I got out of it six times. I swear they new when my due dates were and sent me the notice just then. Each time I was summoned it was within a day or two of my due date. Six times…about every two years. Considering how my labors go (one of my kids was born in the car) the definitely did not want me serving on any jury.
Now my excuse is gone and I’ll actually have to go…when they send the notice.
So, here’s my question: why do so many people conclude that lawyers don’t want intelligent/smart/rational/amazing-sex-machine jurors when they just so happen to have been rejected for service? People act like they would haaaate to be picked for a jury, but the reaction says otherwise. Do you, deep down, feel that the dismissal is somehow a reflection on you as a person or something? It just reeks of “FINE! I DIDN’T WANT TO JOIN YOUR CRAPPY CLUB FOR JERKS ANYWAY!”
My daughter was once on a hung jury (from her description, the evidence was less than convincing) and since then has been called several times, but when they find she was on a hung jury, she is always excused. Why bother calling her then (it seems like every 2 or 3 years) since the hung jury is a matter of public record?
Any time I go anywhere I bring something to read!
Harris County lets you go online & postpone your duty. One time I got picked for a civil trial–a couple of days & slightly interesting. Alas, once I feared being picked because one of the other candidates was a loud, half-bright jackass–kind of a rich kid, former football hero, working in a law office but too dim to pass the bar; I stated my problem with some drug laws & was let off. (He was apparently out waiting in a car while a deal went down with the narcs inside.)
About 10 years ago I acquired a sure-fire way to get excused from criminal trials; a next-of-kin was injured in a crime & eventually died from the effects.
Last time I got called for jury duty, I walked into the courtroom for voir dire and discovered that I knew the prosecuting attorney! We had mutual friends and I’d partied with him and his wife on several occasions – to which they’d brought their dog. (That became relevant.)
I spot the guy, wink and nod, he says hello, we all take our seats. I had nothing much really going on at work, so I was all stoked and excited and wanted to be on the jury. It appeared to be a case about drunk & disorderly – we didn’t get a lot of details, but I’m guessing the frat boy sitting at the defense table got a little too hammered at a game or something and tore shit up or something. I was totally happy with this because I could be impartial about that sort of thing.
Then the judge asks if anyone in the jury box knows any of the attorneys present or herself. Dang. I raise my hand. I get the raised eyebrows. (Thing is, this is the capital of the state, so you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting an attorney. About half the prospective jurors either knew someone in law enforcement or someone in the room.) “Yes, I know Mr. ____, the state’s attorney.”
“And how do you know him?”
Um, we got drunk together at a Halloween party?
“We have mutual friends and have attended several of the same social events.” (There. That sounds much better than “We sucked off the same beer bong.” :D)
There were several other questions from him, but he really screwed us both when he referred to me by my first name because he felt awkward calling me Miss LastName. The moment he singled me out as different from the rest of the jurors, I’m sure, is when the defense attorney lost her mind. The defense attorney went apeshit and had me bounced. She thought there was no way I could be impartial if I was friends with the prosecuting attorney. Frankly, we didn’t know each other all that well and I’d only learned his last name while I was sitting there in the courtroom. I did, however, mention his dog by name (since he’d already used my first name, I knew I was out, so what would one more personal detail matter?) I didn’t care if he wanted the guy convicted or not. She wasn’t having it and I was out. I saw him a few weeks later and he told me he’d argued to keep me quite a bit, but the defense attorney won that one. I didn’t bother to ask how the case came out; wasn’t really that interested.
So, yeah, my advice is: party with attorneys every chance you get!
Epilogue: That prosecuting attorney has now started his own private practice, so it’s no longer likely that I will know one of the lawyers next time I’m called and will probably have to serve.
Precisely. I got turned down so it must have been because I was too smart and logical and beautiful and special even though several actual lawyers in this thread said that they don’t make decisions that way. :rolleyes:
I have been summoned 4 times but have never served. The closest I got was actually in the courtroom. I was called, sat down, and the very next thing the defense attorney did was to remove me. No excuses or questions or anything, I guess he didn’t like the cut of my jib.
But I want to serve on a jury really really bad. I love arguing, and I think I can be fairly impartial. However I do believe in some things that will probably get me kicked out of jury duty forever, one of which is jury nullification. Even more than voting, being on a jury gives a regular guy unprecedented power to dictate the laws in this country. Most of the laws I feel are fair, or I’m not as informed in so I’d follow it, but there are some, such as drug laws, that I feel need to be changed. I would be hard pressed to convict someone for smoking pot.
A lot of people who have been dismissed seem like they’d make good jurors, at least most of us on the Dope can do some critical thinking. As a lawyer, I wonder if some of you think its unfair or stupid to dismiss potential jurors for seemingly trivial reasons. If you guys were picking a jury, would you ever consider simply agreeing to all jurors except the most egregiously biased ones, potentially not fighting 100% to stack the jury box but for fairness to the jurors by accepting them despite possible leanings?
I think that’s a little further than most of us want to go! 
I would be surprised if there were a jury trial anywhere in the US in the last ten years for someone being accused of smoking pot.
Math teacher - got called and chosen to be on the jury where one of my student’s parents was suing someone.
I thought I wouldn’t get chosen, but they never asked me if I knew anybody involved in the case.
I did learn that’s it’s not wise to act as your own attorney when you don’t know what you’re doing. It was painful to watch.
Santa Barbara can be such a small town. Every time I have been called, around ten percent of the pool is excused because they know someone involved in the case.
Ask the judge to explain the concept of jury nullification.
You’ll probably get the whole panel pitched as well as yourself. You’ll probably catch hell from the judge as well, but hey…
Depends - if it’s an anglo being tried, he would have a right to a jury trial in English, so you could end up getting called.
Obviously I was joking a bit at my own expense earlier. I actually don’t think intelligence had anything obvious to do with selection. Both juries I served on had every category of people from college professors ( both juries ) and medical professionals to bartenders and housewives. It was actually quite explicit what the lawyers were fishing for in one selection and somewhat in the other and it obviously wasn’t smarts per se that was getting anyone bumped. As it happens a couple math/statistics folks did get bumped from one selection, but that was because statistical analysis had a direct bearing on the case and the one who did the bumping was the judge. I enjoyed both jury experiences quite a bit ( and the much longer one was actually more fun ).
However I do think there is a grain of truth to Thelma Lou’s observation, in that I think a certain type of less obviously opinionated-seeming class of people were more likely to get chosen. I could say “open-minded”, but one could certainly cast that as “bland” depending on your POV. Hence my little poke at myself for getting selected both times I got called in.
I was called for Jury Duty a couple of years ago, and ended up as the First Alternate. The Defendent was charged with Burglary and Possession of Stolen Goods. It was his third strike.
The Jury selection process took two full days. I heard every excuse known to modern man, including loss of pay, planned vacation, the company will suffer, will be out of the country, etc. Only two people were excused; one was a woman who’s Husband had passed away three days before. The other was a guy that had moved out of the state but stilled showed up to serve! The Judge was truly amazed that the guy drove 4 1/2 hours and excused him immediately! Every single other person was re-scheduled/postponed.
I just got another summons, but have managed to postpone until November. Will try the Financial Hardship gambit.
“Your honor, just like everyone else, I really don’t feel like being here today. Therefore I’m going to mouth a lame platitude about refusing to participate in a ‘racist system’, and that way I get to go home while telling myself I’m taking a bold and righteous stand. What’s that? Yes, your honor, I agree. In fact, just between us, I would add ‘complete and utter’ to that characterization. Nonetheless… thank you, your honor, and see you next time. Keep hope alive!”
I think the nullification tact is almost always a sure way of getting the boot, if that’s your goal. Just explain that you feel your job on the jury is to judge both the law and the crime, not merely rubber-stamping that the prosecution checked off enough boxes. You don’t even have to say the words, just the concept. With any luck you’ll not only get yourself removed, maybe even everyone who heard you. Be sure to ask them to take you out to lunch afterwards.
I would actually like to see some serious jury reforms, because in the few trials I’ve seen it was disheartening to see the supposed ‘jury of my peers’ being 90% comprised of elderly retirees and obvious ‘non-critical’ thinkers. Say what they will, neither side’s lawyers want someone who asks “Why?” or “What if?” when presented with a line of fuzzy logic. That’s too bad.
Oh, you’re clearly right. I don’t want no critical thinkers on my jury, no siree! And the fact that I’ve been doing this for nigh on 15 years and familiar with my peers’ rationale for picking jurors means nothing. And all that money spent on jury psychologists and Decision Quest and ridiculous hours spent at CLE on this topic, nah that’s a lot of horse feathers, too.
While you’re here… I suspect that people claiming that even so much as hinting at jury nullification will get not only themselves off of the jury but the entire room cleared is just as spectacularly ignorant as the claim that no lawyer wants smart people on the jury. Is this true?
I have to say I’ve never had anyone bring it up in open voir dire. I think it’s more of an issue in criminal trials. Judges and attorneys generally have enough sense to question those types one-on-one so there isn’t a problem with tainting the pool.
Of course an attorney who doesn’t want to go to trial and intends to blow through an entire pool for cause would love that sort of thing. I have heard of that happening and it’s usually for things like punitive/exemplary damages or comparative responsibility.
But, for all you folks who intend to try to get off via smart-ass tactics, I have witnessed judges nailing egregious and/or smug jurors for contempt.
And truly, most judges are smarter than most of you apparently believe.