Let me help you with your post:
IMHO because SOME judges are pompous assholes are full of themselves.
There. Much better. You can thank me later.
Have you ever done jury duty?
Who do you think she would present these bills and income statements to?
The $9 an hour clerk, who is just trying to check her name off a list?
Maybe the person who runs the PA so they can announce “would jurors one through 100 please report to courtroom A, except Guinstasia, who showed me her W2’s earlier, and I really think that out of all the jurors who showed up today. . .we’re going to make an exception for her”?
The judge? “Your honor, I’d like to interrupt this jury selection process to show you copies of my paycheck, and a list of prescriptions I have. And, your honor, if that’s not compelling enough, take my word for it. . .I’m far too opinionated to serve on a jury.”
I believe it was Steve Martin that recommended that you simply state that you support the death penalty for parking violations.
The last time I got called (which was about 8 years ago now), I showed up, spent all day there, and at 4:50 p.m., was called into the jury box for voir dire. I should say right up front that I knew at least ONE of the attorneys would challenge me for cause based on the nature of the case and where I was working at the time.
However, when the judge was questioning me (before the attorneys), one of the questions was, “Can you follow the court’s instructions on the law, even if you may not agree with the law?”
To which I said, “Are you asking me to give up my right of jury nullification?”
To which the judge said, “Yes.”
To which I said, “I can’t do that.”
To which the judge said, “Then you can’t serve on this jury.”
I haven’t been called since.
I will be the first to admit that I’m an idiot so please bear with me - what does “the right of jury nullification” mean and what is it?
I have a feeling I’ve been wooshed here, haven’t I?
I hate that I knew exactly who was going to be described in that link.
I’m with you, Trunk. Guin, I will back you up on the problem of not being able to afford to lose income…one of the biggest problems with the judicial system is that some people are affected so much more than others by a loss of pay. But this idea of not being a good juror because you are too opinionated or base opinions on unrelated things is ridiculous. It makes you sound like you really need to grow up.
The last time I did jury duty ( which was about a year ago and I served and enjoyed it, but then as a government employee in California I still receive my pay regardless of the length of any trial ), the judge asked if anyone had any particular hardships that prevented them from serving. Those that did were asked to line up and she quickly interviewed them one by one in her chambers. So in such a case ( and I have no idea how common that is ) having paperwork backing up the nature of the hardship might actually be useful.
Walk up to the counter after it’s cleared of check-ins and ask in a rambling incoherent manner, “about prior convictions, well I really wasn’t really convicted because I left that state, but the other state choose not prosecute and…”
The juror badge will be ripped off your shirt so fast you’d think it’d rip.
Kudos to you for being honest with the judge and attorneys. Just so you know, jury nullification is a power, not a right.
Essentially it’s the power of a jury to nullify a law by its ruling (e.g., refusing to convict a drug user, despite the facts and law of a case, because the jury does not like drug laws).
If I may interject a brief hijack:
Hung juries result in mistrial and retrial. Can this retrial process go on forever so long as juries keep getting hung?
Trunk, during the voir dire phase of jury selection for my experience, each juror was asked if it would be a financial hardship to serve - that’s when you could present your bills and income statements.
Similarly, I also saw the clerks running the jury pool talking to prospective jurors about what were and were not acceptable reasons to be excused. Though the conversations I saw there were about deferments, and the clerk suggesting to one person, since she was already in the court building, that she should see if she gets called in for the pool, since the odds were against her being chosen to be voir dired and that would satisfy her jury duty requirements for the next six years. (She wasn’t one of those selected with me for the voir dire, so either she took a deferment, or lucked out.)
Theoretically, yes. In practice, the charges are usually dropped after the third mistrial.
Thank you, Bearflag70. I appreciate it.
No, I’ve never done jury duty, but I’m a lawyer and am familiar with the jury selection process in my jurisdiction. Here, prior to the actual day of jury duty, you can go to the court officials in the sheriff’s office and ask to be excused. The sheriff’s staff have some discretion to excuse from jury duty in cases of hardship.
Also, the day of jury duty, judges often address the jury pool in a general way, and ask if there is anyone for whom serving on a jury would pose a hardship, and also ask other questions to weed out someone who can’t serve on the jury in a particular case. Only after that stage does the selection of individual jurors start.
Of course, there’s always administrative variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction about how jury summons are handled, so Guin shouldn’t rely on anything I say as legal advice. She should call the office that sent her the jury summons to ask about the issue of financial hardship. Depending on the degree of discretion they have under their law, they may want something in writing showing her financial status. Or, they might say she has to take it up with the judge. YMMV.
I’m curious. What would happen if you had answered the judge yes, you could follow the courts instructions and then had a change of opinion during the trial. Could you be held in contempt of court?
Good question, and I don’t have an answer to that.
Then again, jury deliberations are private; they’d never know, necessarily, how the not guilty verdict was reached.
I hate that I was looking for the link before I finished reading the post. 
You’re right in saying “necessarily,” of course. Jurors could agree not to talk, and that would seal it forever.
In Tennessee, at least, the trial attorneys are permitted to ask the jurors after the verdict about what went on during deliberations. They may ask once, respectfully, and if the jurors don’t want to talk about it, they have to leave them alone. I’d think there would usually be at least one juror willing to talk, but I have no personal experience in this yet (bar exam results will be released two weeks from today!), so maybe they usually come up empty.
This does vary from state to state, and I don’t know where the Tennessee rule falls on the spectrum.