This is One Way to Avoid Jury Duty!

  • Thread starter Thread starter KennyFlys
  • Start date Start date
A bit over-the-top, but I can relate to some extent. Jury duty can be a nuisance for other reasons...like when you don't "make the cut".

I've been called up twice, and twice I've sacrificed at least one day's wages only to be rejected because I admitted I'd been mugged. I know this is why because this is the only question that ever prompted further questioning after I answered (about the race of the assailants, naturally), and of course a hushed conference between the lawyers and the judge. My firm assertion that I had no bias based on being blindsided and jumped by several assailants whose ethnic particulars were not even known to me has not yet satisfied this court, apparently. Maybe they just cannot imagine such a thing, that wouldn't surprise me. Neither case involved assault or robbery, BTW. :frown2:


I don't really mind being branded unfit to serve because I was the victim of a violent crime, but I wish they'd check the police report and my previous jury selection interview answers before they call me in next time... but of course they won't. Sometimes it seems our duty is not to be available for honest service on a jury of anybody's peers, but to sit around for hours suffering, hoping to be cast in the court's little show.

Unlike this hothead, I do believe in our system of justice... which is why this nonsense ticks me off.
 
I don't get it, why do people want to NOT do jury duty?

To be a citizen of our country is a great thing. Our country asks so little of its citizens. While many have fought and died to protect your rights the country does not even mandate that you exercise them. It only asks one little thing. That is once in a while be part of the system that will serve justice on your fellow citizens.

Is this such a hardship? Is doing something for your country so repugnant to so many people that they would rather spends far more effort getting out of their civic duty than actually being part of the system to dole out justice? I'll bet these same people that work so hard to NOT be on a jury are the same people complaining about the justice system and state how people are sucking the country dry.

I hope the judge throws the book at him.
 
In our state you don't have to serve on Jury Duty if you are over 70. So, I just use that, It works every time! Bob
 
smigaldi said:
I don't get it, why do people want to NOT do jury duty?

To be a citizen of our country is a great thing. Our country asks so little of its citizens. While many have fought and died to protect your rights the country does not even mandate that you exercise them. It only asks one little thing. That is once in a while be part of the system that will serve justice on your fellow citizens.

Is this such a hardship? Is doing something for your country so repugnant to so many people that they would rather spends far more effort getting out of their civic duty than actually being part of the system to dole out justice? I'll bet these same people that work so hard to NOT be on a jury are the same people complaining about the justice system and state how people are sucking the country dry.

I hope the judge throws the book at him.
Click to expand...

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! and thank you Scott! You are so right. Jury service is NOT a joke. I just finished a three week Jury trial a straign on the jurors, thier businesses and employers as well as many of the attorneys as several of us were court appointed. These jurors served on a VERY important case and were nothing less than magnificient and have my utmost respect and were told so.

People should not assume because they don't make the cut or because they don't see or hear everything that goes on between counsel and the judge or others that it is a joke. It is necessary for the process. It is a service to our country and communities second only to military service. And while it dosen't really compare to military service, where else does our gov't ask us to sacrifice so much?

Our freedoms can't be protected without our corageous men and women in uniform and our system of justice can't be protected without men and women in the jury box.

That guy in Montana should be ashamed!
 
I wonder if he would look at things differently if he was being tried for something. I'd sure want some smart folks on my jury if wrongly accused.

A friend just finished serving as a juror in a criminal case: young man shot another young man over $10. My friend said it gave him a real appreciation for how well he had things.

I look at it as my duty as a citizen. Of course, it's the worse system out there---except for all the others ones <g>

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
If the judges and attorneys were getting paid what the jurors get paid, they would get things done with a lot more justice and more quickly in the courts.
Click to expand...

Dave sometimes they actually get paid about the same or more. I just finished a protracted criminal case where I was Court appointed for an indigent person and was paid 0.06 on the dollar for my time. That right 6 cents on the dollar.

Sometimes we just have to give of ourselves. Jury service while a sacrifice is a small price to pay for living in our society
 
For me, it's not that I don't want to serve on a jury (I have served on one trial), my compliant is with the system of herding us into a room (the pool) without information and told to be quiet and wait. My compliant is with how we potential jurors are treated by the system. Here in massachusetts self-employed people get screwed, lost wages, etc.

In 30 years, I've ended up with a full week trial the first time I was called, and was called three other times. Not a particular hardship at the time. Today serving on jury duty would be, um, complicated because I'm now taking care of my elderly mother and father.
 
rottydaddy said:
I don't really mind being branded unfit to serve because I was the victim of a violent crime, but I wish they'd check the police report and my previous jury selection interview answers before they call me in next time... but of course they won't.
Click to expand...
Not every case involves a personal assault that would disqualify you as a juror. Practices vary, but around here you get called to the jury pool then get assigned randomly to cases.

I've been called twice (not bad for ~35 years of elligibility). The first case, I was selected for a jury, and it turned into something out of "Twelve Angry Men." It involved a guy who was arrested for "delivering a substance in lieu of a controlled substance," e.g., gave the undercover officer fake cocaine. Ended up with a hung jury, mostly because one juror (who had a law degree) insisted that most of the evidence was inadmissable. However, there was a second juror who just wasn't convinced of the accused's guilt.

(Lesson for lawyers: when questioning the jury, ask if anyone has a law degree, as well as whether they'd ever been admitted to the bar. Our holdout had a law degree but apparently had never passed the bar exam.)

The second case was a domestic violence one. There were 140 of us brought in from the jury pool for this case. 120 jurors were rejected in the process of selecting twelve jurors and two alternates.... I was #136, and almost ended up on the jury.

The first case took two days, and I was dismissed about mid-day on the second day of the other. I found it an interesting experience, especially in that the court personnel treated us with a high level of respect that I didn't expect from civil servants. They went out of their way to indicate that we were a key part of the process, and I appreciated that.

I should hasten to add, however, that my employer maintains people on full pay if they get called to jury duty. This, at least, let me enjoy the novelty while not being concerned about loss of income.

Ron Wanttaja
 
smigaldi said:
I don't get it, why do people want to NOT do jury duty?

To be a citizen of our country is a great thing. Our country asks so little of its citizens. While many have fought and died to protect your rights the country does not even mandate that you exercise them. It only asks one little thing. That is once in a while be part of the system that will serve justice on your fellow citizens.

Is this such a hardship? Is doing something for your country so repugnant to so many people that they would rather spends far more effort getting out of their civic duty than actually being part of the system to dole out justice? I'll bet these same people that work so hard to NOT be on a jury are the same people complaining about the justice system and state how people are sucking the country dry.

I hope the judge throws the book at him.
Click to expand...
I do want to do jury duty. I've only been called into the pool once, though, and wasn't called to sit on a case. Leslie, OTOH, has been called up a couple of times. In fact, she's due to serve again next month. I'm just hoping that it isn't during Gastons!:yikes:
 
Bob Noel said:
For me, it's not that I don't want to serve on a jury (I have served on one trial), my compliant is with the system of herding us into a room (the pool) without information and told to be quiet and wait. My compliant is with how we potential jurors are treated by the system. Here in massachusetts self-employed people get screwed, lost wages, etc.

In 30 years, I've ended up with a full week trial the first time I was called, and was called three other times. Not a particular hardship at the time. Today serving on jury duty would be, um, complicated because I'm now taking care of my elderly mother and father.
Click to expand...

Bob please go back an reread your post and see if it is what you really meant.

It sounds to me as if you are saying that once every 30 years someone may be asked to give as much as one weeks pay in the service of their country to protect the system of justice in this country.

That sounds very selfish to me. I hope that is not what you meant in your post.
 
gprellwitz said:
I do want to do jury duty. I've only been called into the pool once, though, and wasn't called to sit on a case. Leslie, OTOH, has been called up a couple of times. In fact, she's due to serve again next month. I'm just hoping that it isn't during Gastons!:yikes:
Click to expand...

McHeny county pulls you for a week. On day one you check in, the system is explained to you and they have a nice room that you can read, watch TV, or cruise the Internet as they provide free Wi-Fi. Each afternoon you call a phone number and it tells you if you need to come in. If not you go to work for the day, if so you come in and see if you get called for a jury.
 
smigaldi said:
I don't get it, why do people want to NOT do jury duty?

To be a citizen of our country is a great thing. Our country asks so little of its citizens. While many have fought and died to protect your rights the country does not even mandate that you exercise them. It only asks one little thing. That is once in a while be part of the system that will serve justice on your fellow citizens.

Is this such a hardship? Is doing something for your country so repugnant to so many people that they would rather spends far more effort getting out of their civic duty than actually being part of the system to dole out justice? I'll bet these same people that work so hard to NOT be on a jury are the same people complaining about the justice system and state how people are sucking the country dry.

I hope the judge throws the book at him.
Click to expand...

1. While it does not now have a draft it has in the recent past so the country can ( and has ) ask more then one little thing from you as a citizen.
2. Not everyone get paid while they are on jury duty and for them it's a tremendous hardship.

3. While some people never get called others are call many times. For them it's a issue.


While this particular person went over the top in his refusal to serve, you should not lump all people who don't want to serve into the same bucket. There are many reason to not serve and some are valid.
 
Self-employed people lose wages for each day. My experience was 4 (or maybe it was five - I can't quite remember) instances of lost wages, not once.

I don't know about you, but there are plenty of people for whom losing pay for one week would be a hardship.

My bigger compliant is how potential jurors are treated. Perhaps massachusetts courts are worse than others across our nation.
 
Bob Noel said:
Self-employed people lose wages for each day. My experience was 4 (or maybe it was five - I can't quite remember) instances of lost wages, not once.

I don't know about you, but there are plenty of people for whom losing pay for one week would be a hardship.

My bigger compliant is how potential jurors are treated. Perhaps massachusetts courts are worse than others across our nation.
Click to expand...
I donno. A hardship that once in 30 years (your words) your country asks you to do something? Like I said I think that for that little YOU OWE your country and fellow citizens. But then I guess I was brought up with the ethic that service to one's country was the highest calling for a citizen.
 
Last edited:
jtheune said:
1. While it does not now have a draft it has in the recent past so the country can ( and has ) ask more then one little thing from you as a citizen.
2. Not everyone get paid while they are on jury duty and for them it's a tremendous hardship.

3. While some people never get called others are call many times. For them it's a issue.


While this particular person went over the top in his refusal to serve, you should not lump all people who don't want to serve into the same bucket. There are many reason to not serve and some are valid.
Click to expand...
It is the price to pay to be a citizen and part of the solution. Not serving by avoiding the issue to me, should also remove some of the benefits and rights from citizenship. Just like in the US Civil Way, if you did not serve you had to pay and find a replacement to serve in your place. So should the jury system be set up.

Right now when you 'get out' of jury service that does not mean an open spot is left on the jury. A person still has to be found to serve in that capacity. So more money is spent to find that person and they are then covering for the person who got out of service. Why should they have to sacrifice to cover for a person who feels it to be too much of an inconvenience?

Like I said it sounds selfish to me

You should be proud that you were asked to help and serve your country.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm.

Anyone who doesn't want to serve on a jury forfeits any right whatsoever to ***** about many things, including: 1) how those GD'd defense attorneys got another one off; and 2) how those GD'd personal injury lawyers pulled the wool over justice's eyes again.
 
smigaldi said:
It is the price to pay to be a citizen and part of the solution. Not serving by avoiding the issue to me, should also remove some of the benefits and rights from citizenship. Just like in the US Civil Way, if you did not serve you had to pay and find a replacement to serve in your place. So should the jury system be set up.

Right now when you 'get out' of jury service that does not mean an open spot is left on the jury. A person still has to be found to serve in that capacity. So more money is spent to find that person and they are then covering for the person who got out of service. Why should they have to sacrifice to cover for a person who feels it to be too much of an inconvenience?

Like I said it sounds selfish to me

You should be proud that you were asked to help and serve your country.
Click to expand...

Scott, I don't view it so much as "serving" as I do "shaping" the country. When you're on a jury, you have the sole ability and responsibility to shape individuals' lives. I say "individuals" because much more is at stake than just the single person or entity on trial. Jury duty is, along with the 4th Amendment, the most important thing making the United States what it is. It is so obscenely fundamental to this country that I'm forced to disagree with Adam's post above - it is far more important than military service.

When you're on a jury, you're not serving. You're shaping and controlling individual's lives. You're determining what behavior a community will or will not tolerate. You're setting a standard of conduct not only for the events before you, but for events yet to come.

Most importantly of all, when you're on a jury and you make decisions in good faith with the evidence presented, you're reaffirming the principle that, in this country, it is not some appointed judge making a decision on the life of another for a government paycheck. You're reaffirming that every single person in this country has the right to have his or her case decided fairly, in accord with a uniformly applicable code of laws. Finally, you're reaffirming the rejection of a thousand years of iron-fisted control by a small group of people in Europe with no particularly special attributes.

So, in my eyes, all of that goes far beyond mere "service."
 
I'd love to serve on a jury. I've been dismissed every time I've been called though. Usually shortly after I fill out the questionnaire and answer the question about my job description. I used to hope that some day I'd at least get to serve on a civil trial jury, but so far, no joy. :frown3:
 
To all those who think their time is too valuable to spend in the service of our justice system - perhaps you're not familiar with other systems around the world that don't inconvenience their citizenry with this chore? Is there one of those that you'd prefer and if so, which one?
 
Quick question...

Any idea why only citizens are required to serve on juries? Why not permanent residents too? PRs need to register for Selective Service (the male ones in the right age band anyways)...never understood why juries are citizens only, as immigrants are subject to the same system.
 
I would like to serve on a jury. Did twice, once in a whiplash case where the jury came to a verdict and second in a medical malpractice suit that was settled immediately after the jury was selected.

Now, I do not get past the culling process because of my own and my close relatives dealing with the legal system:
  1. ___ was convicted and served 2 years in state prison for rape
  2. ___ died in a shootout with police
  3. ___ was murdered by his caretaker
  4. ___ is currently being sued in civil court
  5. I have sued tenants for non-payment and a company for loss
  6. I am begin sued
  7. I have been the victim of violent crimes.
Does this automatically mean I cannot be impartial? Apparently.
 
My bigger compliant is how potential jurors are treated. Perhaps massachusetts courts are worse than others across our nation.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with Bob on this statement. I get called every three years. This last time was about six months after accompanying my son with his trip through the court system. He was caught driving after his junior operator's license expired. I can certainly state that defendants are treated with more respect and courtesy than jurors.

My county just completed a many-bazillion dollar courthouse. The only 'upgrades' for the jurors are a 1/2" layer of foam rubber over the chairs, where the old courthouse had wooden benches. I found it offensive that they had two court officers guarding us, who spent the whole time on their cell phones with friends. The officers also had nicely padded chairs, and sat on a platform a few feet off the floor so they could keep an eye on the jurors.

Jurors are not permitted to leave the room, but are permitted to buy coffee from the vendors who give free coffee to the officers.

It just seems as though they intentionally make it unpleasant.

And for anyone bemoaning my right to complain, I've been called for jury duty at least ten times, I've shown up every time, and never asked for a deferment. Every time I go, I get to listen to the judge tell us how important we are to the system. If we are so important to the system, why are jurors paid less than minimum wage?
 
Steve Foley said:
If we are so important to the system, why are jurors paid less than minimum wage?
Click to expand...
Because the tax payers/voters refuse to pass tax increases to a higher level. A perfect example was just this past April 15th. A population cannot have it both ways. You cannot have low taxes and also have outstanding services at most you could hope to have adequate. And it sounds as though Mass has adequate services. If the seats are not padded, bring a pad, most people do when they go to sports games and have forked over $40,$50, $80 for a uncomfortable plastic seat.

BTW and the lawyers can correct me if I am wrong. The guards are not there to watch over you, but to protect you from accidentally running into an attorney and pollute a case with a doubt of impartiality. The guards are there to protect the system.
 
smigaldi said:
I don't get it, why do people want to NOT do jury duty?

To be a citizen of our country is a great thing. Our country asks so little of its citizens. While many have fought and died to protect your rights the country does not even mandate that you exercise them. It only asks one little thing. That is once in a while be part of the system that will serve justice on your fellow citizens.

Is this such a hardship? Is doing something for your country so repugnant to so many people that they would rather spends far more effort getting out of their civic duty than actually being part of the system to dole out justice? I'll bet these same people that work so hard to NOT be on a jury are the same people complaining about the justice system and state how people are sucking the country dry.

I hope the judge throws the book at him.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the sentiment, that being that all citizens need to contribute in some measure to this country and that the jury system is essential to success in our judicial system, I also understand why folks might not want to serve.

As some others have put it, it is the way jurors are treated. In my most recent bout, I had to give up a day of work, cancel a business-essential international trip that had been planned longer than the advance notice of jury duty (the clerk's office did not respond to request for deferral), then sat there all morning while some potential jurors were dismissed while the remainder were told we might be chosen for trials that might be a day long or 2 weeks long. No ability to advance-plan or make arrangements for work, family, etc. Some folks in the pool were caretakers of elderly or children with no ability to pay for extended periods of alternate care (in other words, it would cost upwards of $400/day for them to sit, while the "jury pay" would amount to something less than minimum wage).

The process in many areas is quite like the military draft, except that folks in the draft get more notice and a better ability to plan.

There has to be a better way.

In the end, after wasting 6 hours sitting there, I was released. The company had to try and reinstate the trips without paying too much in penalties (we got away easy - only $1200 in rebooking fees and increased fares). And for consulting businesses, entrepreneurial organizations, etc. the time taken for jury duty can kill the business and kill one's income.

I suppose it's better than what some Texas jurisdictions were doing - in those, if the pool was too small, the sheriff was sent out to "shanghai" citizens off the street and compel them, right there and then, to serve.

The process where I live now includes a 4-week jury duty cycle, where you are scheduled for a specific day a week (unless chosen for a longer trial). The night before, you can call a phone number to determine whether you're needed on your appointed day. If not, you go to work. If so, you report.

With the tight economy and newer business practices the inability to plan really can hurt a business with the uncertainty of the current system.

I don't see that changing, and I can certainly understand why folks won't want to participate in the jury system.
 
smigaldi said:
Because the tax payers/voters refuse to pass tax increases to a higher level.
Click to expand...

That doesn't carry much weight when you're sitting in a brand new building with marble staircases, twelve foot oak doors with polished brass locksets, and a plaster reproduction of a statue in the foyer that they just spent $20,000 to refurbish.

The difference between the creature comforts provided to everybody in the building and the jurors is absurd.

If the seats are not padded, bring a pad, most people do when they go to sports games and have forked over $40,$50, $80 for a uncomfortable plastic seat.
Click to expand...

Sports games are normally held outdoors where padding won't hold up to weather. I've never brought padding to a business meeting or a movie theater. I've also never been to an eight hour football game.

BTW and the lawyers can correct me if I am wrong. The guards are not there to watch over you, but to protect you from accidentally running into an attorney and pollute a case with a doubt of impartiality. The guards are there to protect the system.
Click to expand...

That's quite possible, but I don't see why they need two there all the time. I would also suspect they should not be sitting with their backs to the door where the threat would come from.
 
JeffDG said:
Quick question...

Any idea why only citizens are required to serve on juries? Why not permanent residents too? PRs need to register for Selective Service (the male ones in the right age band anyways)...never understood why juries are citizens only, as immigrants are subject to the same system.
Click to expand...

In Ohio, prospective jurists are selected from the list of registered voters. One must be a citizen to register to vote.
Eligibility

You are qualified to register to vote in Ohio if you meet all the following requirements:

  1. You are a citizen of the United States.
  2. You will be at least 18 years old on or before the day of the general election.
  3. You will be a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days immediately before the election in which you want to vote.
  4. You are not incarcerated (in jail or prison) for a felony conviction.
  5. You have not been declared incompetent for voting purposes by a probate court.
  6. You have not been permanently disenfranchised for violations of the election laws.
 
wsuffa said:
While I agree with the sentiment, that being that all citizens need to contribute in some measure to this country and that the jury system is essential to success in our judicial system, I also understand why folks might not want to serve.

As some others have put it, it is the way jurors are treated. In my most recent bout, I had to give up a day of work, cancel a business-essential international trip that had been planned longer than the advance notice of jury duty (the clerk's office did not respond to request for deferral), then sat there all morning while some potential jurors were dismissed while the remainder were told we might be chosen for trials that might be a day long or 2 weeks long. No ability to advance-plan or make arrangements for work, family, etc. Some folks in the pool were caretakers of elderly or children with no ability to pay for extended periods of alternate care (in other words, it would cost upwards of $400/day for them to sit, while the "jury pay" would amount to something less than minimum wage).

The process in many areas is quite like the military draft, except that folks in the draft get more notice and a better ability to plan.

There has to be a better way.

In the end, after wasting 6 hours sitting there, I was released. The company had to try and reinstate the trips without paying too much in penalties (we got away easy - only $1200 in rebooking fees and increased fares). And for consulting businesses, entrepreneurial organizations, etc. the time taken for jury duty can kill the business and kill one's income.

I suppose it's better than what some Texas jurisdictions were doing - in those, if the pool was too small, the sheriff was sent out to "shanghai" citizens off the street and compel them, right there and then, to serve.

The process where I live now includes a 4-week jury duty cycle, where you are scheduled for a specific day a week (unless chosen for a longer trial). The night before, you can call a phone number to determine whether you're needed on your appointed day. If not, you go to work. If so, you report.

With the tight economy and newer business practices the inability to plan really can hurt a business with the uncertainty of the current system.

I don't see that changing, and I can certainly understand why folks won't want to participate in the jury system.
Click to expand...

That can happen anywhere.

And the only, and I do mean only, times that this unfortunate situation occurs is when other people decide not to honor their jury summons.

For those complaining about not getting put on a jury because of past events in their lives - the issue isn't necessarily whether you can be impartial. Another issue is whether an outside observer, looking in, would think that the accused got a fair/impartial jury. One of the biggest things in the justice system is appearance of fairness - not only must the defendant actually get a fair trial, it must also appear to be a fair trial.

And, like it or not, the average person on the outside looking in, in let's say a first-degree murder trial, is going to have doubts about the jury and/or the outcome if there was a juror who had firsthand experience with murder.

That's just how it is, and that concept, along with the defendant's absolute right to a jury that both is and appears fair, trumps any right you have to serve on a jury.
 
Well I mentioned that Leslie has been called for Jury Duty here in Will County in June. (She had originally been called in January, but a conflict led her to ask for a deferment, which was automatically granted.)

Well, you may have heard about Drew Peterson, the former Bolingbrook cop suspected of killing his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who's been missing. Well, he was just arrested on orders of the Will County prosecutors for the murder of his third wife.

I mention this only because this is the sort of case I really wouldn't Leslie to be on! :no: Even though I grant you that it's just as important, if not more so, as any other case out there. It would just be a circus, however.
 
First off, I don't owe my country a thing, if anything, after the amount of money they take from me each year for what amounts to very little service in return, they should owe me something.

Jury duty, on the other hand, is fun for me, because most companies I've worked for will pay while stuck in the system.

The problem is that the courts treat jurors like second class citizens. The jury system needs to change to a system where you are given a questionnaire, and after filling it out, if they want to use you, they call you in.

I hate to be mean about it to lawyers, but seriously, the frivilous nature in which you dismiss potential lawyers is a real hardship to those that are asked to serve. I'd like to see a system where that hardship is reduced....even to the point where you do not get to question/dismiss jurors if possible, you get a lucky draw - a REAL sampling of the public, rather than a massaged group of 12 people to vote the way you want them to.

Finally, people are going to lie about themselves to get out of jury duty. Honestly, if I was really busy and didn't have time for jury duty, you're damn right I'd tell the lawyer I'm a racist, if it meant I'd be dismissed and ready to move onward. How about letting people nullify themselves before they get there, if they're going to cheat to do it anyways?

So - for the Justice system to stop being a joke we need:

- Fair pay for jurors. They don't even make minimum wage here
- Less "Pack 'em on the train and give 'em bread" mentaility
- A prescreen before a day is wasted to make a lawyer feel good
- Voluntary jury duty

edit: I really should point out that I love lawyers, and I respect y'all for a lot of things you do that others ***** about. I'm usually defending y'all, but jury duty is the one thing about y'all that irritates me. "Dance for me, little jurors! Dance!"
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
First off, I don't owe my country a thing, if anything, after the amount of money they take from me each year for what amounts to very little service in return, they should owe me something.
Click to expand...
You might want to look up the cost of one mile of road, then figure out your contribution to the tax fund and see that pretty much the first time you drive about 2 feet on the highway you have earned back your tax money. Anything more and you are subsidized by others who also pay taxes. :rolleyes:

One way of thinking of what you owe your country is to change that a little to what you owe your countrymen. We all give and take a little from each other to make this place work. That is why we have a country and are considered civilized. If one wanted to just be in it for themselves that would anarchy.
 
Last edited:
Nick, I don't know how they're doing jury selection in Bernalillo County these days, but here in Texas, the lawyers' ability to use "peremptory strikes" (striking jurors because they just feel like it) is extremely limited, and largely for the reasons you seem to be citing.

These days, most strikes have to be for cause (the juror has a clear and obvious bias), and that is carefully overseen by the judges, who can smell a dodge pretty well. Jurors who lie to get out of jury duty can be held in contempt.

Bottom line is, we are getting a pretty good cross section these days.

And, for what it is worth, juries WORK. A good jury can smell the rats pretty well, in my experience.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
For those complaining about not getting put on a jury because of past events in their lives - the issue isn't necessarily whether you can be impartial. Another issue is whether an outside observer, looking in, would think that the accused got a fair/impartial jury. One of the biggest things in the justice system is appearance of fairness - not only must the defendant actually get a fair trial, it must also appear to be a fair trial.

And, like it or not, the average person on the outside looking in, in let's say a first-degree murder trial, is going to have doubts about the jury and/or the outcome if there was a juror who had firsthand experience with murder.

That's just how it is, and that concept, along with the defendant's absolute right to a jury that both is and appears fair, trumps any right you have to serve on a jury.
Click to expand...

So, why not let us off in the first place? I don't mind being on a jury - but wasting a day sitting around knowing that I will be thrown off doesn't make sense to me.

And why does "impartial" imply "ignorant"?
 
I'm dissapointed because I've only been "pre-called" to Jury duty. In Michigan The sent out a prescrening letter and unfortunatly I recived it after I moved to PA. I just photo copied my PA licence and sent the letter back saying I no longer lived in the state.
 
SCCutler said:
Nick, I don't know how they're doing jury selection in Bernalillo County these days, but here in Texas, the lawyers' ability to use "peremptory strikes" (striking jurors because they just feel like it) is extremely limited, and largely for the reasons you seem to be citing.

These days, most strikes have to be for cause (the juror has a clear and obvious bias), and that is carefully overseen by the judges, who can smell a dodge pretty well. Jurors who lie to get out of jury duty can be held in contempt.

Bottom line is, we are getting a pretty good cross section these days.

And, for what it is worth, juries WORK. A good jury can smell the rats pretty well, in my experience.
Click to expand...

Uttering the phrase "You know, the police wouldn't have arrested someone if they weren't guilty, who am I to overrule their judgement." is generally a good way to be sent home...
 
JeffDG said:
Uttering the phrase "You know, the police wouldn't have arrested someone if they weren't guilty, who am I to overrule their judgement." is generally a good way to be sent home...
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that judges are for the most part not idiots and will see that type of phrase as an intentional attempt to dodge getting jusry duty. In such a case I'll bet you will get sent somewhere, but not home.

Just for a point about personal ethics. Anyone who would ever do such a thing is a person who is helping to make a police state by not participating in justice IMHO.
 
SCCutler said:
Nick, I don't know how they're doing jury selection in Bernalillo County these days, but here in Texas, the lawyers' ability to use "peremptory strikes" (striking jurors because they just feel like it) is extremely limited, and largely for the reasons you seem to be citing.

These days, most strikes have to be for cause (the juror has a clear and obvious bias), and that is carefully overseen by the judges, who can smell a dodge pretty well. Jurors who lie to get out of jury duty can be held in contempt.

Bottom line is, we are getting a pretty good cross section these days.

And, for what it is worth, juries WORK. A good jury can smell the rats pretty well, in my experience.
Click to expand...

The way it works in Bernalillo County (or at least, worked a few years ago), was they would put you on standby, and you have to call every morning to see if you're on the list for the day. After 2 weeks of calling every day, you're done.

The problem is when you are to go in, you sit in the lobby waiting for about 4-5 hours to go into the room and get interviewed. Then when you are judged not fit to be on a jury for whatever (or no) reason, you are put back in the pool to be dismissed another day.

I think they should either prescreen or at least only make you do it once. Once you are dismissed from one case, your time should be done.
 
SkyHog said:
The way it works in Bernalillo County (or at least, worked a few years ago), was they would put you on standby, and you have to call every morning to see if you're on the list for the day. After 2 weeks of calling every day, you're done.

The problem is when you are to go in, you sit in the lobby waiting for about 4-5 hours to go into the room and get interviewed. Then when you are judged not fit to be on a jury for whatever (or no) reason, you are put back in the pool to be dismissed another day.

I think they should either prescreen or at least only make you do it once. Once you are dismissed from one case, your time should be done.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty crappy system, if you ask me.

The way it works here is that you get a summons for a specific date. The night before, you call the jury hotline to see if the trial is, in fact, going. If it's not, you don't show up. If it is, you show up, and go through voir dire. Regardless of whether or not you're picked, you won't get called for the rest of the calendar year unless there is some kind of extreme need.
 
SCCutler said:
Nick, I don't know how they're doing jury selection in Bernalillo County these days, but here in Texas, the lawyers' ability to use "peremptory strikes" (striking jurors because they just feel like it) is extremely limited, and largely for the reasons you seem to be citing.

These days, most strikes have to be for cause (the juror has a clear and obvious bias), and that is carefully overseen by the judges, who can smell a dodge pretty well. Jurors who lie to get out of jury duty can be held in contempt.

Bottom line is, we are getting a pretty good cross section these days.

And, for what it is worth, juries WORK. A good jury can smell the rats pretty well, in my experience.
Click to expand...

That's been my experience, as well. Also, it's been my experience that every single juror who's been unfortunate enough to actually be on the selected jury has, even if not happy about missing pay/whatever, has come out of the experience with a much greater appreciation of the right to a jury.

And for those who may not believe it, trust me, there is oftentimes some 12 Angry Men type things that happen in jury rooms.

And, as to dismissals for cause, obviously I can't speak to Texas - but here, they're very limited, as well. While we still have the peremptories (generally, each side gets 3, can kick of whoever they want absent Batson [race] problems), dismissals for cause are VERY limited.

But, as I think I pointed out previously - if you're the type who will dodge jury service, you thereby lose all right to complain about anything that happens in the judicial system. Juries are, quite literally, what our courts are built around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top