Jury Duty

[tdog 0]

I used to think:

"Great, I would be judged by a bunch of my peers too stupid to get out of jury duty."

Now I think:

"Great, I will be judged by people who actually leave their homes, go to work, are smart, and have things to do..."

I don't know which one is worse...

Quote

GREELEY – They roamed the streets of Greeley Wednesday morning with stacks of paper and an eye out for people they could summon to emergency jury duty.


Weld County and District Court staff handed subpoenas to more than 50 unsuspecting people, telling them they had to report for jury duty Wednesday morning because many of those summoned by mail did not show.

Some of the people were just walking around town. Rosalee Rice was at the Post Office.

"It's been one heck of a morning," says Rice, who had to call her boss at Colorado Pain and Rehabilitation with the news.

Her initial ire rose when she found out the on-the-spot court order was needed because less than 40 of the 200 people summoned to court by mail turned out.

"As a resident, if you are summoned to go, you should go because it really interrupts everyone else's lives," she said.

Court administrators agree, adding there were trials that were ready to start, but were still in need of a jury.

They say this is the third time in the last two months they've had to take such extreme action. Before December, they believe it had not happened in 15 years.

Judges and administrators will be meeting to discuss what to do with all those no-shows.

[shropshire 0]

They should refuse to go... and then when it comes up in court... hope that the jury doesn't turn up

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

I'd go if summoned... google 'jury nullification"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rickjump1 0]

Civic duty.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Civic duty.

What he said.

Being "in the business" myself, I can tell you that it pisses me off to no end that hardly the only people who don't try like hell (usually successfully) to get out of jury duty are college students, the chronically under-employed (who are usually not educated beyond HS), and retirees. Not exactly a representative cross-section of the community.

The only thing worse than trial by a jury of common citizens is...anything else. It is one of the key hallmarks of every successful modern western-style democracy.

People bash the jury system, but fail to make the most basic contribution to it - their personal participation as citizens - to help it work as it should.

[mnealtx 0]

I agree with your general point, but wanted to ask a question.

Quote

to help it work as it should.

Doesn't voir dire and instruction from the bench do the same damage to the system working as it should?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Yes I would imagine that it does piss you off that while you earn your six figure salary the basically unpaid conscriptees do not willingly do their part. For most people jury duty is a financial burden, but of course you wouldn't know about that because you are exempt.

[champu 1]

I have a jury duty summons for about 3 weeks from now. I do not intend to make any attempts to "get out of it", but at the same time I have absolutely zero expectations of making it through voir dire.

So while calling phone numbers, driving to the other side of town, and waiting around in rooms only to be told to go home by whichever lawyer has the worst case may be your idea of what my "civic duty" entails, I'd rather be getting work done at my job.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

I have a jury duty summons for about 3 weeks from now. I do not intend to make any attempts to "get out of it", but at the same time I have absolutely zero expectations of making it through voir dire.

So while calling phone numbers, driving to the other side of town, and waiting around in rooms only to be told to go home by whichever lawyer has the worst case may be your idea of what my "civic duty" entails, I'd rather be getting work done at my job.

You can honestly say you did your civic duty. You did the right thing even while suspecting it could turn into a rat fu#k. Pat yourself on the back.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Yes I would imagine that it does piss you off that while you earn your six figure salary the basically unpaid conscriptees do not willingly do their part. For most people jury duty is a financial burden, but of course you wouldn't know about that because you are exempt.

I'm not exempt; I have served jury duty 4 times in my career.

Your entire post is incredibly stupid.

[shropshire 0]

Over here, like over there, Jury services is a right and a duty and needs to be exercised or we'll loose it!!

Anyone NOT attendeing when called should be fined a minimum of a days wages (however small or large that is for the individual) for every day that they do not show up!!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I agree with your general point, but wanted to ask a question.

Quote

to help it work as it should.

Doesn't voir dire and instruction from the bench do the same damage to the system working as it should?

Voire dire doesn't allow a party to strike an unlimited number of potential jurors from the selection panel (comprised of roughly 30 or so people, initially); usually only about 4 "free strikes" per party, give or take. (Challenges "for cause" are technically unlimited, but in actual practice most judges are very stingy about granting those.) After that, you get whomever else comes up in sequence from the remainder of the panel, like it or not.

If fewer people pre-disqualified themselves by pleading hardship, there'd be a wider cross-section of the community from which to choose during voir dire.

Most jury trials take about 3 days. Of course it's inconvenient for almost everyone who works. But inconvenience is not the same thing as hardship. I'm very sympathetic to requests to be excused by working people for whom not working that day is a loss of that day's wages, or a mom who can't get coverage for her small kids, etc. Generally, I have no problem with true hardships. I'm less sympathetic for the salaried office worker or the professional for whom a couple of involuntary days away from the office may be a pain in the ass, but is less than a true "hardship".

I have no problem with the concept of instructions from the bench, generally. They are crucially necessary, as they are either to educate jurors on points of law that they otherwise wouldn't know (or might think they know, but actually misunderstand), or to explain certain rulings, like to disregard an inappropriate comment a witness might blurt out.

Decisions as to what facts occurred, the weight to be given various evidence, witness credibility, etc. are all the jury's call; although sometimes they must be provided legal definitions as to certain categories (examples - negligence; legal duty; criminal intent; the definition of a particular crime; reasonable doubt, etc.) to guide them in organizing the facts that they determine have occurred.

To those of you, in any country, who have sucked it up and done their civic jury duty, I'd say the same thing I'd say to military people, police officers on the street, firefighters, etc: Thank you for your service. Your community, and your country, are the better for it.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Civic duty.

What he said.

Being "in the business" myself, I can tell you that it pisses me off to no end that hardly the only people who don't try like hell (usually successfully) to get out of jury duty are college students, the chronically under-employed (who are usually not educated beyond HS), and retirees. Not exactly a representative cross-section of the community.


reply]

OK, so they copmplain that the only people who judge are people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty.

HOWEVER, why is it that when smart, well-educated people do show up, the lawyers try to screen them out & pick the stupid ones for jury duty?

I had a boss at the biotech company I used to work at. He was brilliant & had a PhD & ran several labs doing research in genetic therapy.

When he'd get called up, he'd show up, but the lawyers ALWAYS screened him out, ESPECIALLY if the trial had DNA evidence involved.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I'm not exempt; I have served jury duty 4 times in my career.

My mistake. In Canada members of the bar are exempt, as are all other officers of the court and all civil servants.
My point remains, jury duty puts an unfair burden upon wage earners and the self employed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I'm not exempt; I have served jury duty 4 times in my career.

My mistake. In Canada members of the bar are exempt, as are all other officers of the court and all civil servants.
My point remains, jury duty puts an unfair burden upon wage earners and the self employed.

The parking costs alone tend to be double the per diem.

If the system were reformed to make efficient use of people's time, rather than use them as the free resource they are, it might work rather well. For starters, rather than randomly pick a date and say 'call the night before and see if we need you' (which is still an improvement on the prior BS), why not send people notification and have them pick a good week in the next 3 months when they can do it? The technology of today makes this quite possible.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

why is it that when smart, well-educated people do show up, the lawyers try to screen them out & pick the stupid ones for jury duty?

Your anecdote does not make the rule. The rule is the opposite. Most of the time these are the kind of people who I want on my juries, but they are also the ones who the most under-represented on juries because they tend to be the best at conjuring up excuses with convincing sound bytes. I almost never screen out these people; they tend to screen themselves out.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Civic duty.

What he said.

Being "in the business" myself, I can tell you that it pisses me off to no end that hardly the only people who don't try like hell (usually successfully) to get out of jury duty are college students, the chronically under-employed (who are usually not educated beyond HS), and retirees. Not exactly a representative cross-section of the community.

Quote

OK, so they copmplain that the only people who judge are people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty.

HOWEVER, why is it that when smart, well-educated people do show up, the lawyers try to screen them out & pick the stupid ones for jury duty?

I had a boss at the biotech company I used to work at. He was brilliant & had a PhD & ran several labs doing research in genetic therapy.

When he'd get called up, he'd show up, but the lawyers ALWAYS screened him out, ESPECIALLY if the trial had DNA evidence involved.

nearly every one i work with (mostly degreed Engineers) get 'bounced' from nearly every jury..

lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury.. they want 12 rubes who they can convince their arguments are more valid than those of their opponent.

the end result is a wasted day I could have been doing something else that was actually productive...

the entire idea of 'jury of your peers' is a joke.

if they were truly my 'peers' they would likely understand the motivations behind whatever action i was accused of and there would be no contest.

its not about money (AZ requires employers to compensate for jury time) its about the fact that I've wasted 10+ hours to a process I will be excluded from simply for demonstrating independent thought.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If fewer people pre-disqualified themselves by pleading hardship, there'd be a wider cross-section of the community from which to choose during voir dire.

Agreed. I still have problems with the thought of attorneys being able to pre-select for jurors sympathic to their case, though - it seems a perversion of what the jury process was supposed to be.

Quote

I have no problem with the concept of instructions from the bench, generally. They are crucially necessary, as they are either to educate jurors on points of law that they otherwise wouldn't know (or might think they know, but actually misunderstand), or to explain certain rulings, like to disregard an inappropriate comment a witness might blurt out.

Why does the jury not have the right to actually read the law for the crime the person is being accuses of? Why do judges instruct a jury in how they should return a verdict?

Quote

Decisions as to what facts occurred, the weight to be given various evidence, witness credibility, etc. are all the jury's call; although sometimes they must be provided legal definitions as to certain categories (examples - negligence; legal duty; criminal intent; the definition of a particular crime; reasonable doubt, etc.) to guide them in organizing the facts that they determine have occurred.

Seems it would be much easier if the laws were written in plain English and not legalese.

Quote

To those of you, in any country, who have sucked it up and done their civic jury duty, I'd say the same thing I'd say to military people, police officers on the street, firefighters, etc: Thank you for your service. Your community, and your country, are the better for it.

Agreed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury.. they want 12 rubes who they can convince their arguments are more valid than those of their opponent.

You're simply wrong. In over 20 years in the courtroom as a litigator (civil and criminal; all sides of each), in either jury, or non-jury (judge-only) trials, I tend to do better with intelligent judges and juries than I do with dumb ones. The eyes of the dumber ones (including the judges) tend to glaze over when points are explained to them either by lawyers or experts (doctors, accountants, engineers, etc.) - they have no attention span for it. The brighter, better-educated ones, who know how to think critically and analyze, and are willing to listen attentively, are exactly the kind of people I want on my juries.

[jakee 1,597]

Quote

Why does the jury not have the right to actually read the law for the crime the person is being accuses of? Why do judges instruct a jury in how they should return a verdict?

The way I'd see it, as long as a judge is telling the jury the truth about the law governing the case then I can't see what the problem is with instruction from the bench.

What's more likely - jury members not bothering to read/ not understanding the law as it is written, or a judge lying to them about the law?

Quote

Agreed. I still have problems with the thought of attorneys being able to pre-select for jurors sympathic to their case, though - it seems a perversion of what the jury process was supposed to be.

It makes me uncomfortable too, but then I guess there has to be some method of screening out the truly unsuitable candidates - people who have already made their minds up before they even step into the courtroom. (Or is this done by the court before the jury gets presented to the lawyers?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Voire dire doesn't allow a party to strike an unlimited number of potential jurors from the selection panel (comprised of roughly 30 or so people, initially); usually only about 4 "free strikes" per party, give or take. (Challenges "for cause" are technically unlimited, but in actual practice most judges are very stingy about granting those.)

When I was called for jury duty in California recently, the selection panel consisted of 65 prospective jurors for the trial. Each attorney was allowed 10 pre-emptive challenges. Each attorney could also ask the judge to excuse people for cause, and the judge actually seemed quite generous about granting these requests. And the judge excused some people on his own initiative without either attorney challenging them.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Voire dire doesn't allow a party to strike an unlimited number of potential jurors from the selection panel (comprised of roughly 30 or so people, initially); usually only about 4 "free strikes" per party, give or take. (Challenges "for cause" are technically unlimited, but in actual practice most judges are very stingy about granting those.)

When I was called for jury duty in California recently, the selection panel consisted of 65 prospective jurors for the trial. Each attorney was allowed 10 pre-emptive challenges. Each attorney could also ask the judge to excuse people for cause, and the judge actually seemed quite generous about granting these requests. And the judge excused some people on his own initiative without either attorney challenging them.

There are 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Each state has its own court rules, one set for civil, one set for criminal. Each state, of course, has many counties. In most states, each county runs its own local courts, and has its own set of local court rules. There are also 94 Federal district (trial-level) courts. There are the Federal court rules, and each federal district court also has its own local court rules. Each county, and each federal district court, of course, has numerous judges, each of whom like to do certain things his or her own special way. There are also different types of cases - civil, criminal, commercial, simple, complex, etc., etc.

Each of these factors can, and do, affect the number of peremptory (pre-emptive) strikes allowed in any given single trial. The number of possible permutations is nearly limitless.

I've practiced in about 8 states, plus federal courts throughout the country for almost 25 years. I've learned, seen and experienced what I have. What I'm describing really is a reliable general rule, despite the fact that there are individual examples that are not identical.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Yes I would imagine that it does piss you off that while you earn your six figure salary the basically unpaid conscriptees do not willingly do their part. For most people jury duty is a financial burden, but of course you wouldn't know about that because you are exempt.

Financial burden as an excuse????

Laugable...and stupid.

Evidently, your tax obligation is not burden enough to try to get out of that. WTF is one day or one week to do an important civic duty in comparision?

Anybody wanna whine about financial burden should start with taxes and go from there.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury.. they want 12 rubes who they can convince their arguments are more valid than those of their opponent.

You're simply wrong.

MY EXPERIENCE IS WRONG???? rotflmao... just for kicks next week I'll actually poll all of those I know (mostly Engineers, but I'll ask the admins too because I KNOW who was out a week or more and who was out a day, and it WASNT the Engineers) who got called for jury duty, see who got picked and how many of us wasted our day just to get bounced..

sorry, but you don't know what the hell your talking about (yes i know your a lawyer) but if you are going to tell me you (as a profession)do not intentional weed those out who you believe will disagree with your case (aka might actually have a view point outside of the one you are trying to convince them of) I'm going going to have to call you a liar too.

You do better with the people you believe you can convince of your argument. Depending on the complexity of your argument you may require a higher level of awareness, but that is FAR from the norm, Lawyers want a jury they can convince they are right while the other guy is wrong.. the intelligence of the jury is entirely incidental to that primary goal.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes I would imagine that it does piss you off that while you earn your six figure salary the basically unpaid conscriptees do not willingly do their part. For most people jury duty is a financial burden, but of course you wouldn't know about that because you are exempt.

Financial burden as an excuse????

Laugable...and stupid.

Evidently, your tax obligation is not burden enough to try to get out of that. WTF is one day or one week to do an important civic duty in comparision?

Anybody wanna whine about financial burden should start with taxes and go from there.

I know a number of people who cannot pay their bills if they miss even a few days of any pay period... granted that is the situation they put themselves in (one way or another) but to say that removing a day (or a month some trials go on for a while) of expected income isnt a valid excuse is delusional... anyone that works on tips for example is completely screwed by Jury Duty even if they are paid their 'salary'.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.