NationStates Jolt Archive

For the first time in my life, I have been summoned to Jury Duty. Amazing. Have to report May 1st. How exciting! Of course, all my friends are giving me creative ways to get out of it and there are a couple of ways I can excuse myself, but I see this as my civic duty and take it as seriously as voting.

Depends on the case, I suppose. My hippie ways would get me out of serving on any capital punishment case or marijuana case. Of course, it could be a civil trial. Law suit or somethin'.

Guess I'll have to wait and see.

I've been called twice and deferred twice, once because it was my last semester in college and the duty would have been during finals week (I actually asked the judge if he could reschedule me for a week later and he declined), and the other time because the trial was expected to be 4 months long and I'd already bought a plane ticket to go out of town. I never got called back in either case, but I would like to serve at some point.

I hope you don't have any long-term committments. Fraud trials have been known to collapse years in, with the departure of jurors to look after newborn offspring and even departure from the mortal coil.

i dont know why people are so desperate to get out of jury duty. seems like a nice excuse for a few days doing something completely different

although i wonder if you wont be wasting your time. it would be very frustrating to show up only to be dismissed by one sides pre-emptory challenge (if thats what its called) i think you would be entirely too free thinking to be trusted to give the verdict that either attorney would be wanting.

I hope you don't have any long-term committments. Fraud trials have been known to collapse years in, with the departure of jurors to look after newborn offspring and even departure from the mortal coil.
Just claim you have some kind of conflict of interest in such a case.

I never got called back in either case, but I would like to serve at some point.
Why?

Excuses don't always work...my mom said she watches CSI a lot (many other people who said they watch it got declined), but she was taken. A murder case with a Mexican man...I think an illegal too.

Just claim you have some kind of conflict of interest in such a case.
Sounds like a plan. Three years of slideshow presentations on off balance sheet entity maneuvers is where my civic responsibility ends.

Why?
Because I'm a geek. I find the law fascinating--not that I would ever want to practice it, just observe it.

My nightmare is that its a child custody case. I don't think I could do that. Though I don't think they do juries on those. Can't remember.

Good for you! As long as you're honest and have good judgement, there's nothing opposing you being a juror. Just remember one thing. If the bastard is guilty, make sure he gets the maximum punishment!

(I'm aspiring to be a judge one day, so there you just got a sneek preview on how I'll sentence people if guilty...)

My nightmare is that its a child custody case. I don't think I could do that. Though I don't think they do juries on those. Can't remember.

I believe a judge does child custody. Juries do get rape cases though and that could be even worse.

I believe a judge does child custody. Juries do get rape cases though and that could be even worse.

Gah ... yeah that could be harsh. I really would not want to look at the evidence.

You get paid for being in jury duty by your employer if you are away from work? In the NT, you get paid $20 per day (no case) or $60 by the government if you are on a case.

A perfect way to get not to get picked for jury duty is to start humming the theme to "Night Court"...

Vote not guilty, and stick to your guns.

It's your civil duty.

Vote not guilty, and stick to your guns.

It's your civil duty.

Heh, I believe that's civic duty and I'd say that voting guilty will most likely be the result. Other then a few special cases, the person is guilty and defense lawyers offer pathetic explinations as why there isn't enough evidence. Sad really.

Heh, I believe that's civic duty and I'd say that voting guilty will most likely be the result. Other then a few special cases, the person is guilty and defense lawyers offer pathetic explinations as why there isn't enough evidence. Sad really.

Most really guilty people plea bargain.

It takes some stones to be guilty and run through court system anyway. Despite what people tell you about 'technicalities".

In addition, he'll probably be hearing one of those bullshit marijuana cases, where people shouldn't go to prison anyway,

Most really guilty people plea bargain.

If the crime is serious enough the prosecuter will often refuse to deal. A horrid crime and a solid case? No way I'd let the asshole plea. Others are arrogant enough to think they can get off, plenty of juries are idiots, just look at the Twinkie defense.

I've avoided jury duty most the time except once - being an IT support officer seems to work :p

(0) Ring special phone number once a day to see if you are required. If not go to work or whatever.
(1) Go to special special building
(2) Give sheriff your mobile phone
(3) Sit around doing nothing until sheriff calls
(4) Get shuffled into court room
(5) Listen to judge ramble on
(6) Someone does the lottery like on TV
(7) If you get called, walk to towards spot to talk to judge
(8) Defense or prosecution can remove you as you get there

...

as far as I got ...

If it's anything like I hear from certain cartoon sources, they give you FIVE DOLLARS for breakfast and you get to hang out with Charles Barkley.

If the crime is serious enough the prosecuter will often refuse to deal. A horrid crime and a solid case? No way I'd let the asshole plea. Others are arrogant enough to think they can get off, plenty of juries are idiots, just look at the Twinkie defense.

Harvey Milk,

And your point is well taken. Indeed, some jurisdicitons have a "no-plea" system - though it is the minority.

Nevertheless, on the balance of probablities, you should enter the courtroom with the attitude that the defendant is innocent. Especially considering that the police are most likely involved.

Not guilty is the order of the day, unless the prosecution does something spectacular.

Harvey Milk,

And your point is well taken. Indeed, some jurisdicitons have a "no-plea" system - though it is the minority.

Nevertheless, on the balance of probablities, you should enter the courtroom with the attitude that the defendant is innocent. Especially considering that the police are most likely involved.

Not guilty is the order of the day, unless the prosecution does something spectacular.

Innocent until proven guilty, yep. The fact is though that despite what is on TV, prosecutors won't go to trial on a weak case, wouldn't want to look like a fool. If a solid case was made, I'd vote to convict and ignore the defense lawyers annoying "what ifs". To them you need to see the crime on tape, and even THAT doesn't guarentee a conviction. Shameful really.

I hope you get an interesting, gritty case, with sordid details that you can then share with us. Preferably involving a politician or a celebrity. And some sex.

Innocent until proven guilty, yep. The fact is though that despite what is on TV, prosecutors won't go to trial on a weak case, wouldn't want to look like a fool. If a solid case was made, I'd vote to convict and ignore the defense lawyers annoying "what ifs". To them you need to see the crime on tape, and even THAT doesn't guarentee a conviction. Shameful really.


No, prosecutors will go to trial on a weak case. I don't know who told you that. They have no downside to losing.

Sucks to be you if they do however. Moreover, much of their evidence is provided by the police, who are generally untrustworthy individuals themselves.

I've yet to be called for Jury Duty but every male on the Italian side of my family (excluding myself) have served in the Italian Army whether it be the CoTIE or the COMFOD 1 and 80% of the males and females on my mother's side of the family have been in the Air Force or Marines (with a grandmother in Army chemical school) which would get me out of most Jury Duty positions. Although, if that doesn't work there are always the 2 cops, and 4 Federal Investigators that I'm related to. :p

Although, hopefully you can get out of any really long cases.

My husband got called once for a murder case... but the case plead, so he never made the jury. I've never actually been called for jury duty. I'd love to be actually put on a jury, though. It'd just be pretty cool to have that power, just once at least. My mom one time got put on a jury for some robbery case... kinda a petty thing, but whatever. It plead too after the closing arguments, so the jury never actually got to a verdict. Now THAT would be lousy.

I was selected for jury duty once, but I was kinda stationed in Germany at the time, so I was deferred. I tried to get my unit to let me fly back for jury duty, but they didn't want to hear it.

I have Jury Duty on starting April 24. I'm actually looking forward to it. It'll get me out of the office (hopefully). Besides, I see it as part of the responsibility of living in a relatively free society.

Been called 3 times and tossed 3 times.

Didn't do anything in particular. However, a lawyer friend explained it was because I look like a thinker and will ponder things rather then be swayed by emotional arguments. He said many lawyers don't like that.....

Been called 3 times and tossed 3 times.

Didn't do anything in particular. However, a lawyer friend explained it was because I look like a thinker and will ponder things rather then be swayed by emotional arguments. He said many lawyers don't like that.....

I'd expect the crown/prosecution to dislike it more then the defence.

For the first time in my life, I have been summoned to Jury Duty. Amazing. Have to report May 1st. How exciting! Of course, all my friends are giving me creative ways to get out of it and there are a couple of ways I can excuse myself, but I see this as my civic duty and take it as seriously as voting.

Depends on the case, I suppose. My hippie ways would get me out of serving on any capital punishment case or marijuana case. Of course, it could be a civil trial. Law suit or somethin'.

Guess I'll have to wait and see.
I served as a jurist on a murder case. It lasted 3 weeks. It was shortly after the death penalty had been abolished. Verdict------Guilty!!

*hugs our better juryless system for sparing him the inanity of spending days with 11 other schmucks who know nowhere near enough about the law, but are still to render an opinion on it*

Tribunerals own, bitch!

*hugs our better juryless system for sparing him the inanity of spending days with 11 other schmucks who know nowhere near enough about the law, but are still to render an opinion on it*

Tribunerals own, bitch!
I think in Canada, the defence and prosecution and agree to have a tribunal instead of a trial by jury.

*hugs our better juryless system for sparing him the inanity of spending days with 11 other schmucks who know nowhere near enough about the law, but are still to render an opinion on it*

Tribunerals own, bitch!We have a semi-jury system here...
At least one judge, and depending on the case, an even number of other judges or citizens ("Schöffen") that have equal say in the case.

*hugs our better juryless system for sparing him the inanity of spending days with 11 other schmucks who know nowhere near enough about the law, but are still to render an opinion on it*

Tribunerals own, bitch!
I think there was a standup comic who commented on the problems of the jury-system:

"You know the system is broken when the only people serving on juries are the people who are too stupid to get out of jury-duty."

I don't like the present jury system... :(

No, prosecutors will go to trial on a weak case. I don't know who told you that. They have no downside to losing.

Sucks to be you if they do however. Moreover, much of their evidence is provided by the police, who are generally untrustworthy individuals themselves.*nods*
I had a friend whose son was put on trial for murder. She was given a lot of time of work to be her son's defense and she didn't have enough to get a lawyer. From what I remember, before the trial started a witness gave a statement naming her son as the murderer. The only problem is the witness gave her son's official name on his birth certificate. NO ONE calls him by that name, not even his school records have him under that name. The only way the witness could have got that name is if he had been fed it by the police. Seeing as this wtiness was the main piece of evidence the rest of case collapsed with his credibility.

I was summoned for jury duty last year. It was for an urban shooting, and the defense asked if any prospective jurors had known anyone who got shot. I raised my hand, and I was one of the people who got dismissed from jury duty that day.

One way of avoid jury duty is become a Catholic priest or some other religious minister in Australia. :p

Depends on the case, I suppose. My hippie ways would get me out of serving on any capital punishment case or marijuana case. Of course, it could be a civil trial. Law suit or somethin'.

Did you get busted for
a) trying to break someone out of death row
b) possessing marijuana
c) both?

Wow - ya'll have a different view of the jury system than I do.

In my experience, people rarely try to get out of jury duty. The one guy I saw try was about 19 years old and had obviously been told to get out of jury duty he had a conflict of interest that would not allow him to decide the case fairly. It was obvious he was repeating something he was told to say and the judge made him pay for it by scaring him to death. The judge took over and questioned him for a good 10 minutes and let the kid know he could be in big trouble for lying to these questions. The kid was sweating bullets! Judge finally let him go - but I guarantee you, he will never try that again.

Just go and be honest. The likelihood you will be picked is slim as is the liklihood that the trial will be a long one. Most jury trials are no more than 2 or 3 days. Some will be longer. The more complex the case, the longer the trial.

Also, it is not your job to know the law. The lawyers and judge will give you all the law you need to know and you just find the facts. You are fact finders not law appliers.

Also, most people I have known on juries are earnestly trying to do a good job. This is appreciated so much by the litigants, their lawyers and the judge. Remember, it could easily be you in a litigants chair, so do the right thing.

Wow - ya'll have a different view of the jury system than I do.

In my experience, people rarely try to get out of jury duty. The one guy I saw try was about 19 years old and had obviously been told to get out of jury duty he had a conflict of interest that would not allow him to decide the case fairly. It was obvious he was repeating something he was told to say and the judge made him pay for it by scaring him to death. The judge took over and questioned him for a good 10 minutes and let the kid know he could be in big trouble for lying to these questions. The kid was sweating bullets! Judge finally let him go - but I guarantee you, he will never try that again.

Just go and be honest. The likelihood you will be picked is slim as is the liklihood that the trial will be a long one. Most jury trials are no more than 2 or 3 days. Some will be longer. The more complex the case, the longer the trial.

Also, it is not your job to know the law. The lawyers and judge will give you all the law you need to know and you just find the facts. You are fact finders not law appliers.

Also, most people I have known on juries are earnestly trying to do a good job. This is appreciated so much by the litigants, their lawyers and the judge. Remember, it could easily be you in a litigants chair, so do the right thing.

Well, my reason is mainly financial. Where I live the government compensates you $60 per day if you are on a case. My hourly pay rate is above $20 so being on a case, losses me income as I don't get paid if I don't work. If I was unemployed and totally broke, things would be so different.

Funny. I've been called up later this week. In Australia, they pay you just over $30 a day for the first week then about $70 for any additional days but by law your employer is obliged to pay you the difference between that amount and the amount that you would otherwise have reasonably expected to have earned while on jury duty.

Funny. I've been called up later this week. In Australia, they pay you just over $30 a day for the first week then about $70 for any additional days but by law your employer is obliged to pay you the difference between that amount and the amount that you would otherwise have reasonably expected to have earned while on jury duty.

I'm on a weird permanent-type contract and jury duty isn't even mentioned. At my old employers, I was paid for my jury duty but not sure these days.

The most fascinating thing is that in the United States, the Jury has the right not only to deal with the case at hand, but to question the law itself. I've always wanted to sit on a precident setting case.

A marijuana case would be perfect. I would argue with that jury to acquit and to tell the judge that it's stupid to ever convict for pot.

Did you get busted for
a) trying to break someone out of death row
b) possessing marijuana
c) both?

Nope. But prosecution in a marijuana or capital punishment case would probably throw me out on selection because I am rabidly anti-death penalty and find laws against a plant completely stupid.

The most fascinating thing is that in the United States, the Jury has the right not only to deal with the case at hand, but to question the law itself. I've always wanted to sit on a precident setting case.

A marijuana case would be perfect. I would argue with that jury to acquit and to tell the judge that it's stupid to ever convict for pot.

I'm fascinated and uneasy about a quote I've noticed, something Molly Ivins once wrote:
...one wonderful thing about the system of justice we inherited largely from the Brits is that a jury doesn't have to follow the law -- a jury can do what it thinks is right.

It's not just a good thing in my opinion.

It's not just a good thing in my opinion.

Oh, I don't know ... it's the last real power the people in this nation supposedly "for the people" have.

For the first time in my life, I have been summoned to Jury Duty. Amazing. Have to report May 1st. How exciting! Of course, all my friends are giving me creative ways to get out of it and there are a couple of ways I can excuse myself, but I see this as my civic duty and take it as seriously as voting.

Depends on the case, I suppose. My hippie ways would get me out of serving on any capital punishment case or marijuana case. Of course, it could be a civil trial. Law suit or somethin'.

Guess I'll have to wait and see.

Take a good book with you as you will spend a lot of time sitting around in the jury pool. I've been called twice. The first time I was excused because I was in the military. The second time I was called up for one case but not chosen to be one of the jurors. I spent four days sitting in the jury pool before we were dismissed. In Oklahoma, they don't start any trials on Friday, so if you are not on a jury by Thursday they dismiss you.

Oh, I don't know ... it's the last real power the people in this nation supposedly "for the people" have.
Determining whether or not a law is good and just in general, I would be inclined to agree.
But if you were to take that principle literally people would no longer be equal in the eyes of the law, since it would all be depending upon the whims of the juries. Then there would be little or no predictability as to whether or not anybody would be convicted and punished for committing criminal acts.

For example, when the law is clear and the required evidence for a conviction is presented a person should be convicted for a crime he undoubtably did commit even if he is a "pillar of society", a "good man and a good christian", or anything else that could make a jury feel that it would be wrong to hand out a conviction (especially if it's because of these kinds of irrelevant considerations that is the reason for the jurys lack of will to convict).

Determining whether or not a law is good and just in general, I would be inclined to agree.
But if you were to take that principle literally people would no longer be equal in the eyes of the law, since it would all be depending upon the whims of the juries. Then there would be little or no predictability as to whether or not anybody would be convicted and punished for committing criminal acts.


Well you're smart .... you get to go in my place. Montgomery County courthouse, 8 am, May 1st. Good luck!

Well you're smart .... you get to go in my place. Montgomery County courthouse, 8 am, May 1st. Good luck!
Why, thank you! I'd love to go, but you know it's Loyalty Day so my schedule is full - I've got to attend an Americanization demonstration at 8:00, a socialist/labour demonstration at 10:30, and a morris dance performance at 13:00. Ah, the month of May... :p

*hugs our better juryless system for sparing him the inanity of spending days with 11 other schmucks who know nowhere near enough about the law, but are still to render an opinion on it*

Tribunerals own, bitch!

Yay for fascism. It Roxzors.

Yay for fascism. It Roxzors.

Were you going for silly, reality-detached hyperbole, au Godwin, or do you really not know how a juryless system in a constitutional, representative democracy works?

Were you going for silly, reality-detached hyperbole, au Godwin, or do you really not know how a juryless system in a constitutional, representative democracy works?
do y'all elect judges in sweden?

do y'all elect judges in sweden?

Of course not. The judicial branch is there to protect us from the excesses of democracy, not to itself fall prey to them.

We don't have jury trials in my country.






I felt like saying it.

Of course not. The judicial branch is there to protect us from the excesses of democracy, not to itself fall prey to them.
Righteous.
Do you use the Napoleonic Code as a base (as we do), or do you have precedents etc. for that?

Righteous.
Do you use the Napoleonic Code as a base (as we do), or do you have precedents etc. for that?

We have a Scandinavian civil law, which is a type of civil law that is different from French civil law (Napoleonic Code) and German civil law, but it is a civil law system nevertheless.

i rule

I've been called for Jury Duty twice, but each time I was able to just call up and they cancelled it. Something about them not being willing to pay for my transport from Australia to Washington State...

Update!

Sat around for a while, got called, had a bunch of silly questions asked of me, was striken by the DA. I'm assuming it's because I was honest when asked about capital punishment. I said I found the idea of pre-meditated State sanctioned murder to be a worse crime than a sudden, impassioned accidental killing.