Jury duty PIA or proud to serve?
 

Jury duty PITA or proud to serve?
How about your comments and expariences.
I have jury duty coming up in January, 2008. I have done it many times before but I am not looking forward to it.
It would be funny if I got on a case where someone has been using one of those illegal alternate fuels.

I've always managed to get excused from jury duty, and I really want to do it. Three times, in fact.

It is about clearing the Court's calendar
 

I have had a look at it from the "other side" for more years than I care to remember.

Jury panels are assembled when it becomes pretty clear that the criminal or civil case is not going to "settle" and it looks like there will be a trial.

The reason most of the time many jurors get called, go to the Courthouse, and sit around for hours in some "Jury assembly room" reading newspapers and old magazines and doing nothing, is because there is last ditch haggling by the lawyers going on; the presence of potential "jurors" down the hall, ready to go, gives a HUGE incentive to get the case settled, or plea bargained, and one more case off the Court's calendar.

You would be surprised at what goes on "behind the scenes" while you are sitting around and waiting to be called into Court to serve on the jury - or sent home, having done nothing all day. The very fact you were there at all actually helps the course of justice move along when your presence caused an intractible case to "settle".

You should hear the stories people tell the Judge to try to evade jury duty.

Don't EVER try "My grandmother died in Texas and I have to go to the funeral", that is the oldest one in the book, they will laugh in your face soooooo hard.


An imperfect scenario, perhaps, but I have yet to see a better one come along

Three years ago I served on Grand Jury for four months. We met as the case load required which ended up being about 1-2 days per month. Grand Jury was very eye opening. I did not realize how many felony level crimes were being charged in the rural county that I live in.

I would say about 98% of the cases were so blatantly obvious of being felony level. In about 20% of the cases my thought was that this does not need to go to trial....get a rope and save the tax money now. Then there was one case where a baby died as a result of the negligence of about eight people. The prosecutor wanted a fish to fry and quite frankly all of us on the Grand Jury wanted to take a baseball bat to all eight, but buy law there was no 'smoking gun' in the case and no one was charged.:beadyeyes

It was a learning experience and I am glad for the opportunity. With that said I don't think that I would care to serve on a trial jury.

I hate jury duty and luckly have never been called in.

If I ever get stuck going I'll make up some story about being an equal opertunity racist looking to hang whoever is on trial. That should get me out.:D

They claim that you are selected from the voters registration list. However, I registered to vote at 18 and was not ever selected to go on jury duty until I was 32 years old (after I got a job with the Fed. Gov.). It is clear that after getting that job I was put on some sort of list.

I've been called a few times, and have felt it my duty to go.

I've been excused every time. I guess nobody wants an engineer on a jury panel...

I have always tried to avoid it too, and when there have never been picked. I am now wishing to be picked once so I can experience it.

Tom W

Then how do you know you hate it? As for the second commnet, you could be charged with contempt.

Trying to get out of jury duty: What works, what doesn't
 

Yeah, saying that will probably get you off the jury, (especially a criminal jury), but using it as a transparent ploy (they hear this kind of crap every day) to evade jury duty it would probably annoy the Judge enough to make him excuse you only from his Courtroom, and send you back to the jury assembly room to cool your heels all day until you get herded into the next courtroom to try your luck there.

Listen, Judges all day have to listen to people claiming they are too busy, they are such busy, hotshot realtors, or such important businessmen to waste their time on jury duty, and that they are so much better and more important than ordinary citizens that they should not have to bother with jury duty.

That attitude will get them a lecture about how along with the benefits of citizenship comes the burdens, one of which is serving on juries. It won't get them off jury duty, though.

If you have an upcoming honeymoon, or a vacation (and bring the airline tickets to prove it), have proof that you are so broke the wolves are at the door, and need to be out looking for work, or are a legal resident of another county, or absolutely honestly can't speak English and somehow are a citizen anyway, all of those things will almost certainly get you out of jury duty.

But "big business plans" won't, and saying that you "are the sole owner of a small business" will get you a lecture that nowhere is it written that small business owners and people in business for yourself, are exempt from jury duty, and that if ONE small business owner gets excused, then ALL small business owners would have to be excused, so that won't fly.

Now if the jury is going to be a six month long murder trial, the Courts often hand out "hardship questionaires" for potential jurors to fill out, because it is understood that making people be on a jury every day for half a year is likely to cause some real, recognizable hardships.

The jury pool database in California is comprised of names pulled at random from voter registration and DMV records.

If you ever voted or had a driver's license, your name can get picked for jury duty.

You can't be called for jury duty more than once per calendar year.

Most California county Courts are transitioning to the one day/one trial system. That is, you are on call for jury duty, and the day you are in the available jury pool is only ONE day, and then you are finished with your jury duty if you are not picked for a jury panel, or a panel of prospective jurors, that day.

If you DO get selected, though, it could be for ANY trial length, for less than a day, or even some 6 month long murder trial or something even longer.

Jurors get paid about $8 a day, and payment only starts AFTER they have been selected and sworn, and are actually actual jurors.

Spare me the lecture, I don't want to serve on a damn jury and will try to get out of it any way possible. If you enjoy it, please take my place.

I have better things to do then listened to other peoples problems. Guilty, next.

Really? How would they prove it?

What I have been told also works is you tell the lawyer that you really want to convict the SOB. Next...:D

Jury duty, other than the draft, is about the only time that our government requires its citizens to "show up." Think about that, it's that important. For those that only see a burden or imposition on their time or personal comfort, then perhaps democracy and the right to jury trial is too hard for you and this just isn't the country for you. :rolleyes:

Contempt of court.
 

My, my. Oh wow.

Say that, amigo, and that IS contempt. It is spitting in the face of the Court. And the Judge IS the court.

FYI, contempt of court is punishable by fines, and sometimes there is custodial punishment. And let me tell you, (ask any cop) you don't EVER want that, not even if you are going to be booked, printed and released.

Do you know what a contempt "hearing" is like? If you are guilty, the best you can get is "get out your checkbook, pay the fine now", usually what the judge decides it should be. For causing all that fuss, I would doubt it'd be less than $200

And do you think you get constitutional rights and standards of proof?
None of that stuff applies to contempt hearings.

"Contempt of court" is whatever the Judge thinks it is.

A mean-ass look could be enough.

Judges hate to hold contempt hearings, especially for jurors that make remarks like that, like you would make. But believe me, they would do it. Especially when respect for the Court is at issue. It does happen, not very often, but it does.

One time I saw a lawyer's jaw drop in amazement when he heard the Judge make a ruling that was adverse to him.

The Judge saw it too, and he was outraged at it, and thundered down at the lawyer:

"I WILL NOT HAVE MY RULINGS CHALLENGED BY THE FACIAL EXPRESSION OF COUNSEL!!!!!!!!"

This particular Judge was one of a handful of San Francisco Superior Court Judges who carried a large pistol underneath his black robes at all times, by the way.

There was NO doubt whatsoever in my mind, that if he felt the circumstances were correct, that he would not hesitate to use it.

That is pretty much the VERY exact thing most good Judges will tell the jury panel when they first sit down in the Courtroom, it is the first words out of the Judge's mouth that they will hear.

Congrats.........you just relegated yourself to the chair in the juror room..........for more waiting.............and more waiting.

After a week of this BS, they will finally let you go, in most cases.

Well put.......

However, I am in favor of what many courts call "jury reform."

I don't believe that jurors should be kept waiting, idly sitting in hallways or lounges without being informed of what is going on or why they are being held hostage. The biggest complaint from jurors and prospective jurors is the amount of wasted time, not the time spent hearing the case.

I am in favor of allowing jurors to submit written questions, moderated by the judge and counsel. Note-taking should be allowed as well, with instructions given about the use of one's personal notes.

I was called once, wasn't picked. It was a waste of a day (that I didn't get paid for because I had one of those, don't work don't get paid jobs), and I'd heard stories from people who once they were called, got called regularly every 2 years in VA.
I vote PITA. I'll do it if I have to though.

Yeah thats the kicker, I don't wait. I won't even stand in a line if it looks like its going to take longer than 10 minutes.

Luckly I have only been sent that letter once and when I called they didn't need me that day. Hopefully that will continue to happen until I die.

Probably you know the reason for that is that it facilitates the settlement of cases where there is not otherwise a reason to do so. Once the jury panel of prospective jurors is summoned into a Courtroom for voir dire, pretty much the time for talking and negotiating is done, now it is time for the trial in Court to commence.

Settlements do occur within the time of trial, or even as far along as during jury deliberations, and then the jurors are dismissed, wondering if all their work has been for naught. A good Judge would explain why it wasn't.


In most Courtrooms, (in California anyway) all the jurors (and alternate jurors) are routinely provided with notebooks and pencils, for taking notes, but are instructed by the Judge that those are to be considered subordinate to the evidence, testimony and legal instructions that are given by the Judge in Court.

Individual notes can be passed to the Judge during the trial, via the Court bailiff, if they relate to requests for witnesses to speak louder, bathroom breaks and requests of that sort.

During jury deliberations, notes signed by the jury foreman are given to the the Judge via the bailiff, requesting clarification of a law, requesting readback of testimony, results of a jury poll stating they are deadlocked, etc.

They are typically then read into the record, when the jurors, litigants, attorneys, and court reporter are all back in Court, and then the Judge addresses the contents of the jury note or question, Court being formally in session while this happens.

It is unclear why you think that should be reformed, unless you think that individual jurors should be able to ask questions routinely during the presentation of evidence and testimony.

......You must have a LOT more sympathy for illegal aliens than the rest of us do in this country.

Those people just HATE waiting in lines. They simply jump the border, no waiting for THEM.:D

Well thats a connection I didn't quite see, but if I was poor and in Mexico I'd be jumping that fence.:D


So Jim do you have a lot of fun doing jury duty?:D


Can you do it drunk? I could drink like a fish then stumble in, could be interesting!:D

I don't particularly like or dislike it, it is just something as US citizens we have to do sometimes, but I worked over 20 years with the jury commissioners and in the courts, so I pretty much know how it works, and was just trying to give you guys a little bit of a view from "the inside" that's all.

It would be pretty funny to see you come into on a jury panel really drunk.

It would even be funnier to see you inside the prisoners' holding cell once the Judge noticed you were drunk, or someone told him. A real laff riot, and the joke is on YOU:D

That's because this is really serious business to them, and their sense of humor is clearly lot different than yours when it comes to jury service.

(As for the illegals, most Americans don't like people that jump the line, whether it is at the grocery store, the bank, in traffic, at the movies, the border, or anywhere. It's in the culture that you are supposed to be patient, wait your turn. Jump the line and you will pi$$ off all the Americans who DID wait in whatever line you are talking about).

I had it for two weeks fall 2007. Pita sobering experience. The first case was civil where a lady crossing the street got hit by a 300 TD wagon. Two day trial and two full days of deliberation. Great fellow jurors. I was the foreman. Second case was criminal where the dude was charged with crack distribution. Two day trial and twenty minutes deliberation deciding if the dude should go to prison for the rest of his life. Total morons on that jury. We decided he was guilty and then in the next part of the trial decided his penalty. It has stuck with me that a group of morons could decide something so important. Heavy, sobering, pita experience. I tried to get out of the first one claiming busy work schedule. The second one i made an appointment to speak to the clerk, who is a state constitutional officer and acts like the mayor of our court system. I told him being the foreman on the first trial wiped me out emotionally (it was a nasty, complicated case) and that i wanted out. He thought about it for about two minutes before saying no.

Jury Nullification is starting to catch on in Virginia because of the new "Civil Remedial Fees" being applied only to Virginia residents. A traffic ticket here can now cost up to $3000, and a speeding ticket over a $1000 - if you are a resident of Virginia. People are appealing their traffic stops to higher court, where the juries are not convicting them.

Can the judge do anything to a juror that simply sits quietly and votes "not guilty" when the time comes? I know a jury is "hung" when a decision is not reached - and have to continue "deliberating" until the judge is satisfied a decision can not be reached. So how much time do you think a jury "nullifier" needs to say "I believe the defendent's testimony" before they call it quits on that case?

Ken300D

Jury nullification of traffic tickets. Why not?
 

I heard that fricken' place is the worst state for tickets in the whole country, even worse than Ohio. Didn't Dee8go say something about how bad it is there, the other day, I think he lives there too?

Even radar detectors are illegal there, aren't they?
I don't think I would ever want to drive through there.

It sounds more like revenue generation to me than making the place safe.
I hate that. Good on the people if they use jury nullification. Maybe sooner or later the state legislature will wise up, change the law, make it reasonable.
This country got started with the Boston Tea Party, that was all about ridiculous taxes.

The traffic tickets are criminal infractions usually. If you get a jury trial, on one, and you get a total not guilty vote, (12-0), you walk, you beat the charges. The prosecutor is all done, too, he can't try you again, you are innocent, double jeopardy applies.

But if the jury "hangs", one immoveable "not guilty" vote is all it takes, even if there are 11 for guilty, the DA has a tough decision. The Judge can NEVER force a juror to change his vote.

The prosecutor then can quit, or try the case against you all over again. Usually he has to first confer with his supervisor, and see whether the Prosecutor's office thinks it can get you the second time. If yes, they get another bite at the apple.

I doubt a prosecutor's office would try a second time, a traffic ticket case by jury if it hung the first time. But they could. Usually they try and talk to as many jurors right after the case is over, to see what happened. But mostly the jurors run right out the door when the case is over, they just want to get the hell out, they want to go home back to work, anywhere but there.

I hope every fricken' traffic ticket in the whole, benighted state of Virginia goes to jury trial, because if enough of them do, and get voided by jury nullification, the Court system there is going to be swamped and break under the weight and cost of jury trials for traffic tickets.

Then they would have to change it. It could work. Probably take less than a year or two, if EVERYONE demanded their jury trial, their day in Court, for their traffic tickets, to get things changed.

Some judges here allow jurors to submit written questions, while other don't. Written questions are passed to the judge via the clerk at the close of a witnesses direct and cross exam. The judge and counsel review the questions, objections can me made and placed on the record, but it's the judge that has the final say in whether the juror's question is posed and in what form. Counsel then have the ability to follow up with further questions if necessary.

There is some debate about how passive or active a jury should be.

Anytime that a municipality levies a fine of $1000. for a traffic infraction, they deserve to suffer the indignity of jury nullification for each and every violation.

The SOB's ought to learn that egregious fines are wholly inappropriate.

We had a similar thing here in the village. The magistrate was free to impose any violation up to $1000. for violation of any housing code. So, the code enforcement agents would come over to a rental property and write 20 tickets for any slight code violation. A cracked pane of glass........a bit of peeling paint..........etc.

The case would go to the judge and the village attorney would allow the violator to plea bargain. He's looking at $20K in fines..........$1K for each ticket.........so, the attorney offers to settle for $6K.:eek:

It got real ugly for awhile..........some folks paid a lot of money.

Finally "The Coalition of Landlords" took them to Federal Court for Federal Housing discrimination. It seems that minorities occupied most of the houses that were cited. They were going to lose the case and finally had to settle to the tune of about $400K............now that was sweet.:D

Yes. Engineers & scientists need not apply.

B

I have served on 2 here in Texas. First was a DUI. We did not know it at the time but I suspected that it was 3rd strike or a probation violation (we found out later that it was). We wanted so bad to convict but the cops played fast and loose with the facts so we have to acquit. The DA came in after ward to talk to us and we told her. Funny thing is the primary officer was a 20+ yr veteran with a PHD and a BS as well as being a chaplain, the secondary was younger but had a BS and was working on her masters. Had they just trusted us to do our job we would have put his as away for them.

The second one was earlier this year. It was a case involving a Insurance Co. suing an inspection company for a faulty inspection on a hotel that caught fire. hat was pretty interesting. The Defense attorney earned his pay that day. I would definitely use him if needed.

I was voted foreman on both. lol

I like serving on the jury. I have always been fascinated by the law. My company pays me so I do not loose anything. Not sure I could do a capital case though. Not sure I want to take someones life in my hands.

I have only served on a jury once. Mental health commitment case. Poor kid was drooling all over himself. Couldn't feed or dress himself, and his parents simply weren't able to take care of him. I never did understand why it took a jury trial for that case.

Got called another time but was dismissed on the first culling. That turned out to be a major drug case that went on for 5 weeks. The defendant went to Huntsville for 30 years or so in that case. I was pretty amazed when they called all the names of potential jurors. Only about 60% were present. I guess all they would have to do is say they never got the jury summons. There would be no way to prove otherwise.

Architects too, I think.

I guess most lawyers have seen "Twelve angry men". Where the principal star, an Architect, turned an 11 to one jury around to a 12 to none and aquitted a young hispanic man accused of murder on circumstantial evidence!

I would like to serve on one once though.

Tom W

Henry Fonda was an actor, not an architect. He might as well played an unemployed actor, as an architect.

I was asked to serve on the jury a couple times in the last 10 years. I was turned down because I wasn't a citizen. Lets see what the next few years will bring now that I have registered to vote.

I have had a drivers license since I was 16 and voted since 18. I was never ask to go on jury duty until I got a job with the Fed Gov and I was 32 years old. Ever since then I come up regularly every 2 years the exception being twice a space of 3 years (I am 56 years old now).
I am not buying the random drawing idea unless they are randomly drawing from a limited pool of people previously selected!

What is interesting is that If I was a citizen from another country I would never have to serve on the jury yet I would get the benifits of a jury trial!
Since 1980 I have actually sat on 3 criminal trials and off hand I have called to duty at least 5 other times beyond that.
What if the government kept "drafting" you over and over again?

It is my understanding that judges can over rule a jury decision. He/she has to have a good reason to do so as it of course is all recorded.

I don't think any judge is going to reverse a jury's finding of "not guilty".

Although, I've heard of the judge tossing out a guilty verdict due to lack of any credible evidence.

Or accountants it would seem.... I guess they don't want too many disciplined minds (those that will think with the brain and not the heart!):rolleyes:

I've been called a couple of times over the years and have been either not picked or excused for one reason or another, e.g. I knew one or more of the atorneys trying the case. I was dismissed by an attorney challenge once in a product liability (forklift) case that was going to take two weeks. Man, they were reaching deep into the bag of excuses to stay off that panel. :D

Here in NJ, they have a phone number to call at 4:00 pm the day before to see if you need to show up for Superior Court. The last time I was selected, they had no need for juries and I never had to show up at the court house. Saves wasting a lot of time.


A good friend of mine went to municipal court last month with a family member who had shown his/her sibling's drivers license when stopped for speeding. He was pretty worried and had to hire a lawyer to defend the guilty child. Cuts a deal behind closed doors with the prosecutor to "just transfer the name on the ticket" from one sibling to the other. He even got the ticket speed reduced from 59 to 49 in a 35 mph zone ( where there is a double fine in a construction zone too). Ended up paying 200.00 plus 33.00court costs. 2 points on the drivers license. No questions from the judge on why the other sib's license was given to the cop.

MY friend was worried he would have to pony up a couple of grand if they tossed in some criminal charges (false ID,etc.) on top of the $1,500 the lawyer charged. And the prosecutor is well known as a go by the book straight arrow.

All in all a very fortunate result for my friend!;)

Wise words.

Any trial lawyers in the house?

I'm thinking about why a DA or defense attorney might wish exclude accountants, engineers, architects, scientists, etc. What they share is an interest in the real, factual, and logical. Why would a lawyer want that bit excluded? I think it's because lawyers are more comfortable making emotional appeals than constructing a a fact-based, logical argument. Also, people trained in analyzing and connecting facts are more likely to notice flaws in arguments.

B

PS I have been called a few times and once for a fed jury. I have always been excused without any questioning. Is that a preemptory challenge? I know everything about law from what I have seen on TV.

On the two that i was on, the jury started out as 31 folks and each side got to dismiss 7 people. Anyone who was fat, old, nerdy, skinny, not white, ugly, dressed too well or not well enough got let go. Strange process.

Law of the land. In BFE, a certain action is legal. Here it isn't. You get tried by the current standards of the land.

So? I wouldn't have a problem with them doing that. IT IS YOUR DUTY.

I've only had my name come up once so far (probably just jinxed myself ;)) and was let go by 2:30-3:00. I really don't and wouldn't mind it. It was the only time I've been able to sit down and read a book, uninterrupted for any amount of time.

I would think it depends on the case you have. After all, if your case is factual, you would want somebody who views in black and white. If your case is weak, you certainly would want to be able to be able to sway the 12 clowns with your silver tongue.

There are many "old wives tales" concerning jury members. Typical are the "women are harsher" on a female litigant compared to men; doctors and nurses are less sympathetic to claims of injury since they've "seen worse"; there needs to be a majority of "followers" with only a few "leaders."

Each lawyer has their own view of the best jury panel for their client. There's really no profile or substitute for asking a prospective juror a question and looking directly at them to get a feel for what type of juror they might be. Despite what jury consultants tell you, it's still an art, not a science and it's always interesting and rather routine that the initial opinion about a juror goes 180 after they deliberate. The person you thought was on "your side" turns out not.