Juror says he’s too homophobic and racist to serve, now faces prosecution

I am fairly certain that the guy was just trying to dodge his civic duty. On the other hand, if I were a minority defendant, I’m not sure I would want this guy in the jury pool.

You don’t really want people in a pool who don’t want to be there - it leads to jurors playing Sudoku.

Would’ya prefer they played Hangman?

For those who don’t read the article he’s not being charged with being homophobic or racist but with dodging jury duty. I was all prepared to be outraged but that seems fairly reasonable.

He also claimed that if he were selected, he wouldn’t pay attention to the trial.
I wonder if he’ll pay attention to his own trial, and care whether HIS jurors pay attention as well.

Oh hell, hope I don’t get a notice telling me I’m in trouble for ‘dodging’ jury duty. Served last year; this year I don’t have a vehicle and have no way to get there and back every day for who knows how long, so I wrote in to be dismissed or whatever it is. Haven’t heard back yet, so I hope that’s a good sign!

Did somebody say something? I’ve been laughing at that judge’s getup for ten minutes.

I can’t believe this guy got in trouble by following Homer Simpson’s advice on how to get out of jury duty.

As a Brit who frequents this predominantly American board, and who hadn’t clicked on the OP’s link, I was initially confused by your mirth. “Hang on”, I thought, “American judges just dress up in suits and occasionally some tasteful black gown don’t they? Not the stupid shit our judges put on… so why is this guy laughing at the judge’s attire?” Between clicking on the link, and it actually loading, I suddenly realised, “Oh fuck this must be a UK news story”. :o

I love the guy’s wording:

He’s polite even when he’s being a total dick. I love the British. :smiley:

My wife has never driven due to a medical condition. They still made her go, I guess they expected her to walk the 40 miles to the courthouse.

Taomist, are you in the US? Here’s a sure-fire way to get out of jury duty that doesn’t involve claiming homophobia or racism, and [probably] won’t expose you to contempt of court charges.

Simply say: “I am aware of my Constitutional right, and moral duty, to judge not only the facts of the case but my conscience with regard to the law itself. If I find that the facts support the defendant’s guilt, but I find the law itself morally objectionable, I will vote to acquit.”

Courts in the US hate jury nullification.

This story sounds fake-this guy would be rejected by the lawyers doing their voir dire thing.
Actually, how can you be prosecuted for being honest? If I’m called for jury service, and tell them “I hate black people”-how could I be forced to serve?

That’s hilarious.

You won’t be forced to serve, you may simply get into legal trouble for failing to serve. See the difference?

There’s a reason it’s called Jury Duty and not Jury Optional Service. You have a duty to faithfully serve on a jury when asked to. You may not be selected to serve on any particular jury, but you have to be there and make an honest effort.

Most of the time these “honest answers” are just people who don’t want to be inconvenienced by serving.

You misunderstand-no defense lawyer wants a prejudiced juror. You would be automatically rejected, and hence ineligible to serve.

It’s your duty to make an effort to be an un-prejudiced juror. Reveling in your prejudice, in order to avoid the inconvenience of serving, is the opposite of that.

You can’t let people have a worry free way to get out of an important, if inconvenient, duty.

Here’s a big one: highly prejudiced people usually don’t believe they are prejudiced. The fact that you admit it is a pretty big red flag.

Your duty is to go to court when called, and answer questions put to you by the lawyers and judge honestly. If they then decide you are unsuitable, you have fulfilled your duty.

But it does sound like this guy went beyond that, and seemingly claimed he would deliberately be a bad juror by not paying attention and just voting based upon the opinions of other jurors. IMO it is for this he faces charges, not for stating he is a bigot.

But why? I’m only going under duress (threat of contempt). The (alleged) criminal has the right to remain silent yet the juror, who is only there because they ‘lost’ the lottery has less rights & is required to answer questions about personal, non-public information. Then, after the trial, at least some of their information is released publicly.