But you'll be the first one crying for a jury if you're ever on trial.
My employer gave me paid time off for jury duty, no loss of income for me. A giant bore but I wouldn't try to get out of it if asked.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jury Duty Experiences
- Thread starter Doctor Q
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But you'll be the first one crying for a jury if you're ever on trial.
My employer gave me paid time off for jury duty, no loss of income for me. A giant bore but I wouldn't try to get out of it if asked.
The court loves jurors whose employers pay them during jury duty, because they can keep them for long trials without them claiming financial hardship. They don't accept that as a valid excuse for a single day of jury duty but they put you last in line for multiple days of service if your employer pays you nothing.
Yeah, like that would be a large enough pool for every court.
No, you can't volunteer for jury duty. I've been called four times, served on three juries. And I've only lived here for 24 years.
Yeah, like that would be a large enough pool for every court.
Oh well, not my problem
I just wish everyone had your attitude. I'd like to see how anarchy really works.
BTW, hope you didn't sustain much damage from that "over-hyped" hurricane. Did you get any help from neighbors? from government??
I'd like to see how anarchy really works.
Really? A good start would be:
http://www.amazon.com/Homage-Catalonia-Penguin-Modern-Classics/dp/0141187379
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Consider the reverse - you're the defendant in a case to be decided by a jury of your peers. Would you want the people you've just listed to be the ones deciding your case, or would you rather have someone like you, educated, hard working, tax paying? Serving on a jury isn't supposed to be something you enjoy. It's a public service, designed to help make the trial process as fair as possible.
No, of course not.
Nice try, but the government assistance angle didn't seem to have an effect, so...
This. Seems like it'd be a pretty important step to include everyone to prevent some sort of consistently skewed jury population, no?
Sitting in the Jury Assembly Room and told they are short of jurors today! So much for the early release... :-/
A very nice recommendation.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Not that weird, but it was a cool way to get out of jury duty:
As they assessed the jury pool they gave out very little information about the case (naturally). Nevertheless it seemed strangely familiar. Finally, they gave us the claimants name and names of people associated with the case. Sure enough my wife was one of them. She had represented this guy on a related matter. I actually knew a lot about the case becuase she would bitch about her most obnoxious clients and this guy was the most obnoxious one.
I was down to the short list of people so I was pretty happy. It was the best reason anyone gave at any rate.
She had gotten him a pretty decent offer on her case but he turned it down. (Due to the interrelated nature of this, taking a settlement on her part of the case would weaken this one, and he wanted to go for the big money.) Of course as we found out later, he lost this case outright.
As they assessed the jury pool they gave out very little information about the case (naturally). Nevertheless it seemed strangely familiar. Finally, they gave us the claimants name and names of people associated with the case. Sure enough my wife was one of them. She had represented this guy on a related matter. I actually knew a lot about the case becuase she would bitch about her most obnoxious clients and this guy was the most obnoxious one.
I was down to the short list of people so I was pretty happy. It was the best reason anyone gave at any rate.
She had gotten him a pretty decent offer on her case but he turned it down. (Due to the interrelated nature of this, taking a settlement on her part of the case would weaken this one, and he wanted to go for the big money.) Of course as we found out later, he lost this case outright.
I was on jury duty 2 days ago. They never called my name for a jury pool, so I sat there all day reading Apple developer documentation.
I've been summoned for Jury Duty dozens of times (once I received a summon from 2 separate courts for the same week.), but I don't pass the first round of selections 90% of the time.
Anyone remember the Enron scandal from a few years back? I was summoned for the JD in the case of the accounting firm that handled Enron's books, Arthur Anderson. Gawd I wanted to chosen for that trial. I guess the lawyers didn't like the answers on the questionnaire. Either that or they wanted jurors with trial experience.
Anyhow, I found this guy's creative way of getting out of jury duty. Funny, funny stuff.
), but I don't pass the first round of selections 90% of the time.Anyone remember the Enron scandal from a few years back? I was summoned for the JD in the case of the accounting firm that handled Enron's books, Arthur Anderson. Gawd I wanted to chosen for that trial. I guess the lawyers didn't like the answers on the questionnaire.
Either that or they wanted jurors with trial experience.Anyhow, I found this guy's creative way of getting out of jury duty. Funny, funny stuff.
Attachments
Ironically, I was summoned yesterday. Not for a few weeks, though, and for a ninety day window of availability. Forty bucks a day plus 56¢ a mile - and tolls.
Update: The last time I had jury duty, I was not called, sat around the assembly room for 7 hours.
Today, I actually got called in a jury pool of 24 people for a misdemeanor drunk driving case. I was weened our during Voir Dire (jury selection/elimination, depending on your perspective) and I learned what people say to avoid sitting on a jury.
During the process of Voir Dire, first the judge talked to us about the process, explaining how it would work, but also eliciting answers from the jury regarding perspective and the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" versus "beyond all doubt", which the former is a personal standard, but the lawyers were keenly interested on where the jurors set their individual bar.
If you say that you view what all authority figures (such as law enforcement) testimony as gospel/proof you will be eliminated by the Defense. As a general standard if you disregard an authority figure's testimony in itself as proving something like being drunk, (beyond a reasonable doubt), you will be eliminated by the Prosecution. And if you say you hold it against a defendant if they don't testify in their own defense, or if you say that you are biased against an individual just because they have been cited (by authority) you be eliminated.
I was called up to the bench by the judge and asked this specifically: without a breathalyzer, could I accept the testimony of law enforcement as proof that an individual was intoxicated? I said that depends on the individual. In a friendly exchange I was told they needed a yes or no answer. When pushed, my answer was that there are tons of good officers out there, but there also bad officers and unfortunately without corroborating evidence of a breathalyzer or a video, I could not accept the testimony of one law enforcement officer as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I was dismissed by the Prosecution. Ok, by me.
The jury pool was reduced down to 6 individuals from 24. I was surprised, thinking it would be more like 12 down to 6.
During this phase of the trial, I learned something very interesting. Although this was the Voir Dire phase, the defense lawyer went out of his way to tell the jury pool, about breathalyzers. That there is only one company in the country that makes these devices, that this company has a patent on the hardware and software and no one at the local law enforcement level have anything to do with the calibration or testing of these machines, which if I remember correctly are calibrated once a year. There are no daily checks of this equipment. I don't know how many of you work with machines that need calibration, but this really got my attention. The lawyer had expertly placed doubt into my mind, and maybe many of the jury. Enlight of my dismissal from the jury pool, I don't know if this aspect would figure in this particular case or not.
Secondly I learned that in Texas there is no law that requires you to take a breathalyzer test or be found guilty. For this I go back to my Airline pilot experience, where this was the case- if you got random drug tested and refused, you would be terminated for cause. There is no requirement to submit to a breathalyzer in Texas, which leads me to say that if you have been drinking there is no need to incriminate yourself with a breathalyzer.
I also learned that the U.S. as compared to Canada and England, of the 3 countries, the U.S. is the only one that guarantees a jury trial. This was said, while they were telling us what an important job we were doing. Interesting, I did not know or had forgotten that! Anyway, I'm happy I dodged the bullet this time.
Surprised that I never noticed this thread.
I was summoned for jury duty twice. One time I was told I didn't need to report, so I didn't.. the other time.....
I was not only called in with a few people, but a co-worker of mine was also called in for the same case. You would think that that would be a problem, as we worked together and would be on the same jury, on top of the fact that I'm the son of a LEO who worked in a courthouse, albeit a different city.
Both of us were selected for that particular case, which was an aggravated assault/domestic violence issue. Why, we still have no idea to this day.
Either way, the defendant took a plea deal because of his ailing health.
BL.
I was summoned for jury duty twice. One time I was told I didn't need to report, so I didn't.. the other time.....
I was not only called in with a few people, but a co-worker of mine was also called in for the same case. You would think that that would be a problem, as we worked together and would be on the same jury, on top of the fact that I'm the son of a LEO who worked in a courthouse, albeit a different city.
Both of us were selected for that particular case, which was an aggravated assault/domestic violence issue. Why, we still have no idea to this day.
Either way, the defendant took a plea deal because of his ailing health.
BL.
I've been summoned for Jury Duty dozens of times (once I received a summon from 2 separate courts for the same week.
Anyone remember the Enron scandal from a few years back? I was summoned for the JD in the case of the accounting firm that handled Enron's books, Arthur Anderson. Gawd I wanted to chosen for that trial. I guess the lawyers didn't like the answers on the questionnaire.
Anyhow, I found this guy's creative way of getting out of jury duty. Funny, funny stuff.
Hilarious!
I was kidding with another potential juror is all you have to do is say "They are all guilty!"
This wouldn't happen in the courts I've been in, here in Los Angeles. Here's what happens instead:
Judge: "Is there anyone who thinks they should be excused because they can't be fair and impartial?"
Potential juror, clearly trying to get our of jury duty: "I don't trust the police. I never believe them." (OR) "I always trust anything the police say." (OR) "Anybody who is accused is probably guilty." (OR) "If the defendant doesn't testify they are probably guilty."
Judge: "You are required by law to judge the evidence that's presented rather than to make judgements ahead of time. You are required by law to presume the defendant is innocent, even though they are on trial and may not testify. ARE YOU GOING TO VIOLATE THE LAW?"
Potential juror, suddenly meek: "No."
Judge: "You are not excused."
Potential juror, clearly trying to get our of jury duty: "I don't trust the police. I never believe them." (OR) "I always trust anything the police say." (OR) "Anybody who is accused is probably guilty." (OR) "If the defendant doesn't testify they are probably guilty."
Judge: "You are required by law to judge the evidence that's presented rather than to make judgements ahead of time. You are required by law to presume the defendant is innocent, even though they are on trial and may not testify. ARE YOU GOING TO VIOLATE THE LAW?"
Potential juror, suddenly meek: "No."
Judge: "You are not excused."
With what I witnessed, it was the prosecution and defense that were eliminating jurors based on these statements. It's their right to strike jurors that they see as prejudicial to their position. If someone believes that the police are always right, that is a reaction to and maybe a blind trust in authority. They can be scolded, but what other judgement would you expect to get from that person? The court can't tell them how to vote.
In my case I can say I am impartial, but I am not likely to automatically believe the testimony of a officer of the law, by virtue of their position, if this is the only evidence for conviction. Should I assume that every officer that testifies in court is telling the truth?
In my case, the judge interviewed each potential juror before the attorneys had their shot at them. Since the judge had already asked questions relevant to the case, and challenged any juror who claimed an excuse, the attorneys didn't end up asking many questions. They pretty much knew who they wanted to dismiss based on the judge's interviews. It seemed pretty efficient to me, and a good warning to jurors about their responsibilities.
Yeah, like that would be a large enough pool for every court.
I think you'd be surprised how many rights-demanding "patrons" won't lift a finger to get a job, get a disability for being fat, and expect all the privilege of life in these United States without any thought of contributing to society.
They may not fill every court, but they likely would fill a very, very large percentage of them.
...but would I want a jury made of lazy, uninitiated leeches? No.
I've been conscripted for duty three times and each time it's been appealed, put off, whatever. One time it was the night before and it was rescheduled.
And yes, Judges can be hard nosed about it; it's the lawyers who scratch the names because they don't want wildcards in the seats. My aunt went once, and sat there and said she thought the guy being charged should be castrated and shot. She was promptly excused.
I was just summoned for jury duty this week. I was passed on as my group was not needed, but to be perfectly honest, I am happy to serve if needed. This comment...
is really part of a larger problem that I see in America right now. We are all very selfish and don't want to help yet are the first to cry for it when we need it. Just because you are a hard working, tax paying person doesn't give you the right to shirk your civic duties. In fact, that is pretty much anti-American if you ask me.
is really part of a larger problem that I see in America right now. We are all very selfish and don't want to help yet are the first to cry for it when we need it. Just because you are a hard working, tax paying person doesn't give you the right to shirk your civic duties. In fact, that is pretty much anti-American if you ask me.