I watched a trial once. A friend was on trial for first degree murder. He ended up getting convicted of involuntary manslaughter, the whole thing would take too long to explain.
I was surprised how, with a man’s life at stake, that such a trial could be so boring. It’s not all fast and snappy like on TV. The attornies nitpick everything, drawing out maybe two minutes of action into hours of questioning. Trial lasted four days, and my friend got three years probation.
Usually, when the alternates are dismissed, the judge says that you can stick around if you want to (but you can’t remain with the jury). I have seen alternates be dismissed, leave through the jury exit, and come right back in and sit in the gallery, which is always open to the public.
There’s another one: 4) The defendant is so convinced that he won’t be convicted, despite solid evidence of his guilt, that he won’t accept a reasonable plea offer and demands a dismissal or a trial (at which he has no doubt he’ll be acquitted). These guys are usually very surprised by the jury’s verdict.
The lifehack is to mention that you will race against all prejudices.
I have been called for Jury duty 5 times. I was dismissed once and selected as a juror 4 times. I could write very long posts about all 4 times I severed on a jury but won’t. (Maybe if more details are asked) The one where I was dismissed I kind of lucked out on that as the judge told us that they expected the trial to last 45 days. But If I had been selected I would have been OK with it and done the best job that I could. I also have the benefit of an employer who pays unlimited for jury duty so its not as big of a burden on me.
They say that its random who gets selected to go from the Jury room into the Pool in the court room to be potentially seated on a jury. But I can say this after the 5 times I have been selected and talking with other potential jury members at lunch and in the hallway the people that mark off on the jury form that their employer pays unlimited always get randomly selected first as potential jurors.
The first case was almost 20 years ago I was 18. I had the job I have now and had been there for just a few months and can remember my manager telling me I was too young to be on a jury. He meant it more as he did not think someone my age was mature enough to be a juror. And looking back on it I would probably agree with him. The Fox of today would not have voted exactly the same way 18 y.o Fox did. However the man on trial was 18 years old himself however us being the same age is about all we had in common as far as life experience. He was on trial for domestic violence against his wife also 18 years old and mother of their 5 and 3 year old. He was charged with 4 things, Making terrorist threats, battery, brandishing a fire arm during a crime or something like that, and I don’t recall what the last charge was.
We acquitted him on the terrorist threats charge and hung on the other 3. The fact that we argued on the battery charge for 3 or 4 days was crazy looking back at it and considering the evidence that was presented. But it came down to a letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Basically as I recall the degree of battery he was charged with stated something to the effect of “If a person intentionally touches another person and the other person did not consent to the contact or want the contact this constitutes batter in the X degree.” That is not the exact wording and like I said this was almost 20 years ago. But this is what came out during the trail, they (the defendant and his wife) were arguing in front of a group of there friends. The defendant put his hand on his wife’s shoulder and leaned in to whisper to her that he would prefer to not have this argument in front of there friends. She pulled her shoulder away and did not want to stop the argument at this time. He did not grab her shoulder or pull her in, just rested it there to lean closer to her ear. This was testified too by her, him and one of the people witnessing the argument. We dead locked on if that was battery or not. This is all the tip of the ice burg for this trail it lasted 3 weeks. This post is already too long and I could go on and on about things that happen during this trail in and out of the jury room.
The 2nd case I served on was a civil trail though really in the end we were arbitrators as the defense side had admitted fault but they could not agree on the amount of compensation. What was different about this one and I liked it was that the Jury was aloud to submit questions to the witnesses. We would write the question down give it to the bailiff he would take it to the judge if he OKed the question it would be passed to both lawyers and if they OKed it the question was asked of the witness. but without getting into too many details at this time the case was medically complicated. The injured party was attacked by the defends dog and had multiple injuries. Both sides had a Dr. from very predigest medical institutions and lots of letters after their names come and give there option on the best treatments for the injuries. Of course they were very different treatments and cost very different amounts. But the hook was that during jury selection they basically eliminated anyone with any kind of medical knowledge. So after listening to complicated medical testimony we had to decided if the plaintiff got the money need to cover treatment A or B. Another one that had a lot of detail I could go into but we were not happy as a jury when we went into the jury room to start deliberation.
The 3rd trial was the one that was the most straight forward and it was a murder trial. However being the least complicated of all the ones I have been on it not saying much. But the basics of this one is man kills man that molested his 5 year old child. And there was not much doubt that he did it. He was going for the jury nullification however we found him guilty. Their were 2 jurors that did attempt to argue for him at first, however it did come out that he did not just kill this man but that he had been tortured before he was killed. Not that should have made a difference but the 2 gave in quickly and we voted him guilty.
The 4th trial I was on was the worse of them all for me. This one has left me really not wanting to by on a jury again and that says a lot after the first 3 well 2 anyway the 3rd was just bad because of content not anything specific that happen during the trial. But I really will try to keep this one short though I can see people wanting more detail from this one more then the others. But I hung this jury 11-1 and it was one of the hardest things I ever did. But it left me more mad at the system or at least the judge in this case I do not know if the judge was being a pain or the system required her actions. But I will say this as the trial unfolded I realized that I knew the location where one of the incidents happened very well. So when the alleged victim gave his side of the story at this location I knew he was full of shit but only because of my knowledge of the location. I was hoping that the defense would pick up on this and call him out on it but never did. I asked to speak with the judge before deliberation as I knew this would sway my vote but it was due to outside info not presented during the trial. I explained this to the judge and she basically told me what I just said. I can not use that info and to go and deliberate on what was presented. which also related to my 2nd issue with the judge. The father of the victim was also a witness of a 2nd alleged altercation between the defined and the victim that supposedly happen outside there home. However the father did not speak English and had to have an interpreter. Now the interpreter did not just do a bad job translating the fathers testimony he flat out changed it and not even close, and it very much affected how the jury was voting on one of the charges. Thankfully there was another juror that spoke the langue too and backed me up when I also told this to the judge. Her response was that what the translator said in court is the official testimony and is what must be used in deliberation. That juror went with the judges orders and voted the other way so that left me alone voting not guilty. It was one of the hardest things I ever did to hold my vote. Especially when I could not tell the other jurors why I was going against, I figured if I did tell them and it got back to the judge I would be in trouble. I almost did change it thinking the system says you need to decided this way, But the system be damned and I felt I had to do what is right. I was also afraid that if it came out that it was 11-1 and the judge found out I was the 1 that I would be in trouble anyway and again almost changed my vote. I don’t know what happen with the man that was on trial, I was able to speak with his defense lawyer after the trail. She thanked me for doing what I did. As I even considered voting guilty and then tell the defense what happen and let them sort it out in an appeal as I guess that is the system. Still not sure if what I did was the right, but I probably would have done it agian.
Forgive my grammar and/or spelling not my strong suit for a multiple reasons. And so much for keeping it short but I rarely post and this subject got to me as my experiences at these trails really effected me. However as a poster said up thread most of the time is spent with the lawyers harping and nit picking the stupidest things. very boring and even all I went through it no where near as exiting as T.V and the movies make it look.
I’ve done it twice. The first time I was seated once on a trial straight out of daytime TV. It ended in a plea deal.
The second call I had to go in four times and was seated on a jury four times. Two ended in mistrial and two went through deliberations and verdict. One of those was awful enough to leave me feeling terrible for weeks afterwards. While the overall process was fascinating at times, I am in no great hurry to do it again.
Does being 70 actually remove you from consideration or is it just that you have the option to decline if called?
If they send me another summons some time in the future, I can check the box for exemption for being over 70. However, I’ve been told that the computer will not choose anyone over 70, period. Don’t know if this is accurate or not. I guess time will tell.
Thirty years in Maricopa and I’ve been summoned about five-six times. Not once did anyone in my jury pool get to hear a case. Never even got to voir dire in half of them.
Good thing the county has over 4 million people. Otherwise justice might never happen at all.
Maricopa county’s most famous recent case went on for. ever. Jodi herself testified for something like 18 straight days. Watching the highlights on tv is boring enough. Even with all the sex talk.
I was once empaneled on a jury for a Court Martial; does that count?
The dude arranged a plea deal before we actually convened though. We went through the whole empanelment and sat down. We broke for lunch, and when we came back, the Judge said the Airman had changed his plea to “guilty” for a litany of drug-related charges.
Tripler
I haven’t been called since. ::sadface::
To date I’m three for three. Actually called in 3 times, empaneled 3 times. For some reason I apparently come across as ideal jury fodder. Probably speaks poorly of me that I’m just interesting enough to get dismissed :D.
Well, today was the day!
I showed up, handed in my summons form and took a seat with the rest. After a while, the bailiff came out and started calling out names in groups of six for us to go in and be seated. This was JP court, so the jury is only 6, not 12. The judge finished up the last two cases, then called for the trial we were summoned for. Somebody suing a towing company.
He started off by thanking everyone and giving a little speech about how important jury service was. Then he said, “I think I can get a jury from the first 20 folks. Numbers 21 through 27, you are dismissed with the Court’s thanks.”
I was number 23. 
So sorry that you didn’t get seated. (Or, should it be the other way around?)
When called, I’ve been frustrated by the fact that nobody would release me prior to the voir dire. For reasons I’ve posted previously, I’m absolutely the last person a prosecutor or defense attorney would select to serve. In spite of this, I go down to the courthouse when called. I then try to make the clerks understand that I can’t possibly be selected and that I should just be excused. No deal. I end up staying until the afternoon and then I’m released.
A couple of my attorney friends have told me that there’s no mechanism for me to get released unless I either plead a hardship (a lie) or get rejected. “No sane attorney would fail to challenge me for cause,” is apparently not an option.
I prevented another person from being on a jury.
A friend of mine was to stand trial. I witnessed part of the jury selection. At a break I heard a potential juror whine “Why can’t we just hang him and get it over with?” It was in fact a murder trial. So I sought out the defense attorney and discreetly pointed out the bitch, telling the guy what she had said. she wasn’t selected.
We weren’t allowed to talk to anyone except the bailiff. Not counting answering questions, of course. And we had to sit in full view of the judge until we were dismissed, so it would have been nearly impossible to even whisper to someone without being noticed.
I’m kind of in the same boat. I was a cop back in the mid-70s. Lawyers don’t want me on juries, whether criminal or civil. I must have been called for jury duty more than 30 times since the mid-70s. Sometimes I’ve been cut like I was today. Most time, I get booted during voir dire. 
And my big, honkin’ check for six bucks came in the mail today.
Ima party with it! :D:D:cool:
Just finished mine yesterday. It was as infuriating as usual. I had to trade cars with the wife (my truck won’t fit in any downtown parking garages), replan stuff at work, go waaaay early because I’m unfamiliar with traffic patterns, and sit in an uncomfortable overcrowded room with *eight times as many people as needed *for the panel. (Yes, I counted and Yes, it was for one single trial)
As usual, the actual jury was picked from the first 16 (in numerical order) and the rest of us had our lives disrupted. All because the criminal justice industry is incapable of understanding probabilities. I’d love to hear how often they actually work through the entire jury pool and need the last guy. Or even the last 50. I’d bet it’s less than 1 in a thousand trials. So to avoid delaying 0.1% of their work, they delay and disrupt the workdays of thousands of citizens annually. The arrogance of this is astounding, and infuriating.
I’m sorry this was inconvenient for you, and I’m not sure you have much interest in hearing this, but your estimates aren’t accurate. I’ve sat through quite a number of jury selections in my life, and it is not infrequent that the entire pool of jurors called to the courtroom is gone through, requiring a need for the judge to send for additional potential jurors. The more complex or lengthy the trial, the more potential jurors you’re going to run through before settling on the final members. I have seen jury selection take up to four days for a complex criminal trial.
And it isn’t about the court delaying its work. It’s about the court not further inconveniencing the jurors who are actually picked, so they keep the process moving. The actual jurors sitting on a trial are often not happy to be there, and it would be much worse to say, “You’ve been chosen; you’re stuck. But we’ve run out of people to pick from, so we can’t start the trial today. We need five more jurors, so we’ll just invite maybe 10 more people tomorrow and hope that’s enough. Otherwise, we’ll try again the next day.”
I think that even the people who don’t like being on a jury would say, for the most part, that courts give a great deal of deference to the folks who are serving on a jury.
A little more background from a prosecutor:
We always need way more people than end up actually serving. Let’s say we’re having one felony criminal trial, meaning the desired result is one jury of 12 people. To get that, you’ll probably need to summon about 125 people. Of those, about half will actually show up. The rest will either defer, or not be qualified, or will have moved out of the county and not updated their records, or are just skipping out on jury duty. So, in calling 125, you’re hedging your bets.
So that leaves you with 62. Of those, another 12-15 who show up will either be disqualified, claim an exemption, or have some other excuse as to why they need to be deferred. These can ordinarily be done over the phone, but some people who can be excused show up on the day of jury selection anyway. Frequently, someone shows up who has a felony or theft conviction, and they have to be excused. So, that cuts us down to maybe 50.
Now voir dire begins, and several people end up being challenged for cause and excused. Stuff like, they say they can’t consider the full range of punishment, or they know the defendant’s family, or their immediate family member was raped and they can’t be fair to an accused rapist. That’ll knock out another 7-10. So now we’re down to about 40.
Each side has 10 strikes they can use for whatever reason they want (except a discriminatory reason, like race or religion). If you’re counting, that means that you need to end up with at least 32 (10 strikes + 10 strikes + 12 jurors). There will probably be some double-cuts, but just in case, that’s what you want. Also, in some states (like Texas), alternates are required, so you really need at least 36.
So, calling 125 people for a 12-person jury actually cuts it pretty close. Remember, we’ve been doing this for a while, we know how many people we actually need.
And this would be for one trial in a small county. In large counties, they frequently have multiple trials going at once, so they call hundreds of jurors, qualify them in a jury pool room, and divide out panels into different courtrooms. Also, defendants often decide to accept a plea when they’re actually looking down the barrel of a trial, metaphorically speaking. So, they may call a couple hundred jurors, only to have most of the defendants plead guilty right before trial, and they can send most of the jury panelists home.
I had the reverse happen to me once: I was called in my city, and none of the defendants decided to plead, so they were actually short of jurors. I had to sit through one voir dire in the morning, and stick around with everyone else who wasn’t selected for another one in the afternoon (both were misdemeanor DWI trials, which only require six jurors).
Another thing to consider: potential jurors aren’t the only ones who have to miss work and rearrange their schedules to be at court that day. Victims, witnesses, and their families have to do it too. They didn’t ask to be the victim of a crime. Even though they want to convict the guy who wronged them, coming to court is no fun for them either. And if there aren’t enough jurors and they have to go through it all again, it’s extremely upsetting, especially if you’re a little girl who has to tell a room full of strangers about her first (unwilling) sexual experience. So have a heart.
Very well stated, Max Torque.