So... I've never been called up for jury duty before. That may have something to do with my having lived in Israel for 12 years of my adult life, and having spent 2 years or less in various places from time to time.
Anyway, so I got summoned. My first thought was just to tell them that I'm a staunch believer in jury nullification (which I am). But I got there Monday...
First, for those of you who've only done regular jury duty, or none at all, let me tell you one of the wonderfulest aspects of federal jury duty. Basically, I'm on-call this week and next week. Every day, I have to call after 5pm to see if they want me the next morning. If they do, I have to go in. After voir dire, if I'm not seated on a jury, they can either send me to another voir dire for another case, or send me home. Either way, until I actually get empaneled, I have to keep calling in. So my life for two weeks is pretty chaotic. I just know that I'm going to wind up having to go in next Tuesday, which is Purim. In which case they can bloody well come and get me.
So I lost the paperwork they sent me. I suppose that shows how important it was, but really, I have a trillion pieces of paper, and they sent this to me weeks in advance. Not knowing whether I needed to go in or not on Monday, and not wanting to get sent to Gitmo, or whatever, I went in. And they were fine with that.
They sent 40 of us to this long, bowling alley shaped courtroom, where the judge regaled us with the glories and beauty of trial by jury (and the prospect of having to hear the same lecture every other day I go in just thrills me, let me tell you). Finally, they asked us a million questions, and picked 8 of us for the jury.
So far, I haven't had to go back in, but I still have to call every day. It's a system designed by committee, in every sense. <sigh>
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If you're a staunch believer in jury nullification, then you shouldn't tell them (unless asked, of course) .
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
They asked me (not in so many words) about jury nullification-- I told them I would vote my conscience no matter what the law said.
That's how I did not get called to jury duty.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm summoned for jury doody (the regular, local kind) the week of the 20th. I too have to call in every day to see if I'm drafted...
I've done it before. Got called in anyway. though they didn't call me up to get voir dired. If they had I would have been out of there much more quickly because there's no way they'd want me on a jury.
Scott, I always thought that the reason we HAVE juries is so we CAN let someone go if circumstances dictated that what they did SHOULD be legal.
Pix
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
They tried to get me in college so I changed my driver's license to the county I was going to college in. When that county tried to get me, I changed it back to my parents. I haven't been contacted since. My dad did put down that he never graduated from high school on the initial request form he got YEARS ago, never been contacted since.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
That's odd. For my local jury summons, I only had to call in once. If I wasn't needed, they only said I could "be recalled at a later date." No need to call in again or worry about it.
I can understand how ridiculous the federal system must seem to average people with a regular job.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I was called for jury duty once.
I don't remember how it was that I didn't have to show up. Probably had something to do with being a student in New Orleans 10+ months out of the year.
-pH
Posted by Ender12 (Member # 8873) on :
I was called for jury duty this winter but i got them to reschedule for the summer using school as my excuse. unfortunately, i will not have an excuse for the summer... unless i take summer classes Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If you're a staunch believer in jury nullification, then you shouldn't tell them (unless asked, of course) .
That occurred to me...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, I always thought that the reason we HAVE juries is so we CAN let someone go if circumstances dictated that what they did SHOULD be legal.
And I thought about saying SURE, I'll play along. But they asked some pointed questions, and I had to be honest.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
One of the questions they asked us was what our hobbies were and what our favorite TV shows were. I thought about telling them "Boston Legal", but decided to go for "Lost", "Veronica Mars" and "The 4400". For some reason, the lawyers laughed.
Posted by sarcare (Member # 8736) on :
I was on a federal jury last fall. I was supposed to call every weekend, and they'd call out numbers of those who were supposed to report. You were either called in two days, or put on a jury. The trial lasted for a week and a half, it was not fun.
The only question they asked me was what does reasonable doubt mean. Everyone in my office said I should have answered incorrectly, but all the people who were giving stupid answers were annoying me, so my stupid pride led me to give a good answer. The VoirDire took a really long time, almost all day, because they called in over sixty people, because it was a case involving depictions of sexual abuse towards minors.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Just a minute! What if you were the person charged. Now the pool from which they will pick a jury to decide your fate consists only of people to dumb to get out of service. This system only works well if everyone plays fair.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Not sure which you're saying here, Artemisia -- that the people are too dumb to succeed in getting out of jury duty, or too dumb to desire to get out of jury duty. I don't think of myself as dumb, and I'm honored by jury duty. The last time I was called I had to decline because of being the primary caretaker for children younger than whatever the age was -- four, maybe -- and the time before that I went but was never called out of the jury waiting room. But I have served on a jury before, and I think it's a good thing.
If the jury members are actually "dumb," I'd think the outcome would likely favor the better lawyer rather than be based on the facts of the case, and I don't think that's a plus. So in that sense, I think I may agree with you.
--Pop
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
The jury pool is suposed to consist of all electors, not officers of the court. What is often presented is a group of retired persons. Because everyone else has a good reason not to serve.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I've never been called for federal service, only county level, and not even that in (how old is she now?) 10 years. I was pregnant with my younger daughter at the time. (yes, I'm a current registered voter so I don't know how I've managed to not get called.) I've never even gone through voir dire, much less been empaneled. Fortunately, the county courts here in Illinois (or at least Chicago metro) are on a "one day one trial" system. If you aren't put on a panel by the end of the day, you're done for a year.
now that I've said this, I'll get my standby notice in today's mail... Of course, I'm crazy enough that I'd actually LIKE to do it just to be able to say that I have.
Lisa, is there any way you can cite religious exemption for Purim?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I grant that that is a failing, and I haven't come up with a reasonable solution for it. Have you?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: I grant that that is a failing, and I haven't come up with a reasonable solution for it. Have you?
No, because I like to think that I am too busy too. Actually, every time I have been called, it has been for a drunk driving case. My brother and his date were killed by a drunk driver on the way home from his junior prom. They always ask. I always answer. And they always send me home.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I've served on one local jury - a guy robbed a convience store. I wouldn't mind serving again but haven't been called back up. There are certain trials though I am glad I didn't get called for.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: Lisa, is there any way you can cite religious exemption for Purim?
I will if I have to. I'm reading Megillah that day. Three out of ten chapters. There's no way I'm blowing it off.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I've never been called...but it wouldn't be a big deal if I did. My employer has jury duty pay, so it wouldn't hurt me...and I guess it is the whole civic duty and such. On many cases I would likely be more prosecutor friendly, but I'd try to be impartial.
I would never be chosen for a capital case though...you would have to be a really dumb prosecutor to keep someone who oposes the death penalty on a jury for a capital case.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I've never served, but have always been interested to do my civic duty bit.
So, I lived out in Missouri for 9 years, and they finally sent me a summons just the week before I moved... Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
I am a lawyer and sometimes try cases to juries. I've often puzzled over how juries decide cases and I try to study ways to persuade juries. I'm curious - for those of you who have served on juries, how and when did you decide your cases? Did you begin to make up your mind during voir dire or opening statements - or did you remain open minded until the closing arguments or the very end of the case? What did the winning lawyers do that helped you decide in their favor?
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Lisa, why do you believe in jury nullification? Do you believe it should be applied in all cases, or just civil or criminal cases? When do you think it should be applied? Just curious.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Lisa, why do you believe in jury nullification? Do you believe it should be applied in all cases, or just civil or criminal cases? When do you think it should be applied? Just curious.
Um... what cases that aren't civil or criminal use a jury?
And I believe that the right to be tried by a jury of ones peers is one of the checks and balances in our legal system. It permits the common folk to use their common sense in a venue where almost everything else comes down to lawyers tricks.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What is jury nullification?
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Um... what cases that aren't civil or criminal use a jury?
I was unclear. Do you apply jury nullification to both civil and criminal cases, or just one or the other?
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: And I believe that the right to be tried by a jury of ones peers is one of the checks and balances in our legal system. It permits the common folk to use their common sense in a venue where almost everything else comes down to lawyers tricks.
Jurors swear an oath to inquire into and to determine the facts of a case based upon the evidence presented and to apply the law to the facts. When juries shirk that responsibility, the legal system and the rule of law is undermined. Common sense certainly plays a role in determining the facts of a particular case. Applying common sense is appropriate and expected. Refusing to follow and apply the law is not (at least in my humble opinion).
Incidentally, juries are for more susceptible to being swayed by a lawyer's "tricks" than are judges. That is why, for example, the big insurance companies usually opt for jury trials in personal injury cases. The insurance companies are very good at playing upon the prejudices that juries typically have against personal injury plaintiffs.
I believe that jury nullification tends to arise more often in cases when one side's lawyer is far superior to the other side's, or one side is better at flaming a jury's prejudice or bias.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: What is jury nullification?
When a jury issues a verdict that is contrary to or inconsistent with the evidence presented and the law. The justification for jury nullification usually is that the jury believes that the law is unfair, and the jury does not want to render a verdict it deems to be unfair.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
quote: If you feel the statute involved in any criminal case being tried before you is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's God-given inalienable or Constitutional rights, you can affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime; for no man is bound to obey an unjust command.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Um... what cases that aren't civil or criminal use a jury?
I was unclear. Do you apply jury nullification to both civil and criminal cases, or just one or the other?
Ah. Then I don't understand. In a criminal case, juries apply the law. If the law is dumb, they should be able to say so. More to the point, they should not be forced to apply a standard that they consider immoral.
In civil cases, they aren't there to apply the law. They're there to resolve a dispute and to determine what, if anything, should be done to the parties in the dispute. I'm not sure what would be "nullified" here.
quote:Originally posted by David G:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: And I believe that the right to be tried by a jury of ones peers is one of the checks and balances in our legal system. It permits the common folk to use their common sense in a venue where almost everything else comes down to lawyers tricks.
Jurors swear an oath to inquire into and to determine the facts of a case based upon the evidence presented and to apply the law to the facts. When juries shirk that responsibility, the legal system and the rule of law is undermined. Common sense certainly plays a role in determining the facts of a particular case. Applying common sense is appropriate and expected. Refusing to follow and apply the law is not (at least in my humble opinion).
Here's a thought. Let's say the people who are trying to get kosher slaughter banned succeed. In Illinois, let's say, because that's where I live. It's less likely here than elsewhere, but the efforts never really stop.
So tomorrow, it becomes illegal to slaughter animals according to Jewish religious standards. It becomes illegal to buy or sell such meat as well. And I'm called up to sit on a jury for a case where a store owner is being charged with selling kosher meat.
See, my point is that laws can be unjust. A lot of the freedoms guaranteed us by our system are there because we don't put full faith in our government.
Now, representative democracy may be a good thing, but it's certainly not a perfect thing. It's better than pure democracy, which is just mob rule, but it can become too distanced from the demos.
Think about it. Why do we need juries anyway? After all, judges and lawyers are experts. Why not let the lawyers argue and have the judges make the decisions? Isn't sticking a jury into the process a little like bringing people in off the street to determine how a surgeon should perform surgery?
The reason we have juries in the first place is precisely because we don't want everything in the hands of the judges and lawyers.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Incidentally, juries are for more susceptible to being swayed by a lawyer's "tricks" than are judges. That is why, for example, the big insurance companies usually opt for jury trials in personal injury cases. The insurance companies are very good at playing upon the prejudices that juries typically have against personal injury plaintiffs.
Well, then we have a good system. It's one where most people on most juries don't realize that jury nullification is even an option. And where those who do can take advantage of it when needed.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I believe that jury nullification tends to arise more often in cases when one side's lawyer is far superior to the other side's, or one side is better at flaming a jury's prejudice or bias.
Denny Crane. Alan Shore. Anyway, I like to think that I'm able to make a proper decision without regard to the histrionics of the well-fed attorneys. I have a moral sense, and I have no problem applying the law as written if an injustice isn't being done thereby. If an injustice would be done, though, I will vote for what's right, rather than what the law says. I'd hope most people would.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote: If you feel the statute involved in any criminal case being tried before you is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's God-given inalienable or Constitutional rights, you can affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime; for no man is bound to obey an unjust command.
Excellent document!
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Jurors swear an oath to inquire into and to determine the facts of a case based upon the evidence presented and to apply the law to the facts. When juries shirk that responsibility, the legal system and the rule of law is undermined.
Only if you think that "the rule of law" and "whatever crap some corrupt idiot legislators threw together" are one and the same. If a statute exceeds the constitutional (or otherwise rightful) authority of the government in question, then it is no law at all, and may be legitimately ignored.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I had a friend who was called for jury duty and when she told them she was the caretaker for her young children and couldn't afford a babysitter for the week of jury duty they told her that wasn't enough to excuse her.
so she showed up at the courthouse with all three kids in tow. They sent her home and haven't called her back since.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I think serving on a jury would be fun, and I always welcome a chance to undermine unjust laws. I would also lie in the screening process if I thought I could get away with it and the truth would cause me to be rejected as a juror. I do not believe it is fair to reject someone with beliefs that would tend towards the nullification of a particular law. Also, I feel I would be much more a peer of a non-violent drug offender than a straight-edge police officer, but the prosecution would obviously prefer the police officer over me.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)