If I ever get called, I will respond to each and every question asked of me with: “My name is [my real name] and I refuse to participate in this racist institution.”
Because that’s what I believe.
One problem we’ve encountered is that TV seems to have “trained” jurors to expect scientific evidence in every case, and if they don’t get it, they’ll let the guy walk. Doesn’t matter if the convenience store clerk knew the robber, coached him in Little League, and recognizes his car; if there weren’t fingerprints and DNA, there’ll be no conviction.
Okay, slight exaggeration, but still.
I really hate dicussions like this. Everyone loses when the only ones on a jury are those that are too stupid to get out of it.
If a judge determines you are intentionally screwing around to get out of jury duty, can you be found in contempt?
You’ve posted this before in another thread, haven’t you?
Anyway, good job helping to make the system a little less racist. Oh wait.
And just try telling the judge that you love the institutionalized racism of the legal system and are looking forward to your chance to participate in it.
What do you mean I’m dismissed? I said I want to be here!
I’ve been relieved of my juror duties. One day. Three years off. Well worth it. And I didn’t even have to use any of these suggestions!
Sure; contempt is one of those magic bullets that’s always in the judge’s pocket.
You’re put under oath at the start of voir dire. If the court determines that you’re not answering the questions honestly, you could be charged with perjury as well.
I would actually like to serve in a jury. I think it would be a fascinating (and also probably boring) experience. Alas, I’ve never even been called in to the courtroom to be questioned.
Anyway, I’ve thought of a couple of ways to get out of jury duty if you really want to.
One way: If asked if you think you could uphold the law (or however they phrase it) say “I believe that a trial is meant to do justice, and I intend to do that. The law is only an approximation of justice. If the law is in direct conflict with what I feel to be justice in this case, I will come down on the side of justice, not the law.”
Another way: This was actually related to an auditorium full of people by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. When being questioned for jury duty and asked about eyewitness testimony, he stated that he had run workshops on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Not only was he excused, but the entire courtroom full of prospective jurors was excused because he had “poisoned the well”. 
J.
I can assure you that around Silicon Valley being an engineer/scientist in no way gets you off, having been picked twice and getting to the final stage of a murder trial, where they filled the jury before my number came up.
And the judge will answer “cite?”
Hate to break it to you, but judges are well aware of the psychological component of juries, having been attorneys. When I was the foreman of the jury I was on the judge suggested that I poll people’s opinions before having the first vote, since people tend to lock themselves into the position they voted for, but might be more easily swayed by hearing the arguments of the other jurors. It worked. We were 11-1 for conviction at the first ballot, and the lone holdout changed his mind pretty quickly. Talking to the lawyers after we convicted, I discovered information not revealed at the trial which convinced me even further that we made the right decision.
I doubt your solution would lead to more correct decisions. Anyhow, I’m willing to go with about 1,000 years of common law experience.
And I got bounced for telling the defense that I am a mathematician and could be impartial and make decisions based solely on the facts.
Interesting how attorneys don’t want people familiar with logic on juries.
Santa Barbara is similar. I was one of four engineers on a jury (three active, one retired.) Of the twelve jurors plus two alternates, thirteen had college degrees and at least three had graduate degrees.
Yes.
:rolleyes:
After the my jury experience, a few of us stayed behind at the request of the attorneys. Both the prosecutor and the ADA told me that they like engineers on juries because they make logical decisions.
I should have been clearer defense attorneys don’t like logicians.
Actually, I should have been clearer. I meant to say PD instead of ADA.
If your system assigns juror numbers and you get a high one, say over 100, you’re unlikely to make the cut. Over 200 – not a chance.
My favorite culled candidates were:
- The man who was appearing before the same judge on a felony charge in two weeks.
- The woman who was an activist (and a loud obnoxious one) in some anti-prison group.
Every time I’ve been in the pool, the final question has been if we could convict someone for violating a law we don’t agree with. I could not, but didn’t bother to step forward since I already knew my number was too high.
Rather than trying to outsmart the system, which may result in wasting other people’s time, I suggest that you call the court office and tell them you have a work conflict. They may excuse you on the spot.
In some locations, you can volunteer to be on jury duty if you haven’t served recently.
I’ve been called for jury duty four or five times…been selected twice. One of those two was settled before we heard any testimony.
The last one was interesting. It was part of a much larger case - we could tell that there were things not being presented to us. Lots of sidebar discussions on what they could talk about. It ended up in a mistrial after three days.
A handful of us were hanging out in the hallway afterwards, chatting with the lawyers. The judge came by and asked if we were willing to unofficially continue. Apparently, this was the second mistrial…and the judge thought that if the lawyers heard our feedback after getting the evidence, it might help them settle the case. Or at least go smoother the next time.
So we went back into the courtroom and listened for an extra hour. It was funny how much was almost choreographed. One of the lawyers said “I would have presented this evidence. The plaintiff’s lawyer would then object, and I’d change it to this.”
After all that, we got to ask questions about the process, and about the parts of the case they didn’t tell us about up front.
All in all…a good experience. I’d do it again.
-D/a
Recently we heard from the leader of our local philosophy group about his good-faith answers to the screening questions and how they excused him in fairly short time. I’m having a hard time just now remembering most of what he had said, although it was just two weeks ago. But I think it fits in pretty well with your analysis.
The definition of “reasonable” that they seem to use strikes me as very phony. Here “reasonable” implies that one could be easily led. “Open-minded” means to the point of having holes in your head. - "Jack"
ETA: It was a civil suit involving maintenance negligence leading to an allegedly preventable injury from a fall.