I’m glad to hear that Ray’s pessimism isn’t necessarily borne out in your experience, dougie_monty, and that you weren’t swayed by the entreaty to get out early. Good for you!!
Judy
“It’s hard to avoid reading because ever wheres we go, reading is there.”
Alternative method of avoiding jury duty—go into the courtroom wearing an aluminium foil hat. Say: “It’s for protecting me from the satellite death-rays.” 
Sounds like cranky old Nanobyte could get off jury duty even easier. Just “be yourself” , Nano… 
Bad manners? How should I know? I was raised by wolves.
Well, finally an idea where I get to be creative with aluminum foil!!! Thanks Bosda Di’Chi!! I think Ray must have a corn on his foot, I know when my little toe on my right foot acts up, I gripe about everything too! 
“It’s hard to avoid reading because ever wheres we go, reading is there.”
Anti Pro: This is a method that worked for me because my boss could not afford to have me miss work to serve on a jury. However, it works only in a case that has gotten a little publicity.
Just say in a polite, reasonable tone that you are convinced the defendant is guilty or innocent. I was summoned in Indiana a few years ago to hear the case of a town marshal who was accused of drunken driving. I told the prosecutor that I thought he was innocent and the whole thing was just political shenanigans. The judge asked me if it was possible I could keep an open mind, but I told him no.
Needless to say, the prosecutor moved to strike me from the jury pool. However, the defense attorney wanted mer badly!
(As a paranthetical note, I decided the marshal was guilty after reading more about the case in the local newspapers. However, I still think he was prosecuted only because he had been squabbling with his town board for a couple of years. This was a county where a sheriff’s deputy – who admitted he had had a few beers – wrecked a car seized under RICO laws before the defendant’s trial, and not one damn thing was done about it.)
And if expressing racism is beneath you, Spencer Gifts has a nice selection of T-shirts that would probably make you just as unappealing.
Better yet, do the appropriate research prior to appearing before the judge, and say that you already did. It takes a bit of effort, but at least there’s no possibility of being nailed for contempt.
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
My mom just finished serving on a jury for a man accused of hiring someone to kill his wife. This was a high profile case that detailed the gruesome murder of his young, beautiful wife. It is an interesting but sad case. Here is a link to some of the news articles if you are interested:
http://www.desnews.com/cgi-bin/libheads_reg?search=Paul+Allen+&limit=999&x=91&y=9
My mother said that it was the hardest thing she has ever had to do, listening to the details of the killing (the killer mentioned how hard it is to make a person die), to the testimony of the girl’s mom, to making a decision that will affect many people for the rest of their lives, to sending someone to prison (he received life with a possibility of parole after 30 years). However, she said she would not trade the experience for anything.
During the jury selection, one of the questions asked was if there were any reason why a person did not want or could not serve on the jury. Those people were released and didn’t have to serve. I assume that your circumstances would be enough to excuse you from duty.
You turn me on. But maybe it’s because I just spent 20 years in the jungle, getting it on with anything I could attract with a piece of fruit.
That wouldn’t have worked in the case I was on. It was the judge who told us about the case in the first place. The big L. A. County Law Library–law books as far as the eye can see–is on the other side of the block, but I doubt any judge would let me leave the courtroom long enough to do legal research–which was my major in college!
I know. That was my goof. I was confusing the original version with the Showtime remake. Henry Fonda WAS Juror#8 in the original. Jack Lemmon was the same character on showtime. I don’t know the actors in the original that well, but I looked it up on the IMDB, and Juror #4 (my part) was played by E.G. Marshall. I don’t even remember the details of the script, but they changed my part to be a woman, and I was a total bitch.
AntiPro, no jurist will expose themselves to the awful publicity entailed in forcing you to serve, after seeing that your son seizes, and must be cared for. He/She does NOT want to have to stand there in front of Atlanta’s finest ENG News crews, and explain why his/her courtroom has more rights than your son’s life. Won’t happen, trust me.
Document the hell out of your son, however you can. Take reams of medical files to the courthouse, they will HELP you out the door once they realize what they are dealing with in you. And, good luck !
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.
The attorneys may challenge any potential juror for cause. The attorney issuing the challenge has to explain why s/he wishes to excuse the potential juror. If the judge agrees, the juror is dismissed. If not, the attorney may use a pre-emptory challenge. Each side has a certain number of pre-emptory challenges. The USSC has ruled that pre-emptory challenges may not be used on the basis of race or sex, reasoning that attempting to create a jury of uniform race or sex violates someone’s constitutional rights (any legal types have the cites for those cases?). A court in California recently ruled that pre-emptory challenges may not be used to eliminate potential jurors based on sexual orientation. I strongly disagree with these decisions; the idea of pre-emptory challenges is supposed to be that you don’t have to give a reason.
I’m way jealous of everyone who’s been called for jury duty. I called up the court people trying to volunteer, but they don’t take volunteers. This I do not understand; it seems like with the hassle the courts supposedly have getting people to show up for jury duty they’d be glad to have people who actually want to be there.
I thought they were called peremptory challenges. Did I hear the lawyers incorrectly when I was on jury duty?
I have to agree. Some say cities are cracking down, but until they send me my jury summons via registered mail, they have no proof that I ever received one.
New and Improved
Enright3
I should probably state for the record, that a friend of mine discarded two or three summons while he lived here in GA. Personally, I have been summoned to appear three times, and I went all three times. Once in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and twice while I lived in Texas.
In Tulsa I sat on a jury where a young teen black child drowned in an apt swimming pool that had not been cleaned. Apparently the pool was so filthy, when the paramedics arrived they couldn’t see a body on the bottom of the pool. Very strange case in that pools are private property so they don’t need a life guard. However KMOD Radio did a live remote from that location which made it a public swimming pool (since it was announced on the radio). The kid couldn’t swim, there were several people around, but no one saw him get into the swimming pool. (If it was that filthy, WHO WOULD?)
The rest of my time in the Jury Pool in Tulsa was spent playing cards or playing ping pong. It was actually a lot of fun.
Total Jury Duty: 5 days.
In Fort Worth I was selected for a jury in a rape trial. Near as I could tell, a man went to prison for rape. When he got out prison for rape, he promptly went back to this woman’s house and violently raped her again (cut her thumb off?). We spent one day picking out jurors for the case, in which I was selected. The next day we were brought into the court room again and told that there would be no trial. I guess he plea bargained. I was sent home after that, and not even put back in the pool.
Total Jury duty: 2 days.
My third call to jury duty was nothing. They came in ONE time and picked from the pool of jurors, everyone else was sent home.
Total Jury duty: 1/2 day.
New and Improved
Enright3
Otto said:
The first in this line of cases is Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) which is the seminal case involving juror challenges based on race.
As you suggest, gender and sex orientation-based Batson-type cases have been heard as well. I don’t know the case names for any of them, and I’m too lazy to shepardize right now… but the general shorthand for the proposition that a defendent is being denied jurors of a cognizable class is a Batson violation.
An attorney
My experience with Jury summons and a how to get off - speak up.
I received one notice, and had to go downtown. After signing in and such, I was called for voire dire (sp?) on a family law case. It as a dual parental rights termination case. There were four lawyers - one for each parent, the state, and Child Protective Services. Without going in to all the details, I could see how it was going to go. The state was wanting to terminate both parents rights over abuse and neglect. The father was arguing that he was busy working three jobs and had no clue about the abuse/neglect. The mother was going to blame a drug addiction and claim to be better. Not a case I looked forward to serving on.
We had some 40 people on the panel. During questioning, the lawyers pretty much took note of anyone who spoke up or volunteered information. I noticed one guy whom I talked with over lunch. He said his strategy was to be quiet and get overlooked. He was selected.
Two things. One, a lady was dismissed after the discussions began. She talked to the judge and had to leave over child-care issues. The judge admonished us to take care of those things early - tell them if you can’t get a sitter, etc. Second, one of the guys in the panel knew the dad. Not close buddies, but had encountered him on the street. There was a second dismissal. I spent all day on that one.
Then had to call each night to see if I was needed the next day. Friday I was needed in the afternoon for a JP court on an insurance case. A guy had his roof replaced, claimed it was caused by hail damage. The insurance company said it wasn’t and they didn’t want to pay. The plaintiff got to ask each potential juror some questions - he had a standard list. Except when he got to me. He went through the usual “Do you use this insurance co? Do you own or rent?” etc. But then he said “I notice your card says your an engineer. That’s a lot of technical stuff, numbers and such.” I knew right then I wasn’t getting picked. Heaven forbid you have someone “technical” on the jury to examine the evidence. Only took 2 hours on that one.
My discussions with other people suggest that if you’re an engineer, they will probably not select you. Also, if you speak up or volunteer info, you’ll probably get passed over.
One other sure-fire technique, especially if it is a drug case. Bring up jury nullification. The judge will run you off quickly.
BobT said:
I hate to sound like Nanobyte, but this isn’t true. While the judges would like for you to believe this, the jury does in fact judge the law as well as the facts. That’s the principle of Jury Nullification, it is legal, and judges hate it.
See the Fully Informed Jury Assiciation http://nowscape.com/fija/fija_us.htm
I wasn’t necessarily referring to jury nullification, but to procedural matters, such as what evidence can be introduced, and matters like that.
If you want to have a fully informed jury, then you should let the jurors sit in on sidebars and motion hearings.
I don’t think that would improve justice, but I’m sure it would make potential jurors much harder to come by.
In this cnnection, I have noted that, apparently, the Federal Circuit Courts, at least, have ruled that excluding jurors who oppose capital punishment–presumably for juries on capital-crime cases–violates the requirement of the 6th Amendment for an “impartial jury,” since such exclusion would mandate a jury unanimously favoring capital punishment–which would hardly, the justices reasoned, be “partial.”
I regret to say that offhand I do not know the citations for this; you may wish to check it out in Corpus Juris Secundum, or the West’s Digest for your state; both are available in your local law library, as is the West’s Federal Practice Digest. Both CJS and the West’s Digests have indexes–West uses “Descriptive Word Index”–you can check it out it.
I regret to say I don’t know what USSC stands for. 
USSC = United States Supreme Court.
-Melin
Voted Best Moderator (Emeritus)
O Horrors!! :o :o :o :o :o I should know that one! :o :o :o :o
There’s no question that, sadly, the “death-qualified” jury seem to be constitutional.
A “death-qualified” jury is one from which prospective jurors have been excluded for cause because of their inability to set aside their views about the death penalty that would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of duties as jurors in accordance with their instructions and oath.”
The seminal case law was the Supreme Court’s Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, (1985). The prosecution can remove such potential jurors for cause in accordance with the guidelines set out in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), as refined by the decision in Witt. Also instructive is Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986). Jurors so excluded are called “Witherspoon-excludables.”