I’m sure they know just how to get out of it, of course.
How would they feel about a lawyer sitting on a jury for a trial they were trying? Would they attempt to get them eliminated, do you think? If so, why?
yes, they get called. yes, they all know how to get out of it without getting cited for contempt of court.
most lawyers would probably try to get out of it.
most lawyers would cut lawyers from their jury pool (one side or the other probably doesn’t want to have anyone knowledgeable rendering judgment) anyway, though. if they had enough challenges.
no, they’d be the absolute worst jurors, for 2 reasons (they’re related reasons)
juries decide facts. that’s it. it’s going to be really, really hard for an attorney (whose stock in trade is applying facts to legal outcomes) to separate the two out in passing judgment. basically, an attorney is going to think in ways that he probably shouldn’t be thinking as a juror.
most (not all) litigation isn’t of the type where there is an objective, unknown issue needing 12 sages to resolve. it’s more an exercise in persuading the 12 jurors to buy your side of the story, and most of the time one party is facing the uphill battle. the side making the more dubious/preposterous/reaching claims in litigation really do not want an expert eye judging their presentations.
think about a case like this (totally made up, and probably an example with many holes): say a plaintiff got seriously hurt in a building because he tripped over a threshold, and the plaintiff is now suing the architect based on a design flaw (assume liability even exists here, just for the expediency of the example). that plaintiff really does not want an architect serving on the jury - an architect who is intimately aware of the standards of conduct for his profession - it’s just going to be that much harder to make your case to that jury member.
Lawyers at least like to think they can “read” jurors and through the course of a trial, identify sympathetic ones and enlist them as de facto advocates for their cause in the jury room. The thinking is that you want to get more to be at least neutral or favorable to you as to your opponent.
That kind of goes out the window once there’s a lawyer on the panel, because in practice there’s a very good likelihood that he will dominate the deliberation and the others will totally defer to him even if they disagree with whatever positions he takes/argues. In effect you’d be just trying your case to a single lawyer, and if you wanted to do that, why forego the bench trial, which is largely the same thing?
Having said that – I think IIRC that Rudy Giuliani made it onto a jury (no surprise to learn they elected him foreman) that took a case to a verdict.
Oh, another reason not many lawyers end up on juries applies to most white collar professionals outside of government – it’s potentially a big inconvenience being away from work for a week or more (jury members who end up getting selected skew to government workers, retirees, housewives, students, etc.).
They don’t have to know “how to get out”, they’re pretty much out automatically. The last thing the prosecution or defense want is someone who knows the tricks of the trade.
Imagine being a magician trying to perform before an audience. You’d rather perform before an audience who says “Wow! How does he do that?” and not an audience of magicians who’d go “Oh, that old trick again.”
When juries are selected, the prosecution and defense can ask that potential jurors be disqualified for various reasons, and they know how to find reasons too. And, if all else fails, most jurisdictions give both sides the ability to toss out a limited number of potential jurors without reason. By the end of the selection process, the remaining jury pool is lawyer free.
Much to my surprise I actually got selected and served once, on a case involving a city ticket for illegal dumping. The prosecutor selected me because I said in voir dire that my wife and I separate our recyclables and drove them across town to the recycling center once every few weeks, which made her think I would be hard on an illegal dumper. The defendant was pro se and didn’t know to cut me. I would be very surpised if it ever happened again.
No lawyers on juries in New South Wales, Australia:
Persons ineligible to serve as jurors
(Jury Act 1977 (NSW) Schedule 2)
The Governor of New South Wales.
A judicial officer (within the meaning of the Judicial Officers Act 1986).
A coroner.
A member or officer of the Executive Council.
A member of the Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly.
Officers and other staff of either or both of the Houses of Parliament.
A legal practitioner (whether or not a practising barrister or solicitor).
A person employed or engaged (except on a casual or voluntary basis) in the public sector in law enforcement, criminal investigation, the provision of legal services in criminal cases, the administration of justice or penal administration.
The Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman.
A person who at any time has been a judicial officer (within the meaning of the Judicial Officers Act 1986) or a coroner, police officer, Crown Prosecutor, Public Defender, Director or Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions or Solicitor for Public Prosecutions.
A person who is unable to read or understand English.
A person who is unable, because of sickness, infirmity or disability, to discharge the duties of a juror.
Lawyers serve on juries now and then. I’ve allowed a lawyer to sit on my cases more than once. If I think I’m right (which is,m hopefully, going to be every time I face a jury) I want good jurors. Of course, I have also rejected lawyers. For example, a lawyer might make their living helping corporations avoid consequences of their misbehavior. If I have that kind of suit, I’m not sure that particular lawyer is someone I want evaluating the defendant’s conduct. (however, if it’s really bad, that lawyer might think to himself, “I can’t believe the defendant is trying to get away with this, if that was my client, I would have thrown some serious money at that case to make it go away.”)
A judge, really? I never even considered that. I gotta think he’d definitely dominate deliberations. Plus I should think it’s the last thing he’d want to do. Very interesting.
elbows, you might find G.K. Chesterton’s article, “The Twelve Men,” interesting. Chesteron wrote it after he had served on a jury for a couple of weeks.
His conclusion is one of the most eloquent statements about why lawyers (and others associated with the legal system) traditionally don’t serve on juries. (I appreciate that some jurisdictions now allow for it, as some of the posters have mentioned, but I believe it’s the case that lawyers, judges and police can’t serve on juries anywhere in Canada):
I certainly appreciate Chesterton’s comments about the workshop. When I’ve been involved in prosecuting a case, it is a professional matter for me, in which I strive my best to be objective. And, at the end, there’s always another case to handle. But for the accused and the accused’s family, this may well be the most important thing in their lives at the moment. That imbalance in the emotional investment in the matter is significant, and I think G.K. has caught it well in his discussion of the jury. You don’t necessarily want the trained professional who has seen it all before; you want impartial, intelligent people, who don’t come with any preconceived ideas or experience, and will provide fresh eyes, common sense, and a dash of sceptism and mercy.
You’ve reminded me of something an RCMP officer friend once told me. The hierarchy went like this; lowest form of life = criminals, second lowest form of life = police officers, from dealing with nothing but criminals, third was lawyers who are caught between cops and criminals, and fourth was judges who spend all their time in the company of lawyers, cops, and criminals.
In Washington DC, it’s relatively common for lawyers to sit on juries simply because there are so many in the jury pool. Presumably one would still look to strike a lawyer who has expertise in a particular field at issue, though.