One Woman's Stupidity Costs Me Three Days of My Life

[Hyperelastic]

So I got called for jury duty last week. I went with a panel of 50 potential jurors to an attempted murder trial. Already I don't want to do it, but it's my civic responsibility, etc. On the plus side, we have a "one-day, one-trial" system, and it was already after lunch, and my name was 46th out of 50. I figured I'd have to sit through a couple of hours of voir dire, they'd pick their jury, and I'd get to go home and forget about it for another year.

Well, they were dismissing people right and left, and the pool was getting pretty small. I ended up as Juror Candidate #18 (they question 18 at a time, and keep 12 regulars and 2 alternates.) I was still optimistic, because the lawyers had accepted almost all the regular jurors and alternates. But it got down to 15 people, and the judge started questioning Juror #1. It went something like this:

Judge: This case involves an accusation that a handgun was used. Do you feel you could fairly judge the facts in a such a case?
Stupid Lady: Well, no, I'm against guns. I couldn't be fair to someone who used a gun.
Judge: But it's only an accusation at this point. Could you evaluate the accusation fairly?
Stupid Lady: No, I don't think I could be fair to a man who shot someone.
Judge: Please bear in mind that you as the juror would have to decide for yourself whether the evidence proves he shot the victim.
Stupid Lady: But I am against violence! How can you expect me to be fair to someone who used a gun?
Judge: Ma'am, there is a presumption of innocence.
Stupid Lady: Yes, but he shot someone!
Judge: Goddamn you, you stupid old bag, did you sleep through high school civics class? Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell? Bailiff, take my gavel and stuff it up Juror #1's ass, sideways.

(Well, I embellished that last part a little. All the judge said was "You are dismissed from service.")

Needless to say, I ended up as alternate juror #2. So I got to sit through two days of grisly testimony and then spend a third day reading back issues of "Teen People" in a waiting room while the regular jury deliberated. Not only that, but I was supposed to have gone to New Jersey on a business trip all this week, so the rest of my family went out of town to visit relatives. Then when I got stuck on the jury, I got bumped from my New Jersey trip, so now I'm home by myself all week. Fuckin' old bat.

[Kalhoun]

Feel proud to know that you were able to give the accused a fair shake. It's only three days. My friend's fiance got hung up in a mob trial in Chicago for something like 6 months sequestered. Now THAT'S an inconvenience.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, geez, you shoulda copied her, doofus!


:D

[lno]

The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.

[Zakalwe]

My feeling is that judges should be authorized to strip voting rights from people like her. If she's too fucking stupid to serve on a jury, she's too stupid to vote.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

I'm glad I work in a prison. I think it'll get me out of most future jury duty.

[Ferret Herder]

My feeling is that judges should be authorized to strip voting rights from people like her. If she's too fucking stupid to serve on a jury, she's too stupid to vote.
My first guess was that she was pulling something similar to lno's quip, that she was trying to act prejudiced so she wouldn't have to serve. But who knows, maybe she is that stupid.

[wring]

I'm glad I work in a prison. I think it'll get me out of most future jury duty.
you'd think so, wouldn't you? I ran a correction center for 14 years. At one point, the child of a former client was accused of a crime, a former client was the main witness against him, and a former co worker of mine got seated on the jury. Yes, even though she knew the main witness, knew the mother of one of the defendants.

I sat through a voir dire recently, and it was surprising to me how difficult it was to get jurors excused. Two stated "they weren't sure they could be fair". that all by itself wasn't sufficient grounds to get them off. the one lawyer requested that they be excused for cause, the other objected and further questioning was done before the judge finally excused them for cause.

[Hyperelastic]

Feel proud to know that you were able to give the accused a fair shake.


The worst of it is, the defendant was clearly not guilty (he was guilty of a lesser charge, attempted voluntary manslaughter, which the jury had the option of imposing.) But they convicted him of attempted murder. Being only an alternate, I didn't even get to participate in the deliberations, I just had to sit through the testimony and then cool my heels until the regular jury reached a verdict. I'm not gonna beat myself up over it, but I think I could have easily persuaded the jury to go with the lesser charge. The public defender didn't do a very diligent job and omitted an obvious factor ("sudden quarrel") that the law clearly spells out. It was in the jury instructions, but these peabrains were probably counting the ceiling tiles during that part.



The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.


Some people around here would say that isn't too much of a stretch.


My first guess was that she was pulling something similar to lno's quip, that she was trying to act prejudiced so she wouldn't have to serve. But who knows, maybe she is that stupid.


No, she was dead serious. She struck me as the type who spends her afternoons sending "Snopes bait" and jpegs of fuzzy widdle bunnies to everyone she knows.

[askeptic]

You should feel proud that you got to perform a civic duty. Very little is imposed on us as citizens...

[Sal Ammoniac]

Right, miserable for you personally, but from the perspective of society, it's good that the courts raised the average IQ of the jury a smidgen by removing the old bat. So pitting said bat is beside the point. Not her fault she's stupid, no?

[Frank]

I'm glad I work in a prison. I think it'll get me out of most future jury duty.
"Your honor, I've had my finger up this guy's ass."

Yeah, you right, you'd probably be excused.

[Max Torque]

I'm glad I work in a prison. I think it'll get me out of most future jury duty.
I'm one up on you. On the jury questionnaire, under "occupation", I put, "Prosecutor." I figure they might let me slip through if I just put "attorney."

[D_Odds]

Are you pissed because she was stupid or because she was honest? Just because the presumption in a trial is "innocent until proven guilty", it does not mean everyone checks their baggage at the door. She was upfront about her baggage; she's prejudiced against handgun users. She could not fairly judge a handgun user. Better she go to trial with that prejudice?

And obviously, he was clearly guilty of attempted murder, as decided by a jury of his peers. It is your opinion, based on the testimony of the trial, that the verdict was incorrect. But 12 men and women disagreed with you, for whatever reason. None of them were willing to make a principled stand on what you believe to be a critical issue. Perhaps you should review your reasons for making that decision. It is quite possible, during deliberations, the jury did.

[MovieMogul]

Woohee, I'm scheduled for jury duty next month. In the past it's never cost me more than a day (and usually not even that much), but I'm sure I've got a case waiting in the wings sooner or later...

[clairobscur]

No, she was dead serious. She struck me as the type who spends her afternoons sending "Snopes bait" and jpegs of fuzzy widdle bunnies to everyone she knows.


Are you sure of it? During a military selection period, I was with this guy who appeared to be a complete nutcase. It didn't cross my mind that he was doing this on purpose, since, he really, really, looked and sounded like a complete nutcase. Until I met him, out of chance, some months later in Venice. He had been barred from serving, and apparently he had subsquently completely recovered from his "nutcasery" and had also gained roughly 50 IQ points.


There are a number of abolutely stupid people out there, but there are also a number of good actors.

[astro]

The way you should have played it.


Judge: This case involves an accusation that a handgun was used. Do you feel you could fairly judge the facts in a such a case?

Hyperelastic: Why would I judge? You're the Judge! Why should I do all the work for you!

Judge: No.. you don't understand you will render a decision on whether the plaintiff's case against the defendant has any merit.

Hyperelastic: Defendant? Is he the alligator?

Judge: Alligator?

Hyperelastic: Yeah the guy who's allegating something happened!

Judge: You mean the plaintiff?

Hyperelastic: Whatever!

Judge: Next!

[Hyperelastic]

Are you pissed because she was stupid or because she was honest? Just because the presumption in a trial is "innocent until proven guilty", it does not mean everyone checks their baggage at the door. She was upfront about her baggage; she's prejudiced against handgun users. She could not fairly judge a handgun user. Better she go to trial with that prejudice?


This was not prejudice, it was stupidity. Several potential jurors said that they would have difficulty being objective, because they had been threatened with guns in the past. That's prejudice, and I did appreciate the honesty of those people. But Stupid Woman could not understand the difference between an accusation and a fact. When the judge says, "Ma'am, please understand that the defendant has only been accused of using a gun. Nothing has been proven yet," and she keeps saying, "But he shot someone," what would you call it other than stupidity?

I'll allow that she could have been faking. But I'd rather just serve on the jury than make myself look that stupid in front of a bunch of people.


And obviously, he was clearly guilty of attempted murder, as decided by a jury of his peers. It is your opinion, based on the testimony of the trial, that the verdict was incorrect. But 12 men and women disagreed with you, for whatever reason. None of them were willing to make a principled stand on what you believe to be a critical issue. Perhaps you should review your reasons for making that decision. It is quite possible, during deliberations, the jury did.

Semantics aside, all witnesses agreed that the crime was committed during a sudden quarrel and that the victim was carrying on an affair with the mother of the defendant's children. Without a videotape or some magical insight into the defendant's thoughts, I'd say you have a pretty hard time proving murder as opposed to voluntary manslaughter, but the prosecutor was a lot better than the public defender.

[MoodIndigo1]

I'm glad I work in a prison. I think it'll get me out of most future jury duty.

Working in a prison won't get you out of future jury duty. Being a physician will, however.

[UncleRojelio]

Having done what I feel is more than my fair share of my civic duty, (I've been called eight times in the last 22 years and served on 4 juries) I can still say that I really don't mind serving. Actually, it's more fun than going to my regualar job, I just wish the pay was better. However, being an alternate doesn't guarantee that your time won't be wasted. All three of the civil trial juries I've been on were a waste of time. Some people suing other people over some trivial point of law or supposed infraction. On one of them, this guy was suing an engineering firm over some work and his biggest damage claim was that his wife quit having sex with him. This guy cost dozens of people TWO FUCKIN' ( this is the pit afterall ) WEEKS of their life.

I think that the solution to this problem of so many frivolous lawsuits is to give juries the power to extract damages from parties that the jury deems to have wasted their time.

[Random]

Working in a prison won't get you out of future jury duty. Being a physician will, however.


Cite?

[askeptic]

Working in a prison won't get you out of future jury duty. Being a physician will, however.

Eiter way I guess QTM is covered.

[ouryL]

When I laughed at a defense attorney who asked me if I would consider someone showing me a gun, a threat. Should I apologize? :rolleyes:

[Eva Luna]

Cite?

Yeah, the one time I actually ended up serving on a jury, there was a physician on the panel. The didn't excuse him just for being a physician, but they did excuse him when it came out that he specialized in the treatment of chronic pain.

(It was the dumbest trial I've ever heard of - civil trial, auto accident, minor injuries. Defendant had admitted culpability, and the entire trial was over the amount of damages, which of course hinged on the plaintiff's treatment for chronic back pain allegedly resulting from the accident. Can you believe we spent 2 days deliberating that? I think the lost productivity of the jury was greater than the amount of th award in the end - I can't believe these people couldn't settle.)

[KarlGauss]

Cite?

MoonIndigo1 is from Canada.

As a Canadian doctor I can say s/he's right - about Canadian jury duty.

[Tracy Lord]

I've got jury duty tomorrow for the first time. I've heard it's dull with a lot of waiting, so I'm bringing a few books and some Cheetos. I like the idea of civic duty and democracy and all that, but I hope I don't get some really intense Henry Fonda-style trial.

Or psychos or stupid people, but that's probably too much to ask. GOD, I hate stupid people.

[Random]

MoonIndigo1 is from Canada.

As a Canadian doctor I can say s/he's right - about Canadian jury duty.

I actually did notice Moon's location. Of course, Qadgop is from Wisconsin, so an exemption from Canadian jury service probably isn't one of his biggest worries.

But you knew that. Unlike you, though, Moon apparently hasn't grasped the concept that different jurisdictions have different rules, especially when it comes to local court procedure.

[Sternvogel]

GOD, I hate stupid people.

And yet the common wisdom is that God must love stupid people, since He made so many of them. Obviously you're not that kind of Lord... :D

[Homebrew]

... so now I'm home by myself all week. That kinda sounds like a good thing.

[Clothahump]

I'm glad I work in a prison. I think it'll get me out of most future jury duty.

I was a deputy sheriff in the mid 1970s. I have been bounced off of every jury panel I've ever been called for, whether civil or criminal, since then. I wish it were somehow possible for my name to be taken off the roles, because it it's a gigantic waste of my time under the circumstances. But those summons forms keep showing up, regular as clockwork.

[Steve MB]

I'm glad I work in a prison. I think it'll get me out of most future jury duty.
That reminds me, I should be on the lookout for an opportunity to get a pro-jury-nullification letter to the editor published. The prison warden would be less thoroughly disqualified....

[Madd Maxx]

I think there should be one Doper as an alternate at every jury trial just to balance out the stupid people and help fight the epidemic of ignorance.

[Mac Guffin]

Well whaddya know, I am scheduled for Jury duty tomorrow as well. I have to call in after five pm today to find out if I need show up. I am listed twice this month. the 15th and the 20th. My bosses husband is a court reporter. She told me I should say something so I don't get picked, but I am pretty sure that's contempt of court, so i am playing it straight. If I get picked, I get picked.

The last time I was called was about ten years ago, and I didn't get selected. The case was a guy suing asbestos companies for lung damage. They formed a full jury out of the pool before my number came up, and I was released. It was interesting watching the procedings. One woman demanded that she be let off duty because she was so importaint to her workplace as the director of public relations for a large hospital.

The judge told her that was no excuse. Then the plaintiffs lawyer came up. Turns out that this lawyer represented a guy in a very successfull lawsuit against this very woman and the hospital she worked for. The hospital, through the woman had released the name of the plaintiff in the press as the first patient with AIDS in our state, totaly blowing off patient privacy and such. The judge dissmissed the woman saying, "If you had told me that I would have relesed you right away instead of wasting all our time."

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I am a registered voter, and have never been called.
I'd like to, just for the experience.

[akwally1]

/slight hijack/

My wife last year was called for jury duty here in Oregon. During the questioning, one of the potential jurors was asked if he had any sort of relationship with either the prosecutor, the defense attorney, or the defendant. He replied that the defense attorney was also HIS attorney in a case he had pending against his ex-wife. The judge said that didn't count as a conflict and allowed him into the jury! WTF? My wife of course (who actually WANTED to serve as it was her first time being called) wasn't picked because she was an elementary school teacher (the case involved children).

I'm still shaking my head at that one.


Wally

/end hijack/

[EarthStone777]

My Jury duty story.

I think there should be one Doper as an alternate at every jury trial just to balance out the stupid people and help fight the epidemic of ignorance.

I disagree. I think there should be one Doper on* every jury trial just to balance out the stupid people and help fight the epidemic of ignorance.

* Not just as an alternate where their knowledge and opinions (and time) could be wasted.

[Avarie537]

I've got jury duty tomorrow for the first time. I've heard it's dull with a lot of waiting, so I'm bringing a few books and some Cheetos. I like the idea of civic duty and democracy and all that, but I hope I don't get some really intense Henry Fonda-style trial.

Or psychos or stupid people, but that's probably too much to ask. GOD, I hate stupid people.

Just be sure they allow food and drink in the waiting area. IIRC, when I had to spend my morning in downtown Indianapolis, they did not allow food and drink in the room where we waited to be called. We got a break around 10:00 AM, but had to be finished before we went back in the room.

[swanky_glue]

I was on a jury about 3 or 4 months ago. The case was pretty open and shut and involved a drug dealer. The defense tried really hard to come up with anything and I mean anything that would get his client off. He was stretching everything, trying to discredit the cops who busted the guy, trying to say that the people in the lab processed someone else’s drugs and not the ones the cops claimed to take off of his client. He even went to far as to say that his client wasn’t the one who actually sold the drugs, but rather it was someone who looked exactly like him and the cops had mistaken his identity. Never mind that his prints were all over everything. Anyway, it was just very obvious that the guy was guilty.

It was obvious to 11 of us anyway. It wasn’t as obvious to juror number 12 though. You see, during the trial, one of the undercover officers showed the jury pictures of the apartment building the guy was arrested in front of. The picture was taken from across the street, which is where the officer said she was standing when she radioed for backup to come in and arrest the guy. She had gone back to the scene of the crime approximately 3 months after the fact to take photos for use at the trial. She told us that the pictures were not taken on the same day as the crime and the judge instructed us to make a note that the pictures were taken after the fact.

When it came time to vote the guy guilty or not guilty, our little Hold Out asked to see those photos again because she wanted to see what the officers saw.

The bailiff brought the photos in for us to look at, and juror 12, the Hold Out, puzzled over them for about 30 minutes.

Finally, she said out loud “This guy just can’t be guilty! I don’t know why you all think he is guilty when clearly, as you can see from this photograph, there is a van blocking part of the view from the street to the front of the apartment building.”

We remained silent for a moment, then slowly we each began to look at each other in disbelief. One of the other jurors said “That picture wasn’t taken at the time of the arrest.”
Hold Out said “yes, but there’s a van in the picture. The officer couldn’t know that the guy she arrested was the same guy who was selling drugs because that van is clearly in the way. Am I wrong about that?

I said, “yeah, you are wrong because you see, that picture was taken 3 months after the guy was arrested.”
Hold Out- “So what? That van is clearly in the picture”
I said “I see that, but that van probably , or rather almost certainly, wasn’t in the same exact spot during the arrest which happened 3 months earlier”
Hold Out-“I don’t understand what you are trying to say”

Another Juror: “She’s saying that the van in the picture is irrelevant. At the time of the arrest, the view wasn’t obstructed. The van just happened to be there when she took the picture, which incidentally was taken 3 months after the guy’s arrest.”

Hold Out “I’m confused”

Me internally, along with 10 other jurors “Ya think?”

Anyway, after about another hour of arguing over this picture, the judge called for us to come back into the court room as it was the end of the day. You could tell that she was disappointed that we hadn’t come up with a verdict yet, and she told us that if it had been a few years earlier, we would have been sequestered and unable to leave if we didn’t have a verdict, but that the laws had changed and we should be glad we could go home and get some sleep.

I wanted to tell her that if she would just let this crazy woman off of the jury, we would all find him guilty and it wouldn’t be an issue, but you know, I didn’t want to disrupt anything., or get arrested for something that’s probably a no no.

The next day, we eventually got Hold Out to see the light, but you could tell that she was very unhappy that she had to give him a guilty vote. When the verdict, was read, the judge went down the line to ask each of us if we agreed with the verdict or if we felt that we were pressured into giving a guilty verdict.

You could tell that we were all holding our breath when she asked Hold Out these questions because as soon as she answered them, reluctantly I might add, with a “Yeah, I agree and well, I didn’t feel pressure to vote the way I did”, we all let out a big sigh of relief. It was very audible, and the judge asked her again if she was sure. She said she was sure and then we were free to go.

After that, I decided that I don’t ever want to be on trial for anything in this city because you just never know who is going to be on your jury. Honestly, I don't know how some people on the jury with me even tied their shoes, yet they held a person's life in their hands. Now that is scary.

[Ravenman]

I was on jury duty around Christmas for a murder case involving multiple defendants. It was fascinating. Yeah, it screwed up my travel plans, and the trial and deliberation took something like 7 days, but I'm really glad I did it.

The most interesting part was when I saw a certain well-known journalist in my jury pool. Judging by his answers to the judge's questions, he's the least open-minded journalist in history.

Judge: How many of you feel that you would give undue weight to the testimony of police officers?
Well-Known Journalist: [raises hand]
Judge: How many of you would give less credibility to the testimony of police officers?
WKJ: [raises hand]
Judge: Other witnesses in this case may have used illegal drugs in the past. Would this prevent you from fairly weighing the credibility of their testimony?
WKJ: [raises hand]
(so on, and so on...)

All this from a guy who is recognized as an excellent and fair-handed interviewer of very powerful people.

[JohnBckWLD]

The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.But wouldn't that technically make you fair-minded and unbiased in the eyes of the law?

The real trick is just throw out any notices you receive in the mail and refuse to sign for registered letters

[velvetjones]

I've been called 4 times and sat on 3 juries. The level of stupidity displayed by the "jury of my peers" is astonishing. It really makes me wonder about our criminal justice system.

The trials were all very interesting though and I'd do it again anytime. Of course I get full pay from my company which is nice.

[lisacurl]

Needless to say, I ended up as alternate juror #2. So I got to sit through two days of grisly testimony and then spend a third day reading back issues of "Teen People" in a waiting room while the regular jury deliberated.
the unkindest cut of all

[Tripler]

Judge: This case involves an accusation that a handgun was used. Do you feel you could fairly judge the facts in a such a case?

Me: What kind of gun was it? Was it a .38 or .357? Or maybe an automatic, say a .40SW or .45 Colt? I personally like the .40SW because it's a small enough frame to fit in my hand, but then it's got some fairly decent knockdown power. What about you Judge? What do you carry? You look kinda old, so I figure your a .38SPL kinda guy. I've got one too--well no, I take that back--I've got a .357 which all of you know shoots a .38. It's a sweet revolver: 6" barrel, black, a nice rubberized/maple grip that fits comfortably in my hand--yep, she's a doozy! I remember once we went out to this range and I had a couple of my old college textbooks, and we were "testing" the strength of a .38 and .357, so I loaded both into the cylinder, and that .38 did a number on my Calculus III book, but that .357 tore it to shreds. :: sigh :: What was the question again?

Judge: You are dismissed.

Tripler
C'mon people, you gotta learn to dance! :D

[Indyellen]

Just be sure they allow food and drink in the waiting area. IIRC, when I had to spend my morning in downtown Indianapolis, they did not allow food and drink in the room where we waited to be called. We got a break around 10:00 AM, but had to be finished before we went back in the room.
Really? I was down there about a week or so ago for my stint, and they didn't say anything *against* it - I didn't get in trouble for bringing my diet coke in, either. But then again, I could've just gotten away with it. :D

I got excused after going through voir dire on an armed robbery case. I was very disappointed...I am, honestly, a very open-minded & objective person. I could tell the way the defense was wanting to go with the case based on some of the questions I was being asked. But, I got excused. :(

However, the woman who was worried about her elderly, semi-invalid mother for whom she was the sole caretaker did not. Wazzup with that? *sigh*

[zagloba]

Mark Twain wrote a little piece about how awful the juries are, perhaps as an aside in a longer book --- does anyone remember where?

He mentions one juror who thought that incest and arson were the same thing!

[Mister Rik]

I served on a jury in a drug possession case a few months ago. There was one guy who got dismissed when he said he worked for the state attorney general's office and was in the middle of a trial... my group of jurors turned out to be pretty good, and I enjoyed the experience.

[Tracy Lord]

And yet the common wisdom is that God must love stupid people, since He made so many of them. Obviously you're not that kind of Lord... :D

If I were, there'd be smiting like you wouldn't BELIEVE!

So, I go in, my first call to duty ever -- all my friends tell me, "it's a cinch, bring a lot of reading material because you'll do a lot of sitting around," my dad relates how he's never been called ever, I go in prepared with my Complete Works of Shakespeare and a notepad to kill time.

Oh, no no no!

First pool, first pick, for a FIVE-DAY criminal justice trial (of which I can't discuss the specifics, but it's severely gross).

Thank God the prosecuting attorney's a cutie with a Jeremy Irons voice, else I'd probably stab myself in the eye with a court-appointed pencil.

[MrJackboots]

It could be worse. My Civics teacher told the class about one jury she sat on, for a sexual assault trial. One of the other jurists asked if everyone could hurry up with deliberations, because she had a hair appointment at 3:00.

For avoidance, the creativity award has to go to a reenactment-type guy I know. He strips the insignia off his uniform (the black 1932 SS uniform) and reports vaguely in-character, answering everything with quick, crisp enunciation and slight accent. He always responds fairly objectively and plays along like he wants very much to serve his civic duty, but he's always been dismissed so far.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Feel proud to know that you were able to give the accused a fair shake. It's only three days. My friend's fiance got hung up in a mob trial in Chicago for something like 6 months sequestered. Now THAT'S an inconvenience.

Yeah, I've actually always wanted to be on a case--especially one that would only last a few days--but I always get dismissed. Either the prosecution or the defense finds some reason not to like me. Consider it an adventure, and come back and tell us about it when it's all over.

[clairobscur]

MoonIndigo1 is from Canada.

As a Canadian doctor I can say s/he's right - about Canadian jury duty.


What is the reasonning? I just can't see why a physician should be systematically sent back home.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I've been called a few times but never served. Once I escaped empanelment for a two-week trial because I'd proofread some of the pretrial depositions in the case. Neither side's attorney wanted me on that jury.

Another case was a criminal trial. We jurors got the instructive talk from the judge, sat around, got trooped into the courtoom for jury selection, sat around while the lawyers sidebarred with the judge, got trooped back to our lair, sat around some more. At last the judge came in and told us that when the defendant got a good look at us he decided to change his plea to guilty. :D

[Random]

What is the reasonning? I just can't see why a physician should be systematically sent back home.

In theory? in most places with this rule, the fear is that a doctor on the jury will unduly influence the decision of the other 11, especially in cases ( e.g., murder, civil personal injury) that have a medical component. That, and the idea that a doctor's real life job is too important, so he shouldn't be taken away from it.

In practice, the general lobbying clout of the the medical profession usually has something to do with it.

(I don't mean to single out doctors here. My state used to have a ridiculously long list of professions that were exempt. Funeral home owners were on the list.
Some years ago, the law was changed, and now pretty much any profession can be called for jury service. Even judges.)

[duffer]

I have no idea if there are any rules regarding doctors. My WAG would be a normal GP or clinical doc would have to miss work like the rest of us mortals. The exception I can see working would be an ER doc or people like EMT's. A GP can have patients rescheduled or seen by other doctors. But an ER doctor is so specialized and needed, why take the chance? Normally, there aren't many reserve ER docs to cover the doc's shift for days or weeks. Those people have to sleep, too.

[lorene]

I've been twice called to jury duty, and each time I was very disappointed to be sent home. A colleague told me that mental health professionals are often dismissed by either the prosecution or the defense, so that may have been it.

The last time I was called, we were all herded into a big room at a courthouse in Boston to wait for further instructions. An extremely pregnany woman came in, and the clerk asked her if she wouldn't rather postpone her jury duty until after the baby. The woman answered exactly what I was thinking: "This may not be convenient or comfortable, but it's certainly not going to be more convenient after babay is here."