I got called. Boooooo! Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
Go up to the judge and tell him that you are a intensly jugmental and angry person and that any one who would waste your time with jury duty must be guily.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I got called too.. 2nd time in 2.5 years.
Last time I got out of it by telling the judge that if I heard something and was told to disregard it, I couldn't just forget it.
She looked mad when she dismissed me.
Hopefully this time my group number won't be called and I won't have to actually go in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've never been called for it. I think my parents have only been called like three or four times ever. The last three times my mom has gone they've been drunk driving cases, and my mom has said flat out that there's no way she would be unbiased, and she wasn't kidding, so they'd send her home.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Last time I got out of it by telling the judge that if I heard something and was told to disregard it, I couldn't just forget it.
Wow, that's actually true for me.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think it would be interesting to serve on a jury as long as the case was short and simple.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Yeah but you can never know in advance what type of case you'll get.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
When is the government going to figure out that nobody wants jury duty, and everybody who can does their best to get out of it?
We ought to have professional jurors, who get training in law and rhetoric, and are paid a real salary to hear cases and give reasonable and just verdicts.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would love to serve on a jury.
But, I can't really while breastfeeding. I've never been called but if I was I'd get an automatic deferral and not called for a year or more until I was done breastfeeding. By which time I'd probably be pregnant and request a medical deferral... And then I'd be breastfeeding.
Maybe in 25 years or so I'll be able to do it.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Here in Greenville, if you are the parent and caregiver (no daycare etc) to a child under 7 and cannot find someone to take care of said child you can be excused from jury duty. You can also be excused if you are 65 or older, convicted or a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, or moved out of the jurisdiction. You can have your date postponed if you are a full-time teacher or student, so that it does not interfere with your school year.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: When is the government going to figure out that nobody wants jury duty, and everybody who can does their best to get out of it?
We ought to have professional jurors, who get training in law and rhetoric, and are paid a real salary to hear cases and give reasonable and just verdicts.
Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment?
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think that that would violate the rights of the person to have a trial in front of a jury of peers. If their career is being a juror, then they are not really my peer are they?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Here you can defer any time you want for any reason. And you only have to call in and see what they need you, and if you go in and don't get called, that's it (one day or one trial) for a year.
Last time KPC got called it was the week of Christmas. He was going to defer but I told him not to, the courts would be slwoer that week. I was right-- all the lawyers were just requesting to do things later so they could take their holiday, he called in every day but didn't even have to go down to the courthouse.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I got jury duty but never had to go in.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We ought to have professional jurors, who get training in law and rhetoric...
You can argue that this would undermine the point of a jury trial.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We ought to have professional jurors, who get training in law and rhetoric, and are paid a real salary to hear cases and give reasonable and just verdicts.
The historical underpinning of the jury is to require a group of the people - not government agents - to consent to the criminal punishment of the accused (in most cases).
It gives all four branches of our governing institutions a chance to veto the exercise of such coercive power. The legislature defines crimes; if they haven't done so in advance, then there's no crime. The executive has the discretion not to prosecute. The judiciary can end a prosecution if certain safeguards have not been followed and can decide that, factually, no case has been made. And the people (as represented by the jury) can decide not to convict. It divides the responsibility for punishment across all all who hold power and requires a type of consensus.
Professional jurors would be an arm of the government and remove part of that. One only has to imagine a performance review on which one's continued employment depends to understand how such a move would destroy jury independence.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The last time I was called to jury duty, I told the judge (essentially) that I would not cooperate with instructions that I felt were immoral. (It was a civil case in which punitive damages could be rewarded-- I'm not a fan of punitive damages in that type of case)
I was taken out of consideration as a juror.
I think it's the jury's responsibility to understand the laws that they're being asked to uphold, and to override those laws when necessary. That is, IMO, the whole point of having a non-professional jury system.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Why are people so opposed to serving jury duty? It's also seemed to me to be one the cooler opportunities we receive as citizens of a democracy. Yes, it can be disruptive, but so can lots of other duties (taking care of a sick relative, say). Being able to balance them is part of being an adult.
I had jury duty a couple weeks ago, and was paneled for a civil trial that we were told would be finished by the following afternoon. When asked whether serving on the jury for approximately 8 hours would cause a "severe hardship" in their lives, two-thirds of the panel stood up.
I get that some people are ill, or have the aforementioned sick relative, or other problems. I refuse to believe that for 2/3rds of the population, showing up in the courtroom for a single day would cause a "severe hardship."
(For the record, I was dismissed because I was too personally involved in the defendant organization.)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Thanks for undermining our judicial system, people!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I always did wonder about the average characteristics of my jury if I ever managed to get into the position of being falsely tried for a crime related to my field of work.
I wonder how the group (all potential jurors - jurors that managed to get out of jury duty) compares with (all potential jurors). I have a feeling that I have much more in common with the latter group, even worse, probably more in common with the (latter group - former group).
In other words, I recognize that if I got into a position of being falsely tried for a crime, I will probably rarely get a potential jury that includes people in professions and backgrounds close to my own. Even worse, people with that kind of history probably are more likely to get out of jury duty. This somewhat skews the resulting juries in a way that I'm not sure is healthy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Here you can defer any time you want for any reason.
That's not quite true. It is easy to defer, but you do have to come up with some kind of reason (although "that week is bad for me" is usually sufficient, though I have heard stories to the contrary) and there is a limit on how long they will allow deferral, as well as how many times.
But yeah, scheduling for a holiday week is pretty much a guarantee you'll be calling in and never going in.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Here you can defer any time you want for any reason.
That's not quite true. It is easy to defer, but you do have to come up with some kind of reason (although "that week is bad for me" is usually sufficient, though I have heard stories to the contrary) and there is a limit on how long they will allow deferral, as well as how many times.
In Kern county it's pretty much no questions asked the first time, but you need a really good reason to differ a second time.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
It is amazing to me how many people try to get out of jury duty. This is, in my opinion, why we have had some pretty bone-headed jury awards over the years. It is usually idiots who end up serving...
I have been called three time for jury duty and served once, for a three day child rape trial.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Our jury duty notice has boxes you can check to refuse. I get to check full time student and caregiver of a child under 10.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Why are people so opposed to serving jury duty? It's also seemed to me to be one the cooler opportunities we receive as citizens of a democracy.
Last week I saw the Third Rock from the Sun where Dick tried desperately to get on Jury duty. It was pretty funny.
I have never been called.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Last time I got out of it by telling the judge that if I heard something and was told to disregard it, I couldn't just forget it.
Wow, that's actually true for me.
I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true.
However I desperately wanted out of that Jury anyway. It was for a drive by shooting and the judge had all perspective jury members stand up and say their name, where they lived and where they worked. Right in front of the defendants.
Yeah, that's JUST what I want gang members to know... Where I live and work so when I vote to convict their fellows can drive-by shoot me.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Hmm. I keep hearing people talk about being excused because of having children. My jurisdiction offers free on-site childcare for juror's children (ages 2-12) for the duration of the trial; is this unusual?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: Hmm. I keep hearing people talk about being excused because of having children. My jurisdiction offers free on-site childcare for juror's children (ages 2-12) for the duration of the trial; is this unusual?
It's definitely not universal (the court by me does not offer it, anyways). Don't know how common or uncommon it is.
Don't know firsthand, though, since for whatever reason I've never been called for jury duty.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I think that that would violate the rights of the person to have a trial in front of a jury of peers. If their career is being a juror, then they are not really my peer are they?
I don't see how that makes them less of your peer than a doctor serving on the jury of a farmer isn't her peer.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We ought to have professional jurors, who get training in law and rhetoric...
You can argue that this would undermine the point of a jury trial.
The jury is required to follow specific legal rules, such as ignoring any evidence which is presented but then suppressed, and judges often instruct jury members about specifically how they must consider certain things which were said or shown, and how they are legally required to perform their duties.
If that is already the case, wouldn't we be better served if the jurors were already well versed in all those rules?
The purpose of a jury trial is having a group of other citizens, randomly chosen, with no personal interest in the outcome of the trial. This can still be accomplished perfectly well if the people who are serving on the jury are more intelligent and better versed with the law.
In fact, I think it could be argued that the entire legal process would be more just and would run more smoothly.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I got called for jury duty and got picked to serve on the jury once...
It was a drunk driving case. It was really cool to be a part of, it ended up being a 3 day trial with 2 days of deliberation. It was a difficult outcome for me, though... The man clearly drove drunk - but it was hard to prove that he was actually drunk on this occasion... The biggest problem was the two ambulance workers that went to the scene of the accident had different stories, and the police officers that were at the accident had had a previous encounter with the man that day for a domestic disturbance at his home.
Because of that whole burden of proof thing, though, and with the conflicting stories - I really had to sit in the jury room and fight for a not guilty verdict. It felt wrong on one level, because my gut told me that he'd done it... but legally, the prosecution didn't seem to have proven to me without a reasonable doubt that this man was impaired.
My aunt's an attorney and she told me that I did the right thing (i spoke with her at length just after, because it was interesting to me and she was a willing listener ; ) )... I still think to myself that I hope the guy didn't go out and kill someone some other day, though.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I served on a jury in 2005 for a civil trial that took almost 2 weeks. Writing sub plans was a huge pain, as was commuting 1.5+ hours each way. (It was district court.)
I was grumpy when selected but it turned out to be a really interesting and valuable experience that I'm glad I had. I would be proud to be selected to serve again. It's an important job.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
For drunk driving, having recently had my favorite aunt killed by a drunk driver, I don't think I would be a good juror. I also have been told that the almost phd in genetics is a good way to get out of any case that involves DNA evidence.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I never received a jury summons of any kind until I moved to Hawaii 8 years ago. Since then, I've served on 2 juries (I got picked both times I got called) and just received another jury questionnaire, so I expect I may get another summons this year. I suspect living on a small island may have something to do with that, but since 1985, I have not lived in a large city, so I'm not sure.
There is no deferment here for having children or being pregnant, although I suspect breastfeeding might get you out of it.
I've been sworn into two juries, but the second time, we were sworn in and sent to lunch, then when we got back from lunch, the judge had dismissed the case and we were released without hearing any testimony. We were still considered to have served as a jury, so had a full year deferment. I was releived, because, based on the questions the attorneys asked us during jury selection, it was going to be a nasty he siad/she said domestic violence trial. The judge dismissed the case because the accuser (the woman) did not show up for trial. He also told us that it was the 3rd time in as many months that she'd brought charges against her partner, and she'd lost both of the other cases. So that was a great relief.
The first time I served, it was for a shoplifting trial which lasted about 2 1/2 days. My office is across the courtyard from the county court house, so I was able to keep up on my work pretty well on breaks and before and after trial. We usually were in trial from about 10 am to 3 pm. I found the trial fascinating, but I have to admit that if it had gone on much longer, it would have gotten old really fast.
I understand why people don't want to serve on juries, but it's a hardship for everyone. Folks need to step up and do their part, unless they have truly unusual circumstances.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If jury duty was conveniently in commuting distance for me and was compensated equal to or more what I was being paid to miss work I would do it as itld be an amazing experience to use my analytical skills.
However my monolingualism will probly get me unsuitable as I'ld have to have the entire thing done in English to be useful, I don't understand a word of french besides "je ne pas parlez francais" and "laissez-faire", also my problem with the army. It is intolerable to stand for 6 hours listening to someone speak ad infinitum in a language you do not understand and be expected to listen. One's mind and body tends to wander.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
My experience with Jury duty.
Pay: The pay was less than the cost of lunch...$5/day. I had to take sick time.
I was told that I could write some of it off on my taxes, instead I had to pay taxes on the $10 my two day experience cost me.
The case involved a man who drove on the wrong side of the road, seriously injuring the person in an oncoming vehicle.
Law says that if the defendant was dead before he crossed the line, he could not be responsible for the injuries.
The ambulance workers reported that he died of a heart attack, but could not be sure if that caused the accident or was the result of the accident.
We got to decide.
Both sides brought in experts to prove their case.
The injured party's expert was a very good doctor. However, he once got in trouble for saying that eating a poppyseed bagel could not cause a drug test to read positive. It was later proven that it could, but the career and reputation of the police officer who failed that drug test had been lost--due to this expert's error.
The dead driver's lawyer overplayed his attack on that expert, and actually made most of the juror's sympathize for him, not doubt his credibility.
However the injured party's lawyer was asking for ridiculous amounts of money. I will argue for large pay outs in order to make pain and suffering too expensive for corporations and individuals to risk. However, there was no way this corpse was going to be a bad driver in the future.
We debated for several hours and I must say that the real villain of my whole experience was one sweet little lady on the jury.
She said, "Oh, a person can drive quite well while having a heart attack. My husband told me he needed help driving home one day. He was having a heart attack and couldn't see. He asked me to help him steer, from St. Louis to our doctor in Sullivan (about 75 miles of interstate highway.). We made it, so the driver should have been able too."
We all sat there stunned.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
IIRC, it should be "je ne parle pas ... "
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The purpose of a jury trial is having a group of other citizens, randomly chosen, with no personal interest in the outcome of the trial. This can still be accomplished perfectly well if the people who are serving on the jury are more intelligent and better versed with the law.
But it can't be accomplished perfectly if the jurors are agents of the government.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think I'd be willing to serve on a jury unless it was a capital case. But I have problems paying attention to boring things, and remembering details, so I don't know if I'd make a good juror.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I have done jury duty and I enjoy it. IME the judge announces the approximate length of thr trial beforehand. I could never serve on a capital case, or a few other things, but it's entertaining.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: Hmm. I keep hearing people talk about being excused because of having children. My jurisdiction offers free on-site childcare for juror's children (ages 2-12) for the duration of the trial; is this unusual?
I have no idea how common it is; I have never heard of it before.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Selran:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Here you can defer any time you want for any reason.
That's not quite true. It is easy to defer, but you do have to come up with some kind of reason (although "that week is bad for me" is usually sufficient, though I have heard stories to the contrary) and there is a limit on how long they will allow deferral, as well as how many times.
In Kern county it's pretty much no questions asked the first time, but you need a really good reason to differ a second time.
If it's your first deferral, is what I meant. When my aunt deferred she had a reason but they didn't even ask it-- it's an automated system and she punched the button for "personal reasons."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: Hmm. I keep hearing people talk about being excused because of having children. My jurisdiction offers free on-site childcare for juror's children (ages 2-12) for the duration of the trial; is this unusual?
I've never heard of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: [If it's your first deferral, is what I meant. When my aunt deferred she had a reason but they didn't even ask it-- it's an automated system and she punched the button for "personal reasons."
I wonder how long ago that was. Or maybe it's just L.A. County that's different. We have an automated system, but then you have to also send in a written form to complete your deferral. I believe the second part is a recent(-ish) addition.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It was about a year and a half ago, so it could have changed.
In any case, they accept just about anything for a reason-- usually. It's part of their two-handed "we're trying to fill the juries" approach-- on the one hand, big fines if you ignore a summons, but on the other, make it as easy and pleasant as possible to answer it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Hi, I'm a professional Juror. Ever do anything that might end you up in court? Oh, you have a court case coming up soon? I could really use a new house cheap. Can I borrow your lawn mower? your car? your wife? Microsoft sends out free donations to the Swiss bank accounts of every professional juror in the country? What have you done for me lately?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The purpose of a jury trial is having a group of other citizens, randomly chosen, with no personal interest in the outcome of the trial. This can still be accomplished perfectly well if the people who are serving on the jury are more intelligent and better versed with the law.
But it can't be accomplished perfectly if the jurors are agents of the government.
Why not? Are other government workers unable to serve on juries? I guess I don't understand the specifics of your argument.
What is it about being a professional juror that makes a person less able to accurately and justly rule on a case? I can think of a lot of things that would make them better.
What if the professional jurors are not government agents, but are drawn from a private company who provides jurors, and paid a set amount per day by the losing side? Would that eliminate whatever problems you have with the fact that they're government agents?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not? Are other government workers unable to serve on juries?
I mentioned this above. Just imagine the performance evaluation - when someone is a professional juror, their performance will be judged based on how they perform as a juror. The essence of a jury right now is that its performance is not accountable to the government.
That's a significant difference from someone whose job is something unrelated.
quote:What is it about being a professional juror that makes a person less able to accurately and justly rule on a case?
Please stop misstating my argument. I haven't touched on their ability at all. In fact, from my first post in this thread, I've talked about other aspects of the issue.
quote:What if the professional jurors are not government agents, but are drawn from a private company who provides jurors, and paid a set amount per day by the losing side? Would that eliminate whatever problems you have with the fact that they're government agents?
Assuming the government has to select the private firm (and I don't see any way they wouldn't have to, given that they will be paid by tax revenues), they'd still be government agents, just at one degree removed.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...and paid a set amount per day by the losing side?"
Did you miss this part, Dag?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The essence of a jury right now is that its performance is not accountable to the government.
Shouldn't someone who ultimately decides if a person lives or dies, or spends their entire life in prison, have some accountability for that choice?
Were I being tried for a crime, I would want the most intelligent and capable jury possible if I were actually innocent, and the most inept and idiotic jury possible if I were actually guilty. I think most would come to the same conclusion, all other things being equal.
If that's the case, it makes sense that in order to have the most just verdicts, we should want the best possible jurors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Shouldn't someone who ultimately decides if a person lives or dies, or spends their entire life in prison, have some accountability for that choice?
The point of the jury is that it is not accountable to the government. If we take that away, there's no point to the jury at all. What does your plan provide over bench trials? The only thing I see is that it makes the trier of fact multi-person, and bench trials could be made that way if we desired.
quote:Shouldn't someone who ultimately decides if a person lives or dies, or spends their entire life in prison, have some accountability for that choice?
quote:If that's the case, it makes sense that in order to have the most just verdicts, we should want the best possible jurors.
And yet you've presented nothing that demonstrates your plan gets "better" jurors. You haven't even defined what "better" really means - "intelligent" and "capable" mean something entirely different to a plaintiff and a defendant (more accurately, to their lawyers).
quote:"...and paid a set amount per day by the losing side?"
Did you miss this part, Dag?
Yes. It doesn't change my overall opinion of the plan - it simply raises a slightly different objection. Someone in the government has to determine who is qualified to be a juror under this plan. That determination still controls someone's livelihood.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Shouldn't someone who ultimately decides if a person lives or dies, or spends their entire life in prison, have some accountability for that choice?
I want to expand on this point - it underlies everything I wrote in my initial post.
The jury convicting someone has tremendous oversight. The judge ensures that the elements are minimally proven and that the law is followed, the prosecutor decides in the first instance whether to prosecute, and the legislature decides what a crime is - that is, what behavior subjects someone to criminal punishment.
If the jury convicts, that decision is subject to review by the trial judge, at least one level of direct appeal, at least one level of conditional appeal, and one level of collateral attack. It's guaranteed that, if the defendant chooses, at least three separate judges (or panels of judges) will review the conviction.
If the jury acquits, there is nothing anyone can do about it. There's essentially no way for the state to get a new trial or to convict that person for that crime - even if a manifest error of law or fact has occurred. Even if the jurors all say, "We know he was guilty, but we acquitted anyway." The decision to acquit is unreviewable, and this is the essential element of the jury system. If you remove it, there's nothing of real substance left of it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
This reminds me of the the saying "people get the government they deserve." Except here, saying "societies get the verdicts they deserve" would be perhaps even more true. If the populace is, by and large, stupid, I don't think much of anything can be done.
Dag, I've heard that lawyers on BOTH sides of a case will try to get rid of smart, educated, thoughtful jurors, in a general sense, during jury selection. What are your thoughts on that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I've heard that lawyers on BOTH sides of a case will try to get rid of smart, educated, thoughtful jurors, in a general sense, during jury selection. What are your thoughts on that?
That phenomenon exists, but it's much more common in the imagination of the press and public than in the practice of law.
I have no problems with the idea of reforming jury selection, although I haven't seen a comprehensive plan I actually like yet.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"That phenomenon exists, but it's much more common in the imagination of the press and public than in the practice of law."
Whom do you feel is more likely to do it, the prosecution, or the defense, or with what does it tend to vary?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: When is the government going to figure out that nobody wants jury duty, and everybody who can does their best to get out of it?
I think you might be surprised. When I was called about 6 months ago, I was part of a group of about 110 people, and I think more than half really wanted to serve.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe I'm jaded, but I see jury duty in the same light as elected office: Some of the people who would be best suited to do it are the least interested. The fact that they don't want to do it might be part of what makes them especially suited.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)