Is the personal cost of this jury service too high?

[Sateryn76]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

The county I live in pays about one half the cost for me to drive to the courthouse and, of course, nothing for my time.

I've served five times, but never to a verdict.

Back in the late 70's and early 80's the jury room had only about half the seats needed and the restrooms seldom had soap or even toilet paper.

That has been fixed with a nice new facility and a phone-in system which allows most jurors not to be present except when they are actually likely to be impaneled.

I've never sat on a grand jury. I understand that might be even more onerous since the service lasts 6 months for up to one day a week.

Jury duty is an imposition, no doubt. But one of the prices I'm happy to pay for living in a democracy.

Don't know if another poster mentioned it, but as a potential juror you should not be discussing the facts of a case on which you might sit.

No - I am under no obligation to not speak of this until I report for the juror selection process. That gives me a whole week to continue to bitch!

[SmartAlecCat]

All potential jurors should read this site: http://fija.org/

And, as an added bonus, if you don't want to serve on a jury, simply tell them you've read that site..

[curioushat]

I will never be selected to jury service. I am stauchly anti government, pro drug, anti death penalty, etc.

I would love to serve on a jury in a federal drug trafficking case because regardless of the circumstances I would have no choice but to find the defendant not guilty on the principle of jury nullification.

I would imagine that it's not okay to lie on the questionnaire but if I could skirt the questions and make it onto the jury for any drug related or death penalty case, I would thoroughly enjoy it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think you'd have a pretty tough time of it since juror questionnaires always ask if you can impartially apply the law according to the jury instructions.

[curioushat]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I think you'd have a pretty tough time of it since juror questionnaires always ask if you can impartially apply the law according to the jury instructions.

But that specifically bans the option of jury nullification, which is the principle that jurors have the right to vote not guilty, not on the principle of guilty vs not guilty, but rather on the moral implications of the law itself.

I realize this is not a popular tactic, but there have been cases of individuals truthfully answering juror surveys, making it on the jury, and voting not guilty to drug cases on the principle of jury nullification. Whether that was the intent going into the case, I do not know.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Unless the survey omitted that question, or the attorneys didn't read them, I don't see how it would be possible to make it onto the jury without lying.

Anyway, the current state of the law does not allow for jury nullification. Jurors are finders of fact.

[Sateryn76]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Unless the survey omitted that question, or the attorneys didn't read them, I don't see how it would be possible to make it onto the jury without lying.

Anyway, the current state of the law does not allow for jury nullification. Jurors are finders of fact.

That link above has some SCOTUS cases that appear to say that is not correct.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Those cases are a bit misleading. Nobody bothers litigating the issue of jury nullification from the prosecution side because in practice there's no way for judges to prevent jurors from nullifying. See Sparf v. US for an example. Unlike in a civil trial, double jeopardy prevents judges from entering a JNOV in favor of the prosecution in a criminal case.

[curioushat]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Unless the survey omitted that question, or the attorneys didn't read them, I don't see how it would be possible to make it onto the jury without lying.

Anyway, the current state of the law does not allow for jury nullification. Jurors are finders of fact.

Yes, the current state of the law actually does allow a juror to vote guilty or not guilty for any reason whatsoever with or without regard to the facts or circumstances. This is a basic right of jurors, to never have their motives questioned.

It's also very easy to deceive a survey without lying, although lying on that type of survey I believe creates some sort of liability.

[Really Not All That Bright]

There is no such "basic right of jurors". Jurors' motives are questioned all the time, which is why judges can overrule them.

[curioushat]

I believe this is the only time that the Supreme Court has ruled on jury nullification. It is legal.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=156&page=51

Judges can only turn guilty verdicts into not guilty verdicts, not the other way around.

I should have been more clear. A basic right of a juror is not to be held liable for a guilty or not guilty vote. Their motives can be questioned but they cannot be held liable, and are thus free to vote however they wish for whatever reason.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sure. As I noted above, as a practical matter there is no way for the courts to prevent jury nullification. That doesn't mean jurors are supposed to do it.

[spankthecrumpet]

What about William Penn then?

[Hogfather65]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Show up in a Starfleet uniform, say you'll determine guilt or innocence with a mindmeld.

A Wonder Woman outfit and the lasso of truth

[Sateryn76]

Court's Bailiff released a statement today about the sequestration:

Originally Posted by Local Paper

During their time away from court, jurors will be sequestered on one floor in an area motel in a separate wing, with two bailiffs assigned to be with them at all times, chief bailiffs XX said. Among Judge’s decisions—no television, no phones, no computers, no electronic devices and no conjugal visits while the jury is sequestered. Bailiff said he has looked into meals at a variety of restaurants, and Judge decided jurors will be allowed one alcoholic drink with dinner. Arrangements will be made to accommodate interest in working out, swimming and for worship. Family members of jurors will be allowed a 90-minute visit on Sundays in a meeting room where 16 tables will be set up and bailiffs present, Bailiff said.

Really, this seems like a punishment for the jurors. No TV, no phone, no sex and no freedom for four weeks? Only ninety minutes a week with their family, in an open public room? How is this okay?