell). It wasn't just me. He was rude to the courtroom staff and the attorneys also. And this was a murder trial!

I didn't get picked. And I never will.
 
Zeldman said:
DANG IT..!!!!! I jinxed myself.

Just received a notice to appear. Jury duty here is for 60 days. Call in every evening to see if the group I am in is needed.
Click to expand...
That seems unreasonable. Both Colorado, where I used to live, and California,where I live now, are “one day, one trial”. If you call and there is no need for you, or you show up and are not selected, you have fulfilled your obligation for at least a year.
 
SCCutler said:
Not every employer has platoons of extra people, just waiting to pick up the slack.

But I certainly wouldn't fire someone for serving on jury duty; we rely heavily upon the availability of decent people to serve as jurors. We've always paid employees even when on jury duty, but have never had any stuck on a long trial. Guess we'll deal with that if and when it arises.
Click to expand...

Not the persons problem, they didn't ask to be on a jury but are legally required, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to fire someone for going to jury duty.

Maybe the employer could call the court and try to get you out of it by whining about how they don't have many people to cover, though I highly doubt anyone would care about that as a reason and I'm also pretty sure firing the person for going to jury duty would get a wrongful termination lawyer salivating at the mouth.

Sadly, it's really easy to get out of jury duty, which is why it's often the people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty who end up on juries, which the system loves, which also sadly leads into the failure that out "justice" system has become.
 
MadseasoN said:
Last time I went to JD the judge's introduction included a 2+ hour talk about his retirement and other nonsense. The other 29 people in the jury pool were eating it up, like it was some sort of campfire chat. I sat there fuming because I'm paid hourly and was missing work. This followed by a 'Voir Dire' in which the defense attorney asked maybe 3 questions and spent the rest of his hour trying to be Johnny Cochran. Ended with me actually getting yelled at by the judge because I told him that I could not ignore witness statements when asked to do so (i.e. unringing the bell). It wasn't just me. He was rude to the courtroom staff and the attorneys also. And this was a murder trial!

I didn't get picked. And I never will.
Click to expand...

Next time, just say, "Please don't yell at me, judge. Just tell me which way you want me to rule and I will do so."
 
Everskyward said:
That seems unreasonable. Both Colorado, where I used to live, and California,where I live now, are “one day, one trial”. If you call and there is no need for you, or you show up and are not selected, you have fulfilled your obligation for at least a year.
Click to expand...

I live in a small town where a lot of people are not qualified to be a juror..... the whole felony thing so we just take turns. Same with being on the city council.

It worked that way in Texas, 1 day 1 trial. Show up, already have an opinion, and call it a day.

In Alaska villages was the same way. I don't remember if it was for 60 days or 90. Jurors are put in groups and you wait until your group number is called. If your group is not called, then that group is off for the day.
 
HAPPY DAYS..!!!


Seems my current health problem (cough cough) is good enough to set me free from jury duty this time.!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top