Before Covid we had to check once, at the beginning of the week, and if we weren’t needed then we were done for the year. Now they have you check every day.
I lived for 15 years in New Jersey and never got called. Here in California I got called every year. I served on one criminal trial, and afterwards the judge told us that we’d get called every year because they knew we’d show up.
I had to postpone the last time since we were traveling, and when the new one comes up I’ll be over 70 and won’t have to do it. But I might.
I’ve been called twice, and did not have to show up either time because my number was too high.
My SIL has been seated twice, and both of those were for lawsuits. One was totally open and shut, and for the other, the parties walked into the courtroom, saw the jury, and said, “Yeah, we’ll settle this out of court.”
My mother was seated about 30 years ago, for a rape case. In this case, there was no doubt that he did it, but it still needed to be tried, and as one might expect, it was not a fun experience for anybody. However, someone had to do it.
I’ve received a summons three times so far. Twice (including this year) I ended up never having to go to the courtroom. One time I was called to the courtroom, but wasn’t selected as a juror.
I actually kind of want to sit on a jury once in my life, just to see how the whole judicial process works, if it meant I never had to do it again.
I’d love to serve on a jury! I majored in political science for my undergraduate degree, and my personal area of interest was what it means for “government” to happen when societies understand the value and obligations of consenting to collective majority rule.
I’ve been called 4 times as a juror, if memory serves. The first two times I had a valid reason why I couldn’t do it (living abroad for 90% of the time, even though my US residence was the State of Hawai’i). The fourth time (just a few months ago), I had to say that I’m involved in a lawsuit, so while I’m willing to serve I’m probably going to be eliminated.
The third time, it actually came within a hair’s-breadth of happening. There was a court case I was assigned to. I had the forms for distance-traveled-so-we-can-reimburse-you-for-gas and everything. I was all set to go serve, and it was on my calendar to show up in court the next morning…
…when notice came that the matter had been settled out of court. Good for them, bah for me.
I understand the many reasons why people legitimately don’t want to serve on juries, but none of them apply to me. I wish I could.
Early last year, I spent a week in voir dire, got selected, and then served about a hour on the jury. We got a little intro on the first day, went to lunch, and upon returning were informed that the defendant agreed to a plea bargain.
Not that I wanted to spend a month on a jury (that was the estimate they gave), but I guess it would have been nice to see a little more of the process.
Interesting side note on this. The Canada Justice Department website says that “… anyone charged with a criminal offence for which there can be a prison sentence of five years or more has the right to a trial by jury. In some cases, a person charged with a criminal offence for which there can be a prison sentence of less than five years may have the right to choose a trial by jury.” This makes it sound like a jury trial is a privilege extended to the accused in the most serious cases, and given the expense to the state, I suppose it is in many ways a privilege. But it’s very often to the accused’s benefit to opt for a judge-only trial.
One of the dramatic examples of this was the trial of CBC Radio personality Jian Ghomeshi, who had been accused by several women of sexual assault. We had an extensive thread about this. He chose trial by judge alone, undoubtedly on the well-reasoned advice of the sharp lawyer he hired. This was a case where he was very widely vilified and everyone “knew” he was guilty – as indeed he probably was; there had even been rumours for many years in the entertainment industry about his bizarre sexual proclivities, long before specific complaints came to light and charges were laid. Hardly anyone believed he was genuinely innocent, because he almost certainly was not.
But here’s the thing. It soon became apparent that the two principal witnesses had been colluding in an effort to “bring him down”, and their testimonies were inconsistent to the point that the women seriously undermined their own credibility. Ultimately the judge acquitted him based on lack of legally supportable evidence, causing simultaneously a firestorm of public protest and praise from the legal community for the well-considered application of judicial principles. My own hunch is that a jury would have been more likely to have been swayed by emotion rather than a strict interpretation of evidence.
It’s interesting to speculate how this may have played out in a US court setting. On one hand, the inevitable jury trial would likely have put the odds against him. OTOH, he probably had the means to hire one or more of the star “performing lawyers” skilled in courtroom theatrics worthy of Broadway, as in the OJ trial (“if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” actually turned it into a parody of a hit musical).
The machinery of justice is an interesting thing indeed.
I just received my latest jury questionnaire this summer. In 30+ years of eligibility, I was called during university (deferred with a phone call) and about 7 years ago where I made it to the courthouse, watched a 20 year old orientation video, and was then dismissed as there were no cases needing a jury.
At least we rarely have juries in civil cases here. I can’t imagine why everyone else in the courtroom is getting paid except for the jurors.
In NY if you serve, or at least eligible to serve such as your number was not called, you get a 6 or 7 year reprieve till your next one. This does not apply to federal courts, which I was summoned once, but moved out of their area so didn’t have to go.
What we need is a better system that doesn’t completely trample the rights of citizens.
As a non-citizen he wouldn’t qualify even if he could speak English. I got my first US driver’s license in Massachusetts in 2019, followed by a jury summons. It had a box under excuses for “I’m not a citizen”. I got a Ohio license in 2020, followed by a jury summons. It had a box for “I’m not a citizen”.
I get called once every few years, got to serve on one jury (settled after 1/2 day) and one grand jury (every Thursday for 17 weeks)
As much as you do to minimize our inconvenience, the whole process appears (to us) to be glacially slow. This DMV Clerk would be checking his watch. It’s the sort of day where (pre smartphones) you needed to bring a book with you just to have something to do in the hours before they let you go home.
Grand jury was better, as the DA who organized the schedule didn’t want to waste her time, so witnesses were the ones waiting on us.
I’ve been called for state JD three times and Federal JD twice in the past 15-20 years. I only served on one jury, but had to go to the court all 5 times. Each time I didn’t get seated took between half and a full day. The jury I sat on took up 2 days; one for the trial and one for the deliberations.
The 15-20 years before that I was never called for jury duty, but it was in another state.
Norway had juries only in some cases, but this was removed completely recently. The system now is:
Tingretten (lowest court)
Criminal proceedings - one judge, two lay judges
Civil proceedings - one judge and optionally 2-4 lay judges, who in some circumstances are subject experts
Conviction requires a majority of the judge being for conviction
Lagmannsretten (court of appeals)
Criminal proceedings - two judges, five lay judges - a conviction requires at least one of the judges with law degrees and a minimum total of five members of the panel to vote for conviction
Civil proceedings - three judges, optionally two lay judges if required by the law in question or one of the parties
Høyesterett (Norwegian Supreme Court)
There are twenty supreme court justices. Appeals are first evaluated by a Appeals Committee of three justices. If selected it’s heard by a panel of five justices. If it’s of constitutional importance it’s heard by the full court.
It can be worse.
Around here (southern PA) you serve for a week. You have to show up every day, on time, or they’ll send a squad car out to look for you. You spend all day sitting in a room with other potential jurors. It’s incredibly boring. Periodically, a computer selects a bunch of jurors at random (everyone is identified by a number, so the computer just selects a bunch of numbers). Since it is random, theoretically you could get picked for a jury every single day, or you could go through the entire week without getting picked at all.
The week that I got called up, I do know that at least a few people served on two juries that week, and some didn’t serve on any. I personally sat in the room, bored out of my skull, for the first three days. Finally on Thursday my number got picked. About 30 of us went to another room, and the lawyers from both sides asked us questions and slowly whittled us down to 12. We took a lunch break and the trial was in the afternoon. We deliberated for about half an hour and we were done just before 5:00.
Based on the number of trials schedule for Friday and the number of jurors left in the pool, the judge let us go and told us we didn’t have to come back on Friday, so that was nice.
This is the only time I have been called up for jury duty in the past 25 years that I have lived here. I lived in Baltimore before that and was never called up there. In Baltimore you apparently get to call in the morning and see if you need to go in. We don’t do that here.
This was also pre-COVID, so procedures may have changed. Having a couple hundred people sitting in one room for an entire week seems like a bad idea now.
Around here they use pretty much every type of public record (drivers licenses, tax records, etc) to generate their list of potential jurors. A computer selects names from that list at random, so like the OP, some can get called up multiple times and some never.
I’ve been called perhaps 5 times over years. Four of those were County and I made it to voir dire one of those times, but was not selected.
I was called once for city traffic court where I was selected and ended up as the foreman. We threw the book at him for speeding in a construction zone.
While I don’t agree with your assertion we “completely trample the rights of citizens,” there have been (and could be more) improvements. The call in system is vastly better than bringing in 800 people every Monday and see who might be needed. Judges do make every effort to keep things moving. Lawyers are more frequently put on a chess clock to avoid wasted timed. Legal arguments are often conducted before the jury starts or after they leave.
We’ve now done several remote trials (jurors stay at home and participate via zoom). Jurors love being in their own environment, avoiding the drive, parking, and security. If the judge says we need a 30 minute break, they’re not stuck in a small jury room, their in their own space and can do something productive (or get a snack).
I wonder if these guys would agree:
When I had jury duty, the jury minder people told us that pleas often roll in when the defendant sees the jury in real life. It makes the process more concrete for them and taking a plea becomes more appealing. I kind of get it… Here’s a bunch of strangers who took time out of their lives to judge you. This is really happening!
As it was, I was empaneled anyway and from my point of view the defendant was absolutely right to take the case to trial. Didn’t completely work out for her, but I would have voted not guilty had I not been made an alternate.
By coincidence I have jury duty next week. That would mean about 14 years since my last stint. My husband has never been called. I don’t mind jury duty, but being set as an alternate then disagreeing with the verdict, really really sucks.
When I filled out a jury questionnaire, it had a long list of criminal convictions that did not impair your ability to serve on a jury, including:
- being nude in a public place
- being found in a bawdy house
- engaging in a prize fight
- failing to keep watch while towing person on water skis/surfboard
- trading in lumbering equipment without consent of owner
That was by far the most interesting part of the questionnaire.
You’ll be happy to hear that Federal Courts (in civil cases) have done away with the theory of “alternate juror.” They need a minimum of 6 to deliberate and usually pick 7 or 8 jurors. Everyone who is left at the end of the trial joins the deliberations. I recently participated in a state court trial in Colorado that did something similar.