If you happened to be selected for a jury trial with a crime that you know will be very upsetting for you to hear, do you have to be on that jury? Is it possible to be excused because you don’t want to have nightmares about X doing Y to Z for the next ten years?
Mentioning that you’re that affected by it might convine the defense lawyer to have you excluded. Other than that, I doubt it.
A friend of mine was in a jury pool for someone accused of child molestation. She was molested by her uncle when she was a teen. She asked to speak to the judge in private and explained this to him and was excused.
Depends where you are, but I believe that in Queensland at least, yes you can, provided it’s a real thing and you’re not just making it up to get out of jury service.
When they’re empanelling a jury they ask if there’s any reason someone might not be able to serve and that’s the time to tell the judge why you might have an issue.
That’s a little diffferent, since the friend is saying that she can’t be objective. (I was on a jury for a guy who murdered his estranged wife. A co-worker was also supposed to be on the jury but said during voir dire that she was in an abusive relationship previously, so she could not be objective.) The OP suggested just that the the facts of the case might be upsetting, not that it affected one’s ability to be objective.
Unless you are talking about what was mentioned above, a victim of a similar crime that can’t be objective, why do you think you are the only one who would be upset? Its ok for others to do their civic duty in an upsetting trial and not you? Is it better to wait until you can fill the jury up with unfeeling sociopaths? I’m really not trying to be snarky. It seems like you just want to push it off onto someone else who will also be upset. Some one has to do it. Sometimes its your turn.
How do you know what my friend was saying? That’s not how she described it to me. That may have been what the judge concluded however.
It may not have been what your friend was saying but I think her having been molested as a child is enough to assume that she may not be objective.
Exactly - I mean, nobody wants to view gruesome photographs. If they did, we should definitely not put them on that jury anyway.
That’s a good point. I suppose you’re right; upsetting things do upset all of us. Yes, I would like to push it off onto someone else, but no, that isn’t necessarily fair.
That is almost certainly what the judge concluded. You don’t get off a jury as a kindness, you get off because you cannot be a good juror. Otherwise, no one would have to serve on child brutality cases.
Judges and lawyers don’t want irrational jurors, but simply saying a tough case will upset you doesn’t seem like a good excuse for avoiding jury duty. It is your civic duty to participate, more so in the most difficult cases. Imagine how upset the victim would be, if they are lucky enough to be alive to testify.
I believe so. I’ve only gotten as far as the voir dire stage on one jury call, and it was a while back, but it was a criminal case, and at one point the judge extended some sort of offer for people (or a specific person) to come forward for private discussion on some matter of objectivity. The person or people were then excused. (Obviously I don’t remember the details well. But there’s something.) This was in NY.
Giving this more thought, we’re not all created the same - something that bothers me might not bother someone else, and vice versa. If you were very upset by what you were forced to see in a trial, could you really give an objective verdict? Maybe the best jury you could get would be the people who weren’t bothered too much by that particular scenario (for example, anything involving harm done to animals would be unbearable for me, but not for a lot of normal people).
If it would upset you, no, you probably won’t be excused. Many criminal trials are about upsetting things. But if it would upset you so much that you couldn’t be a fair and impartial juror, you can explain why to the judge, and just might be excused. It’s the judge’s call. Counsel may also use a peremptory challenge to bump you from the jury if they become convinced that your level of “upsetness” would not be in their client’s (either the state or the defendant) best interests.