I reported for jury duty today. This is in Monroe County, NY (the city of Rochester) so there were a couple hundred of us. We were randomly divided up into groups for seven different trials.
And it ended up with at least five of the groups being dismissed. And maybe a sixth because they were still pending when my group was dismissed. So out of seven possible juries only one even started the actual process of appearing before a judge.
I’ve been summoned for jury duty once before about ten years ago and on that occasion also the jury was dismissed after a few hours.
So I have two questions. The first is whether my experience is typical. Do most people who get summoned for a jury end up being dismissed before they ever step foot inside a court room?
The second question is a little more subjective. On both occasions, we were told that we had performed a vital role in the case even though we never actually did anything. We were told that the mere fact that all of us jurors were standing by ready to start the trial was a key factor in convincing the parties in the case to reach a settlement.
I appreciate the sentiment but I suspect they were blowing smoke up out ass. I can see where they didn’t want to come out and tell us the apparent truth - “You guys just wasted your entire morning sitting here for what turned out to be no reason.”
Because honestly why would anyone change their mind at the last minute because a bunch of potential jurors were in the building? It’s not like we had any actual input into the proceedings. And it’s not like our appearance was somehow in doubt. I don’t think any lawyer has ever been desperate enough to hope that the case against him will be dismissed because the court system couldn’t find twelve random people to sit in a jury box.
My guess is that the reason for these last minute resolutions is due to the actions of the lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, and defendants. They’re the ones making offers and decisions. I’m assuming they take it right down to the wire because they’re hoping for a better offer at the last minute. And either that offer comes or they decide to take the existing offer when it doesn’t.
But maybe I’m too cynical. Is there anyone with trial experience that can tell me that the presence of a jury about to appear creates a psychological factor in the other parties?
They hope not that the court would dismiss the case for want of a jury, but that opposing counsel will settle. It’s a bit a game of chicken, each side is waiting to see who blinks first. This is for a variety of reasons, chief among them being (1) courts make it more difficult and expensive to terminate a case while a trial is in progress (in order to discourage unnecessary trials and to encourage pre-trial settlements), and (2) the settlement calculus changes once trial has started (the threat value of going to trial is a lot higher than the threat value of continuing to try, most of a trial’s sunk costs have already been sunk).
Good pay, compared to Cook County. Here, it’s more like $18 a day.
My guess would be that they summon enough jurors to give a sufficient pool (including those who would be dismissed or rejected) for every case which might begin a jury trial that day. And, I’d also guess that there are lot of last-minute settlements and plea-bargains.
Parenthetically: I’ve been called three times, and actually served once, on a two-day DUI trial. My wife has been probably been called a dozen times, but has never actually served on a jury – she’s only ever even made it as far as a courtroom once.
I was called, once upon a time, in Canada. This totally screws up your planning, since I got the mail 3 months before the trial. With no idea how long the trial might last - I assumed it was serious - I could not plan a vacation within a month or so of the trial. In a small town, it was probably the only jury trial planned that year. (Canada seriously dislikes jury trials, thanks to Pierre Trudeau’s dictatorial tendencies in the 1970’s).
The trial was cancelled 2 weeks before I had to show up, so less time actually wasted than the OP. My impression from what was said - it was a big game of chicken.
The defence figures if the prosecutor actually has to go through with a jury trial, they are more inclined to bargian for a much lighter sentence; if they think the circumstances or evidence are questionable, or a jury sympathetic. They may use this as leverage to wait for a good settlement. It’s their way of saying “make me a better offer”.
The prosecution, OTOH, wans the defence to know they are serious. They are not putting it off or waiting for a settlement, they ARE going to trial, and the perp may get a worse sentence.
So yes, by being in the building you persuaded both sides that it was time to bleep or get off the pot in terms of a deal, whoever thought they might be worse off with a jury trial.
There is an element of brinksmanship to court cases. The pressure builds as the case gets closer. Having the jury present and ready is one step closer. If it’s a civil case, the parties can reach a negotiated settlement even during the trial. That’s the ultimate brinksmanship.
The one time I had to show up and sit around for jury duty (Los Angeles county- you just phone it in now) they told us straight up that they used the presence of of a jury to get things moving when somebody is stalling too much. Our group was there late one afternoon, and the judge told the bailiff, or whoever it is that babysits the jury pool, to send a panel to the courtroom - at 4:45 p.m. We stood in the hall for a few minutes as the parties to the case had to walk past us to enter the courtroom. (One of the lawyers did a double-take at the hefty book I was reading.) We were immediately sent back to the waiting room and dismissed five minutes later.
I have been on several juries, and in one case (a civil one) the jury was dismissed when the lawyers agreed to a settlement after the jury had been selected. The judge told us that the mere fact that the case was really, truly about to go to trial was the incentive for the lawyers to make that settlement.
I believed him (as well as the other posters’ comments about “brinkmanship”), although a small part of me is still convinced that the settlement occurred after one of the attorneys took one look at me and thought “I’m not gonna let this guy decide my fate”.
.
I was just called (and selected) in Queens County, New York City.
Every single person called was sent to a courtroom to be considered for questioning within 2 hours of arrival. I was sent with the last group, at 10:30 am. Some people were sent up more than once, if they weren’t questioned on the first go-round. No one went home without seeing the inside of courtroom, unless they were dismissed for not speaking English, being too sick to serve, etc.
I’ve been called to jury duty a lot so far in my life. Maybe ten times altogether. Yet in all that I’ve only served on a jury once, and only made it to a jury room two other times. Every other time I was dismissed without a trial even starting.
(IANAL…) Pierre Trudeau’s government basically eliminated the right to a jury trial unless the offense(s) charged was punishable by 7 years or more, IIRC. The commentary at the time was that jury trials were too difficult and expensive, and juries did not always do what the prosecutor wanted; while judges were less likely to be swayed from the letter of the law by details like sympathy and common decency, aka natural justice.
As a result, in almost 40 years of eligibility, I have received a jury summons only once; and that was cancelled 2 weeks before it was due. Similarly, my wife has only been summoned once. I am surprised to hear of people in the USA recounting frequent calls to jury duty. Maybe that’s a human right they enjoy that we do not, to be judged by a jury of your peers. So NP, how many times have you been summoned and served?
Canada’s past history of righting injustices - Robert Latimer, Stephen Truscott, Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, Dave Milgaard - it seems that once the system has made up its mind, wild horses and a huge swell of public opinion is needed to exonerate the obviously innocent.
Same deal when I served (I ended up an alternate), except we were only payed $25 per diem and we did get free parking. We got little passes to hang from our mirrors so that we could park in the courthouse square without feeding the meters. This was a rural county seat with no public transit (except a van service for old or disabled people).
In Baltimore City, Maryland, they show movies to those waiting to be called. We were watching “Remember the Titans” one time, and they let those waiting go for the day at 4:45 p.m. The movie had about 10 minutes to go, and I was p.o.ed because I wanted to see the end.
Never had any questionnaires, but did answer oral questions from the judge and/or attorneys.
$40? Really? When I first did jury duty, it was $10 a day, and it eventually went up to $15. Enough to cover the subway and and ice cream cone at lunchtime.
I’ll do you one better - not only was I on a jury (twice), but I was a foreman one of those times.
I’ve been in Cook County for 11 years and was called to jury duty once. I was an hour late and they didn’t care. (Public transit to get from North Side to 26th and California SUCKS) I missed the initial calls, so sat around and played video games on my phone until lunch, that was IIRC 1.5 hours, and then sat on my butt for 45 more minutes before we were all released at 2pm. Probably over a hundred people there total. I got a paid day from my job, but I had to sign over the $17.20 check from the county!
md2000, your comment is simply nonsensical and wrong.
The Criminal Code provides that offences can be prosecuted in one of two ways: by summary conviction, or by indictment.
The two main differences between summary conviction and indictment are in the penalty and in the manner of trial. If the Crown proceeds by way of summary conviction, the trial is by judge alone, in the Provincial Court. However, the general rule is that the maximum jail time is six months, as set out in s. 787(1) of the Code:
Thus, if the Crown is seeking a penalty of more than six months’ imprisonment, the Crown must proceed by way of indictment.
The basic principle for trials by indictment is set out in s. 471 of the Code:
(My underlining.)
So, the starting point for charges where the accused faces more than six months’ imprisonment is that the trial will be by jury.
Now, that doesn’t mean that all trials on indictment will actually be by jury, because the Code gives the accused, not the Crown, the power to elect trial by judge alone.
(My indents and underlining to help make a block of text more readable).
So, it’s up to the accused to elect not to have a trial by judge and jury, not the Crown. And if the accused fails to make an election, the default is again a trial by judge and jury.
(The reference to offences listed in s. 469, by the way, refers to the most serious offences, such as murder, which must be tried in the superior court. It is possible to have a trial by judge alone in those cases as well, but only if both the accused and the Crown consent to trial by judge alone; see s. 473(1).).
Thus, the basic principle of Canadian criminal procedure is that in cases where the accused is facing more than six months’ imprisonment, the accused has the right to a jury trial. The accused can waive that right, but the Crown cannot take away the accused’s right to a jury.
There is only one case where the Crown can override the accused’s election with respect to manner of trial, but it goes the other way: if the accused is facing more than 5 years’ imprisonment and has elected trial by judge alone, the Attorney General can require that the trial be by judge and jury, as set out in s. 568:
So, far from giving the Crown the power to deny the accused a right to a jury, the Code says that in certain cases the Attorney General may insist on a trial by jury.
And what does Pierre Trudeau have to do with any of this? well, nothing with respect to these provisions of the Criminal Code. They aren’t new - they were the law before he became Prime Minister and continued to be so after he left office, without any change.
In other words, Mr Trudeau turned what had been a statutory right to a jury into a constitutional right, to bar Parliament from taking away the right to a jury trial, in cases where the potential punishment is more than 5 years.
Hardly the action of someone with “Dictatorial tendencies” - to entrench the right to a jury trial in the Constitution.
Here in WA, a jury summons is good for an entire week, wherein you are required to call a hotline each evening and listen to a recorded message telling you if your services are required the next morning.
I’ve received two in my life, and only one where I was actually required to report to the courthouse. There were, by my count, 32 people called, from which two juries of six people were formed.
You’re still ignoring the basic point - you said that Trudeau took away the right to a jury. That’s not correct - the right to a jury is well-established in Canadian criminal law, as I’ve explained above, and the general rule is that it applies whenever the Crown is seeking an punishment of more than six months.
What Trudeau did was entrench a basic minimum right to a jury in the constitution, for cases where the punishment is over five years. That is not at all the same as abolishing the right to a jury for charges carrying less than five years.
