As I noted in this earlier thread, I was informed a few months ago that I had been selected for inclusion in the 2010/11 jury roll for NSW.
Now, as expected, a summons has arrived. But I wasn’t expecting a 6 week trial! That’s just what I need.
Show up drunk wearing nothing but These pants.
You will be excused from duty.
So - are you going to attend or send excuses? Bear in mind that the chances of you actually getting on the jury are less than 50-50 even if you don’t bail. They usually send out a lot more jury summonses for sittings with a long trial in it to accommodate all the people who have perfectly legitimate reasons why they can’t give up that length of time. But after that culling process, the size of the prospective panel on the morning of the trial will still be substantially larger than 12 (usually 30 or so in my jurisdiction, and that is probably about the same in NSW).
Your are a law graduate? Cannot serve.
I know my chances of ending up on the jury are lowish. I’ve been through this process quite a few times before, either to have my panel dismissed, or to be challenged by one or other of the barristers. I think I’ve had about seven or eight summonses since I turned 18, and only one of those ended up in my sitting on a jury.
I am planning to write and request that I be excused on work-related grounds. I suspect that my chances are slim.
I’ve been poring over the *Jury Act *this morning, but the ineligibility provisions extend only to Australian lawyers i.e. those admitted to the legal profession. I’m merely a law graduate. I will, however, use that as a secondary argument in my request to be excused. I assume that the reasoning behind lawyers’ ineligibility to serve as jurors is their “better than average” knowledge of what’s going on. Perhaps I can argue that my law degree should confer the same ineligibility upon me.
There is precedent to exactly that effect. I don’t believe it even requires you to have graduated.
Give the duty magistrate a call.
I know it’s inconvenient but why would you try to bail out? If you were on trial, wouldn’t you want someone like you on the jury?
You didn’t ask me this question but I, like the OP, am a legal graduate some months away from being a lawyer.
If I were on trial, I would want a professional with experience to be the judge of facts, not 12 random hastily-trained amateurs, even if some of them have studied law.
Well, if I were innocent.
IANAL, but I concur!
Best wishes,
hh
How much of a daily stipend does jury duty pay? I know that’s one reason I would opt out of jury duty, wouldn’t be able to afford that much time off of work unless I had a fair bit of surplus cash
I was called for a trial that was expected to last four or more weeks…they sent out a preliminary questionnaire to eliminate anyone who would be unable to serve for that amount of time. Unfortunately, I didn’t fit the criteria, fortunately the trial got postponed so it would go to another pool. My company’s HR department was a bit flummoxed because when I called them to clarify the pay situation in the event I had to serve, they had never had any other employee serve longer than a few days. Then, the court put me on call for a month. Had to call every Sunday night to see if I had to report Monday morning. Let me tell you, it made making schedules for our little two-person crew very dicey. But I never even had to go in to the courthouse at all. I really wanted to experience jury duty (and this was Federal court) but it ended up being two months of uncertainty and hassle for nothing at all in the end.
And in my case, the court paid (I think) $40 a day, and my company would make up the rest of my income for each day I had to serve. I was worried because the possible month-long service would have hit during the survey period for maintaining full-time status for benefits, and I wanted to be sure Jury duty would be taken into consideration. I’m not civic-minded enough to lose my health-care benefits just to serve on a jury!
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Principally, it’s the inconvenience. For six weeks I’d be coming into work for several hours each morning, then spending all day in court, then coming back to work until late. Or working most of the weekends.
Not much, but that’s not an issue. My employer’s policy is to pay employees their normal salary while they’re doing jury service. We have to hand over the stipend in return.
Okay, you’ll have to explain this disconnect. Maybe this is a case of cultural misunderstanding here, but why would you be going to work? If your employer pays your salary while you are serving ( as mine does ), that usually pre-supposes you aren’t working for it on the job ;). In other words your job during those six weeks would be to serve on the jury, period. Why would it be otherwise?
In my very slightly similar situation ( U.S. District court, seven+ week court case ), the presiding judge sent out questionnaires and asked if folks would be available to serve 8-10 weeks and only took those who volunteered that they would for the jury pool. I thought it was a pretty reasonable way of doing things, but it seems the method varies from court to court.
My brother got called for a Grand Jury in New York. That took a few weeks out of his life. He owned his own business and was able to work it out.
When I had jury duty I was
Because six weeks’ work would pile up on my desk, most of which could not wait for six weeks.
A friend just served on a 6-week jury. It was a murder trial. It messed up her life for a while but she was very glad that she served.
I don’t know what your job is, but most employers would love for you to think they just can’t possibly operate without you for six weeks – but I’d be willing to bet they can.
Not exactly the same thing, but years ago I had a boss who guilt-tripped me into skipping my uncle’s funeral, and I always regretted it. My priorities are different now and I don’t fall for that stuff, and I’m quite certain my work life has not suffered for it.
My advice: Research your company’s written policies and your state’s laws, and if you have the time coming to you, take it, and don’t feel bad about it. Your company will survive.
ETA: Also, I’ve served on a jury before, and I’d recommend the experience to anybody, despite any inconvenience. It’s part of being a good citizen.
If you don’t mind telling, I’d be interested to know how you went from the law to actuarial science.
ETA: Generally, in my personal experience, and from what I’ve seen and heard elsewhere, people with advanced specialized education in any subject tend to be excused. I don’t know if it works the same way in Australia, but if so you’d seem to have that one covered like a bedspread. Although, in my jurisdiction, they’ve clamped down a good deal on peremptory exclusions, so that may not hold true as much as it once did.
I don’t mean to be confrontational but exactly how many people do you think are seated on juries that it doesn’t disrupt their life? While the jury system has it’s flaws, it’s still the one of the best legal systems on the planet.
Wheelz makes a good point. If you were absent from work for a critical health emergency, I would guess that your employer would not fo out of business. You are replaceable, work can be re-distributed, whatever fits the situation.
I hope that you are never in a position to need a jury because based on your standards, the only jurors available will be don’t-have-anything-better-to-do people.