Last fall, I got a summons for jury service in a criminal death penalty case, along with a 40+ page (!) jury questionaire. Shockingly, they disclosed not only the defendant’s name and the circumstances of the crime, but also the presumed strategy of the defense to avoid the death penalty sentence (severe abuse in childhood). I am to report to the Court at the end of this month for possible jury service, and I read today in the paper that the Court has determined that the jury will need to be sequestered for at least four weeks in a local hotel.
The details of this crime make it pretty clear that the guy is guilty. Not only physical evidence, but also witness reports, situational clues and both an on-scene and jailhouse confession by the defendant.
Now, if I in fact get picked to serve on this jury*, I will have to:
Miss a month’s worth of work (my prior plan had been to work evenings to stay as caught up as I could - I am literally the only person in my office who can do my job)
Have to close my home business, as I cannot fill orders from a hotel room
Miss my daughter’s birthday
Miss my brother-in-law’s wedding (out of town)
Miss my cousin’s wedding shower
In addition, if it goes longer than four weeks, I will miss my cousin’s wedding as well, along with my anniversary celebration.
Plus, as I live in the southern part of my county, and based on the nearest cluster of hotels to the courthouse, it will require my family to make a 30+ minute drive to see me.
I am luckier than some, in that I am salaried and my employer will give me full pay (as long as I turn over my jury pay to him), but what about people who work hourly? And my employer is screwed because all of my work (much of which is time sensitive) will be undone for at least a month.
I know that jury service is my civic duty, but are these costs too high for a defendant that is clearly guilty? FWIW, he turned down a prior plea deal, which I assume was life without parole for the three murders and the subsequent attempted murders of the cops.
I doubt I will be able to serve. I am staunchly anti-death penalty, and indicated that I am familar with the case and consider him guilty in the questionairre I returned. Plus, I don’t think my relationship to family members and friends who are cops and DEA, and the fact that I have been a paralegal for my entire adult life will look good to the defense.
It does seem to me to be too high a cost, yes. Workwise, at least. The jury system should recompense more than just ‘tough shit, this is your duty, here’s money for a bagel and gas.’
The birthdays and weddings, however, I would count as stuff that’s really horrible to miss, but not something that the court can take into account. Everyone has those - those exemptions would make getting jurors nigh-on impossible.
I think real economic hardship is/should be a legitimate excuse. I’d actually be in favor of a law requiring all employers to cover an employee’s regular wages/salary while they are serving. Perhaps up to a certain time limit ( say ~4 weeks ), with the government covering any expenses over that for very long trials. As it happens my own employer does cover my regular wages ( hourly ) with no time limits.
But of course in your case it appears you are covered anyway, so that’s not a serious issue
Unfortunately these fall under the category of “tough luck” as far as I’m concerned. Most people serving on a jury have similar issues and while I think a sympathetic judge with some alternate jurors in hand should consider excusing a juror if, for example, a trial is running much longer than was planned and is impacting a long-planned and partially pre-paid vacation, at the end of the day you could be stuck.
Jury service is a price we pay for being citizens and nobody said it would be painless.
Since you cannot assume guilt in the abstract, no. A potential severe economic burden as above aside, I would say it is not.
I imagine if I were a judge* and you could make me a compelling case that a 30-day interruption in your production would be so crippling as to cause irreparable damage to your business, I’d probably try to excuse you.
But if all it means is a slow down in filling orders for a few months and the loss of a few customers, neither of which inflicts serious economic hardship on you in either the short or long run…well…tough luck. Maybe.
In the end I suspect it is situational. If it looked like I had a ton of qualified jurors and thought I could afford to lose one, I might be more relaxed. When I did my long ( 7 & 1/2 weeks including deliberations ) jury serivce, they were originally looking for 12 + 4 alternates. After spending an entire extra-long day ( 10 hours, I think ) in voir dire with dozens of people they ended up with 12 + 3 because they simply didn’t want to spend a second day calling everyone back to wrangle over one more alternate.
*Let it be known that I am neither lawyer nor judge and am basing my musings purely on my own personal experience watching judges on a couple of different trials and the leeway they seemed to have on granting or refusing requests to be excused.
Not evidence, but an outline of the case, with full names and a “unbiased” accounting of the crime in question. The guy gunned down his two stepkids and his wife, and then shot at cops, and it was well-reported in the local media.
Just re-read the questionairre - it’s 54 double sided pages, and includes questions like “Do you believe in the value of psychology?”, “Do you agree with the statement ‘Finances are the #1 source of stress in a marriage’?” and “List your three favorite movies.”
It was not hard to read between the lines and see where the defense is headed.
It’s not the service that bugs me (I’d love to be on a jury), it’s the sequestration and its impact on the jurors life, for what is a completely obvious outcome. I don’t understand why they need to go through the rigamorole of a trial - why doesn’t the law allow a guilty plea, with only a sentencing phase being in front of the jurors?
I don’t think it’s too high a cost. It’s the price of the rule of law. Anyone might miss a month’s work - in exchange they get the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. That’s priceless (in the sense of worth an awful lot, not in the sense of valueless). To me, at least, that sounds like a fair deal; I’d much rather that than live in a country without trial by jury.
I think you guys are missing my main objection - it’s the sequestration, not the service itself.
Is there no trust that a juror wouldn’t voluntarily avoid exposure to coverage of the trial? It’s not OJ - this would be big news in our local paper, but not on a national level. The jurors are trusted to weigh evidence, ask about evidence they may not understand, deal with juror instructions, etc., and in my mind, purposefully avoiding news and discussion is no big shakes when you’re also asking them to fairly and throughly weigh the question of taking someone’s life.
No one is missing your point. They’re just not answering how you want them to. Clearly you want a different answer than you’re getting, which makes me wonder why you asked.
Not that I’m advocating lying, but I’d guess that No, No, Scarface, Godfather, Apocalypse Now would get you off the case. Along with the fact that they probably sent the survey out to 200 people I doubt anyone would even bat an eye (many of whom will probably see no repercussions from simply not replying to it at all).
Well if you got hit by a car and were in hospital for a month, would your business die? You should have some sort of a backup plan regardless of what comes your way.
If you’re operating a business and can’t take a month off without it falling apart, you’re walking too thin a line and you need to start looking ASAP to cover yourself for such an emergency.
But the fact that you said
seem to tell me you’re not an ideal candidate for the jury anyway
I overheard a woman on a bus today talk about a class action lawsuit over asbestos where the trial is expected to take months. How do you swing THAT? Even if the jury is all unemployed people, how do they explain that gap on their resume the next time they apply for a job (which they aren’t while busy on the jury)?
You shouldn’t be serving anyway – you’ve already made up your mind that this person is guilty.
You’re supposed to listen to the evidence presented with a clear and open mind and make up your mind AFTER that.
You should tell the judge that you are incapable of being impartial, that you believe the defendant is guilty, and get yourself excused.
You may have to serve on another case another time – and that is appropriate, as everyone who is not mentally and/or morally deficient should serve – but you shouldn’t be serving on this case.
I’ve been on a capital case. I’ve been sequestered. (Thankfully, only for three days. That was plenty for me, it was at a fleabag motel usually frequented by prostitutes. Seems somehow ironic.)
During the trial I couldn’t read the paper or watch tv – wasn’t supposed to before we were sequestered either and I did not – wasn’t supposed to discuss the case with anyone neither and I likewise kept it all to myself.
When we were sequestered I was not allowed to see any members of my family. My family had to pack a suitcase for me and bring it to the courthouse – it was searched before I got it. I didn’t see anyone except my fellow jury members and court personnel during the time we were sequestered. I DID get to talk to my SO on the phone but a deputy was listening in. If the trial had lasted longer special arrangements might have been made, I don’t know.
You’re anti-death penalty and this is a death penalty case? You have pretty much zero chance of getting selected, what does it matter what the personal cost of jury duty would be for you in this situation?
Actually, I told the truth, and that pretty much seals it for me. The Court called 400 potential jurors for this, and all but 8 returned the questionaire. Those eight were summoned to the Court to answer to the Judge why they didn’t answer the questionaire. The Judge is Not Fucking Around on this one.
I have a full time job, and my business is a recent start up that I’m running out of my house. If I was in the hospital, I suppose it would, but that reason wouldn’t smart as much as this one would.
Right - I noted that in my OP. I just thought it was an unusual set of circumstances that might be worth discussing.