People who duck jury duty

[mpolans]

In times when we have more than enough problems with government encroachment on our rights and when people claim about crazy jury verdicts, it's tragic that we have folks who are so eager to get out of the one position where they have the most direct input in how our government works. It might be the only position where Joe Blow ordinary citizen can stop the government dead in its tracks from enforcing a particular policy.

[XRe]

Not to mention that the lawyers (and sometimes the judges) involved are trying to insure that they only have the "lowest common denominator" types (read: highly malleable) sit on juries... Its quite important to try to fill that jury selection pool with intelligent people to insure that law suits are resolved correctly...

[JimmyZip]

The three times that I have been to the selection process I have been eliminated. One was a use of force trial, one a DUI, and one a questionable "rape" case. (questionable in that it was statutory, not forced and the case was eventually dismissed) I wouldn't have minded to sit through and decide, but they just don't like me.

It is strange to me though that we all want our right to a jury trial but we bitch about having to sit on one. Seems counterproductive and selfish.

Edited September 26, 2008 by JimmyZip

[XRe]

they just don't like me.

You do use deodorant, don't you???

[BritinUSA]

I did jury duty once in UK. I sat on three cases, one not guilty, one guilty and the last one was amazing. Some guy accused of attacking another guy with a beer glass. At lunch time we and the witnesses etc. were told not to discuss the case with anyone over lunch. As we left the court room some of us jurors noticed the accusers (there were 3 of them) discussing the case. Two of them had already given evidence and were coaching the 3rd on what to say to get this kid sent to jail.

I lost track of them in the crowds but another juror followed them to a pub and heard even more evidence that they were lying about what happened. We both reported the incident to the judge. The whole thing came out in the trial in the afternoon, the kid was found not guilty and all charges dismissed.

Decent responsible people, need to do jury duty to prevent injustice, we are all responsible for our justice system.

It's a duty and an obligation, dammit.

Edited September 26, 2008 by BritinUSA

[Carmoney]

Not to mention that the lawyers (and sometimes the judges) involved are trying to insure that they only have the "lowest common denominator" types (read: highly malleable) sit on juries...

That's largely a misapprehension, Dave. Good lawyers with good cases want smart juries. In my civil trial practice, I work very hard to avoid trying cases that can't be made with a straight face to a group of smart people. As a result, my win/loss ratio is very high.

It is frustrating when people duck jury duty. Despite the initial reluctance to commit the time and effort, most people who serve as a juror wind up enjoying the experience.

[ChuckS]

Yup, hate it. JD is just part of your payment for living in this country. PAY IT.

[JThompson]

I did jury duty once in UK. I sat on three cases, one not guilty, one guilty and the last one was amazing. Some guy accused of attacking another guy with a beer glass. At lunch time we and the witnesses etc. were told not to discuss the case with anyone over lunch. As we left the court room some of us jurors noticed the accusers (there were 3 of them) discussing the case. Two of them had already given evidence and were coaching the 3rd on what to say to get this kid sent to jail.

I lost track of them in the crowds but another juror followed them to a pub and heard even more evidence that they were lying about what happened. We both reported the incident to the judge. The whole thing came out in the trial in the afternoon, the kid was found not guilty and all charges dismissed.

Decent responsible people, need to do jury duty to prevent injustice, we are all responsible for our justice system.

It's a duty and an obligation, dammit.

EDIT: Just noticed this was in the hate forum... removed for violating forum rules.

Edited September 26, 2008 by JThompson

[AikiDale]

Not to mention that the lawyers (and sometimes the judges) involved are trying to insure that they only have the "lowest common denominator" types (read: highly malleable) sit on juries... Its quite important to try to fill that jury selection pool with intelligent people to insure that law suits are resolved correctly...

So.... have you ever been on a jury Dave?

I've been around long enough to have been called twice for a total of five weeks. I have never spend the day in the jury pool room reading a book. All the lawyers and judges, well at least in Kentucky, must think I'm highly malleable.

[JimmyZip]

they just don't like me.

You do use deodorant, don't you???

..er..um...well, sometimes

[XRe]

That's largely a misapprehension, Dave. Good lawyers with good cases want smart juries. In my civil trial practice, I work very hard to avoid trying cases that can't be made with a straight face to a group of smart people. As a result, my win/loss ratio is very high.

I should have said "many lawyers", and not implied "all" Like any other profession, some are good and some aren't...

So.... have you ever been on a jury Dave?

No - but not for lack of trying. Been called up twice. The first time, the two cases we were convened for didn't go anywhere - one was delayed (a death in the prosecutor's family) and the other plead out. The second time, I was juror #15, and only 3 were rejected, so I missed selection by one. Its unclear whether I would have been rejected by one of the lawyers or not, based on my responses during the voir dire process.

I've been around long enough to have been called twice for a total of five weeks. I have never spend the day in the jury pool room reading a book. All the lawyers and judges, well at least in Kentucky, must think I'm highly malleable.

We could've told you that already

[LPatterson]

I was in one trial where we were sure the guy the guy was guilty of causing the accident but because the Highway Patrolman that investigated the accident had been killed, we were unable to hear evidence about a citation. After the trial we were told the guy's insurance company had been ready to plead out until the officer had been killed. Because the officer was dead the citation was not admissable even though the guy had paid the ticket, this trial was civil for pain and suffering dragging on 5 years later.

Now I just tell them I was in law enforcement once and they don't want me. That's worked for the 2 trials I have been called for in the last 8 years.

editted for missing words

Edited September 26, 2008 by LPatterson

[CSEMARTIN]

Since so many people want to be jurors and they ultimately "enjoy the experience", maybe we need a system in this country where jury duty is done on a volunteer basis?

[Fireant]

Since so many people want to be jurors and they ultimately "enjoy the experience", maybe we need a system in this country where jury duty is done on a volunteer basis?

It is, you want to vote? You just volunteered.

[j2fast]

I used to cringe at the thought of JD service but anymore I enjoy being part of the process. I've been on a federal trial, a couple of state circuit courts, and ended up being the foreman of a grand jury. The grand jury experience was very enlightening; over the course of 3 days we covered some where in the neighborhood of 60 cases. Over the course of the next year after the grand jury I think close to 40-50% of the cases we heard evidence from the DA on didn't lead to convictions.

I feel like I'm a pretty reasonable person and my thoughts are that I would rather have someone like me on a jury if my fate were in its hands then someone with an ax to grind so I'm happy to serve.

[Viggen]

Since so many people want to be jurors and they ultimately "enjoy the experience", maybe we need a system in this country where jury duty is done on a volunteer basis?

It is, you want to vote? You just volunteered.

Never mind.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Viggen

[Tin Can]

Wow, I think I just made G.M. at something! I have been called over a dozen times, made it to selection four times and served on a Federal Grand Jury for a year. I am pretty much done with jury duty (I hope)

T.C.

[Carmoney]

Funny how some people get called for jury dury all the time, while some never seem to get called. (It's not necessarily based on voting records, by the way.) I'm on every list out there, listed phone number, property owner, taxpayer, voter, you name it.....I'm 42 years old and I've never been called for jury duty. Never once. On the other hand, my mother-in-law seems to be called for jury duty every couple of years. Weird how it works.

[Carmoney]

Since so many people want to be jurors and they ultimately "enjoy the experience", maybe we need a system in this country where jury duty is done on a volunteer basis?

Hold on now, I don't want jurors that are too excited about being there, they tend to be the little nazi types who see the world only in terms of black and white, and are simply looking for an opportunity to exercise power over others. I understand reluctance, and I know it can be inconvenient. I want jurors who understand it's important and necessary to serve when called, and who are willing to perform their duty to our judicial system, and our society at large, even though it may be inconvenient. I consider those people my peers, and I ever got called into court as a defendant myself, I would want to be judged by my peers.

[Wakal]

I've been called up three times in five years; I never even made it past the pre-screening phone call.

"Job?"

"Military."

"Thank you, don't bother coming down to the courthouse."

My father got out of jury duty (not that he wanted to get out of it) by owning his own gun shop. He was removed from several cases on the "what do you do?" question.

I hate that. If called, I will serve. Turning me away, though, due to my job...sigh.

Alex

Edited September 27, 2008 by Wakal

[MarkS_A18138]

I think they just stop calling me because I was out of the area every time one came in....Have to love the life of a field tech! I did go once to a Fed one..It was cool! To bad I knew the guy on trial, he was a drug dealer that was at the drag strip every weekend! Gave him 18 months because they found 1.5 mil in his racecar trailer and on probation for conspiracy to sell drugs!!

[sargenv]

I've been excused at least 3 or 4 times locally and the one time I was picked for a federal trial, it was settled out of court and we were all excused. The last one I was all ready to work the whole trial, about a 3 week period, since my work pays for at least the first two weeks while I am off work and may optionally pay me to work it if longer than 2 weeks. I was happy to be there. I guess I was playing it a little too fair as the prosecuting atty excused me. *shrug* I tried

[JKSNIPER]

Now being an L.E.O. is no longer an automatic exemption.

I've been called several times and each time I've filled out the questionaire and have never been called to the courthouse.

My wife got called to the courthouse and picked for a jury and they were all excited to be on a jury when the case was settled at the last minute and they were then all excused.

Part of living in America I guess.

JK

[Neomet]

Not to mention that the lawyers (and sometimes the judges) involved are trying to insure that they only have the "lowest common denominator" types (read: highly malleable) sit on juries...

That's largely a misapprehension, Dave. Good lawyers with good cases want smart juries. In my civil trial practice, I work very hard to avoid trying cases that can't be made with a straight face to a group of smart people. As a result, my win/loss ratio is very high.

+100 The absolute last people I want to see in a jury box are "highly malleable". They are complete wild cards. They are as likely to be molded by plaintiff's counsel, the cute woman sitting next to them in the jury box, or the fact that the defendant is wearing white after Labor Day. Again, this is in civil cases, but I have never wanted a case to go to trial where I was relying on the jury being dumb enough to buy a line of crap. My hope is that they are smart enough to grasp the applicable law and be guided by that and the merits of our case, rather than their emotions.

[Viggen]

Since so many people want to be jurors and they ultimately "enjoy the experience", maybe we need a system in this country where jury duty is done on a volunteer basis?

Hold on now, I don't want jurors that are too excited about being there, they tend to be the little nazi types who see the world only in terms of black and white, and are simply looking for an opportunity to exercise power over others. I understand reluctance, and I know it can be inconvenient. I want jurors who understand it's important and necessary to serve when called, and who are willing to perform their duty to our judicial system, and our society at large, even though it may be inconvenient. I consider those people my peers, and I ever got called into court as a defendant myself, I would want to be judged by my peers.

Around here if you don't show for jury duty when summoned, about every `12-18 months, the kind master issues a Warrant for your arrest. Does this lead to irritation, reluctance and disrespect toward the court business? My guess is that it might. Voluntary and being able to choose would be a nice thing. Maybe someday they will let us choose .