I think that sequestering a jury is simply the wrong thing to do. Keeping people who did nothing wrong away from there homes and loved ones just not a good thing to do.
And the times I was called to jury duty, I gave them a letter from my boss that I would not be paid for the time I was off. Both times the excused me from duty. If I was being paid my normal rate, I’d be fine with serving. But I can;t afford to be paid the $8 a day or whatever the rate is.
And I do agree that in cases like this, when the facts say the guy is guilty, pretending otherwise is just silly. Sure, he deserves a trial. But that dosn;t mean that people can;t make up there minds based on the information they are given.
You weren’t talking about “deciding for yourself”, though. You were talking about deciding whether or not the defendant should get a trial. I don’t think anyone here is thought policing and saying you’re not allowed to form your own opinion, just that your opinion is not a basis for waiving the defendant’s right to a jury trial.
Where I live there’s quite a few exemptions and I would think the situation is much the same everywhere, but of course different states get to be different if they choose.
As was previously mentioned, exemptions includes having small children at home. Also an elderly or infirm family member – if you’re tending to someone who is ill, that’s an exemption.
I believe people over 70 are exempted from jury service in Georgia if they wish.
Member of the clergy and physicians are exempted.
I would bet most anyone who works in law enforcement is stricken for cause by the defense but that is a WAG on my part.
It depends, of course, on the judge, but if you are a “key man” for your company or self-employed, especially if you have a seasonal business, service can be rescheduled/postponed/possibly exempted. For example, I would bet there are few accountants/tax preparers doing jury duty right now. Tbat being said, I’ve also seen situations myself where a juror aggravated the judge and wound up serving, simply because they made such an ass of themselves. I can tell you it pays to be polite to everyone in the situation, especially the guy/gal in the robe.
Tell them you wish to serve and ask if your service can be scheduled for a better time. Most jurisdictions will agree… My home county will put you in another pool upon request, usually a month or two off from the original date.
The case does sound heinous – crime is a heinous business – but even the most heinous among us are entitled to a (somewhat) fair trial. I say somewhat because American jurisprudence is often a capricious bitch but the ideals behind the system are fair and sound. Even if every member of society believes the defendant deserve to be put under the jail – or taken outside and shot – that doesn’t matter, the presumptions are the same. If we don’t do things fairly for the most heinous among us, how can we expect the system to be righteous for all of us?
We have an auto repair shop, with four technicians. (State of Washington). Whenever one of our techs gets a jury summons we just write a letter to the court stating that we don’t pay salaries for time off, and also that loosing one of our techs would cost us roughly $1,000 per day in lost income. We have never had any problems with getting the tech excused on this basis.
It does sound like an odd one for sequestration. Isn’t that usually to make sure jurors from getting outside information or to protect them from intimidation? They’ve already given you so much information (it’s a “guilty by reason of” plea, isn’t it?) and it doesn’t sound like there’s going to be Mafia hitmen lurking around the corner.
Well, the defense seems to think he’s not worthy of a trial, seeing as they gave out the information before hand, thus guaranteeing that the prospective jurors will form an opinion before the trial, and thus not be able to serve.
And sequestration is too much to ask, period. And I’m not too convinced that trials need to be as long as they are, anyways. They just sent you all the facts on a sheet of paper. Have the prosecution also send one, and then have you write back your opinion on whether the guy is guilty. As long as there is some percentage of people who think he’s guilty, don’t waste time or money on a physical trial. If another percentage think he’s innocent, set him free.
If the results would be different because you are in a room with than if you just had the facts, then whatever’s going on in that room is deception. Heck, the only reason I’m allowing for a trial at all is so the jurors can get together and discuss things: I still don’t want emotional appeals from anyone. If we are truly concerned about justice, emotional manipulation cannot be involved.
The defense seems to think certain facts aren’t worth forcing the prosecution to prove. If, for example, the defendant’s fingerprints were found all over the murder weapon, the defense doesn’t really have any reason to contest it.
They are clearly going for “not guilty by reason of insanity” so they don’t care if you all think he’s guilty and they’re not going to prove that part. They’re going to assume guilt and try to persuade you of the “reason of insanity” part. And count me as another who just doesn’t understand the need for sequestration here. That is pretty extreme and usually only used for very high-profile cases. But then I find the idea of sequestration about as attractive as the idea of being in jail for a similar length of time–it seems just the same to me except for posher surroundings and better food (possibly).
Also this makes me nervous because I’m staring at my own jury summons for Tuesday. Gulp.
I can’t imagine this material came from the defense side, or the prosecution side for that matter. I’m thinking it came from sides the court and included information agreed upon as a suitable part of the voir dire process. If either side sent out stuff like this unilaterally, they would be sanctioned by the court.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.