# Lawyers and Juries question. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 12, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405 "2011-01-12T23:52:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/1 "2011-01-12T23:52:13Z")
Do lawyers get called to jury duty ever? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/2 "2011-01-12T23:59:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/3 "2011-01-13T00:00:53Z")
Some states have an automatic exemption for lawyers and certain other professions. I know that New York State doesn’t any more. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/4 "2011-01-13T00:56:19Z")
In your location, **elbows** , lawyers are not allowed to sit on juries. [Cite](http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/general_jury_duty_info.asp), towards the bottom of the page, under “Qualifications for Jury Duty.” ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/5 "2011-01-13T01:04:13Z")
Thanks **Spoons**. Any idea what the thinking is behind this restriction? And **Rumor Watkins** , can you elaborate on why they’d try to cut them? I would think they’d be great jurors. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/6 "2011-01-13T01:19:01Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Thanks **Spoons**. Any idea what the thinking is behind this restriction? > > And **Rumor Watkins** , can you elaborate on why they’d try to cut them? I would think they’d be great jurors. no, they’d be the absolute worst jurors, for 2 reasons (they’re related reasons) 1. 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. 2. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/7 "2011-01-13T01:27:38Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > no, they’d be the absolute worst jurors, for 2 reasons (they’re related reasons) > > 1. 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. basically, an attorney is going to think in ways that he probably shouldn’t be thinking as a juror. > > 2. 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. 1. 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.). ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/8 "2011-01-13T01:42:54Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Do lawyers get called to jury duty ever? > > I’m sure they know just how to get out of it, of course. 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. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/9 "2011-01-13T02:10:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/10 "2011-01-13T02:22:37Z")
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. > **[Courts and Tribunals](https://courts.nsw.gov.au)** > > The Department of Communities and Justice provides administrative and corporate support to NSW courts and tribunals. Our courts are among the most efficient in Australia in terms of timeliness, disposal of matters and cost. > > This is the homepage for... ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/11 "2011-01-13T02:54:33Z")
Thanks **Gleena** , but the question was more why the restriction, not who. ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/12 "2011-01-13T03:17:04Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Thanks **Gleena** , but the question was more why the restriction, not who. Oh sorry. Reading for comprehension is sometimes very hard for me. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/13 "2011-01-13T03:22:45Z")
I got called for jury duty. I got out of it saying I couldn’t uphold my legal duty to serve my clients if I was stuck on a jury for 3 weeks. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/14 "2011-01-13T03:25:41Z")
Thanks **Bearflag** , but I’m aware that jury duty is easy to avoid, doubly so for lawyers, I would imagine. I’m thinking now the restriction is likely what **Huerta88** mentioned, > [@](#): > > because in practice there’s a very good likelihood that he will dominate the deliberation . Makes a lot of sense when you think about it. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/15 "2011-01-13T03:30:37Z")
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.”) I even had a judge on a one of my juries once. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/16 "2011-01-13T03:34:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/17 "2011-01-13T04:06:53Z")
**elbows** , you might find G.K. Chesterton’s article, “[The Twelve Men](http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/essayist/12men.html),” 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): > [@](#): > > Now, it is a terrible business to mark a man out for the vengeance of men. But it is a thing to which a man can grow accustomed, as he can to other terrible things; he can even grow accustomed to the sun. And the horrible thing about all legal officials, even the best, about all judges, magistrates, barristers, detectives, and policemen, is not that they are wicked (some of them are good), not that they are stupid (several of them are quite intelligent), it is simply that they have got used to it. > > Strictly they do not see the prisoner in the dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop. Therefore, the instinct of Christian civilisation has most wisely declared that into their judgments there shall upon every occasion be infused fresh blood and fresh thoughts from the streets. Men shall come in who can see the court and the crowd, and coarse faces of the policemen and the professional criminals, the wasted faces of the wastrels, the unreal faces of the gesticulating counsel, and see it all as one sees a new picture or a ballet hitherto unvisited. > > Our civilisation has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the things that I felt in the jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity. 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. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/18 "2011-01-13T06:19:18Z")
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. Thank you very much for the link! ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/19 "2011-01-13T13:48:54Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > 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. This is what I’ve heard from lawyers when we discuss jury duty. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405/20 "2011-01-13T14:43:37Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-and-juries-question/567405.md?page=2)