Its a very odd social dynamic. Put a bunch of adults in a strange room and decide who is the leader.
Civilly of course. 
I’ve never in my life seen so many people at once check if there shoe was untied.
I stepped forward because I didn’t want to dick around for 3 hours just to decide who is going to have to speak for the group.
I have been on jury duty many times, but I have have never had to render a verdict. Every single case, both criminal and civil, was settled shortly after the jury was selected. Occasionally, I got to hear the opening arguments. I used to think that it was smart not to get on jury, but now I think that the fastest way out is to get on a jury. Also, if you answer questions in a manner that makes it obvious that you are trying not to get picked, you risk pissing off the judge. This is never a good idea.
My favorite jury duty was when I got called on May 1 and went to a courthouse where there was apparently no active trials and we ended up listening to speeches from politicians. Apparently May 1 is ‘Law Day’ in New York and we were only there to provide an audience (this wasn’t my favorite because of the speeches, but because it was only single, short day).
I don’t think it’s fair to call the other 11 “sheep”. They made what seems to me to be a very reasonable decision: they chose their leader based on the individual’s demonstrated leadership abilities. Seems perfectly sensible to me. 
My experience has been similar to Ethelbert’s, except I never actually got seated; however, once I was about to be when the parties settled. All the other times it’s just show up for the first day or two, then back to the office with me. The last time, I was dismissed at lunchtime on the second day and had to go back to work for the afternoon.
Los Angeles County has a one-day or one-trial system, meaning that if you’re not in a courtroom for a specific case by the end of the day, you’re done. ‘Being in a courtroom’ includes not only actually being on a jury, but also when you’re being considered as a juror on a specific trial.
I’ve always wanted to do it at least once, but I seem to be jinxed. And I have to go through the motions every year, as my company is a large one that pays us our full salary during jury duty, so I have no basis for claiming hardship.
what is the big deal about being foreman? What are his duties? Why is it bad (or good)?. Is it hard work? (or any work at all?)
I would think that all 12 jurors are stuck there for the same amount of time. So what difference does it make who is the “boss”?.
I went in last year, expecting to sit around for a day and be sent home, only to be chosen for a five-day criminal child molestation trial. :smack: I’m still surprised that the defense let the 18-year-old young woman sit on that jury, but I’m glad I had the chance to convict a grade-A creep like the defendant was.
(The whole thing was pretty terrible. The closing statement from the defense was an hour and a half, and he mispronounced “Ralph Fiennes” three times. I think the entire jury was doodling little “SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP” scribbles on their notepads to stay awake; I know I was. At least one of the prosecution witnesses had a voice like Jeremy Irons, even if our time together was too brief.)
I can’t wait to be called again.
I can tell you my experience. In the trial for which I recently served on the jury, we didn’t elect the foreman (actually a forewoman) until we began deliberations. And, really, she was the only one who volunteered. She basically led the discussion of the various charges, signed the verdict forms and announced the verdict in court. But we were each asked to state verbally in open court that we agreed with the findings. This trial attracted some local publicity, so she also served as unofficial spokesperson at the end of the trial, and she was quoted by name in the resulting articles. (I was “the male juror who declined to identify himself” in the papers.)
Really it doesn’t make a difference who the foreman is, although he or she may be able to influence the verdict.
Sorry, one correction. Our foreperson didn’t announce the verdict in court, as the court clerk read the verdict forms out loud. But the foreperson did hand the binder over to the bailiff, who passed it along to the judge, who examined the forms before handing the binder to the court clerk.
When I was doing jury duty, I heard a couple of intersting stories about people not being selected for juries because of their connections to the court. One was the wife of a judge, who obediently showed up each day she was supposed to for the month, but as soon as the lawyers heard that she’d attended (or hosted) parties with the judge for the case in attendance, the lawyers asked that she be excused.
The other featured a defense attorney, who’d been called up to serve on a jury “across the street” (As best as I recall, the Circuit Court Courthouse and the District Court Courthouse are across the street from each other. I forget which we were in, but it was the one that the attorney usually practiced in. When called up for the other, he was recognized by the judge who gave him an opportunity: looked right at him and said"Anything else the court should know about?" and he took the hint and said “I’m a defense attorney across the street” and was dismissed for cause. Or so I understood.
I also heard an interesting story about running out of jurors. The month I had jury duty, they called up 150 or 250 people, something like that. We served on a variety of panels for civil and criminal cases. Towards the end of the month, there was a day where they basically announced that if you were not actually placed on a jury that morning, you were expected to show up again at 1pm, when they needed an extra large jury pool to choose from. (I ended up on a jury. We ended up being a hung jury due to nincompoop jurors. I think I’ve told that story before).
Well, 1pm comes, and everyone shows up. The trial will be of two bank robbers extradited from Tennessee (we were in KY). It is soon discovered that there are not enough jurors who have not been tainted in the room, they continue the trial and hope for the best. The trial was supposed to be chosen that day or that week due to statue of limitations issues.
Why are there so many tainted potential jurors? Well, half or three quarters of the people had read about these bank robbers in the paper, where various bits of information–like prior crimes-- which jurors were not supposed to hear about had been printed.
Also, and more importantly, many of the potential jurors had heard about the case from Fred (not his real name). Fred was a member of the jury pool who liked to hear himself talk (trust me, I was on a jury with him later in the month). More importantly, Fred had been present in a bank when these bank robbers robbed the bank. Fred had told this story to anyone who would listen, not realizing that the bank robbers who were soon to come to trial were going to come to trial and he would be sitting there listening to the list of names “Anyone one know Judge X? From this month Jury duty or other contact? OK. Anyone know Police Officers Q-Z? OK. Anyone know the names Bank Robber one and Bank Robber TWO? You do? How? And you’ve told half the people in this room the story? How could you be such an idiot blabbermouth? What an unlucky coincidence!”