Ohio used to automatically exempt lawyers and judges from jury service (and doctors, and women with dependent children), but the law changed and we don’t anymore. The concern has long been that lawyers would dominate the jury’s deliberations, but they - and their fellow jurors - are now often given a special instruction warning them not to, FWIW.
A few years ago a notoriously liberal judge here wasn’t stricken by a prosecutor during voir dire in a felony criminal case, was elected foreman, and led the jury to a conviction, much everyone’s surprise! I’ve just been summoned for jury service myself (for the first time in my life, having been a registered voter since 1984), and look forward to having the chance to serve. Having dealt with juries for so long as a lawyer and now as a magistrate, I’ll be very interested to see what goes on behind the jury room door.
Special instruction. Hmmm. Well, what’re you gonna do, though?
There is probably a modern trend toward not having automatic exemptions or even easy recusals, given that it seems lately, most everyone wants to avoid jury duty. Some judges are (punitive/really concerned with substantial justice (??)) and don’t like the trend of everyone but the shiftless and unemployable begging off. I’ve been in a couple of jury pools in which the judge was very specific in grilling people about availability and made it very clear that no class of persons other than someone with true health or job concerns, possibly parents with child care concerns, should expect an automatic out (I guess maybe I’d add to that people who relate specific circumstances showing genuine inability to be impartial).
I remember one judge who told several lawyers in the pool “we need more members of the system to participate in the system,” and who grilled one poor girl who thought “I’m a college student” was a get out of jail free card, offering to try to structure the trial (estimated at 56 (!!!) days in length) around her specific class schedule.
I got called in DC a few months ago. I was cut in voir dire because I had heard about the case. The judge mentioned that he gets called for jury duty, and that he has served.
I was on a jury a few years ago and only those who would suffer a financial hardship (i.e., not be paid for the time) or were directly responsible for children or parents were excused. So I wasn’t excused even though I said that it would mean that my co-workers would have to shoulder more work. If someone said their employer didn’t pay for jury duty, the judge asked the employer name (possibly to verify that or maybe to suggest that they do pay in the future). One woman wasn’t excused because she said that she watched her grandchildren during the day. The judge told her that it was her son’s responsibility to find someone else. A couple of people claimed not to be fluent in English, but one of the other jurors on the trial told us privately that one of these people was perfectly fluent in English outside the courtroom (i.e., some of them at least were exaggerating).
Not unprecedented. Federal District Judge David Hittner takes jury duty very seriously,sending U.S. Marshalls to arrest a jury duty scofflaw in one case, and showing up for jury duty in state court in another. I’d hate to have to be either a litigant on his calendar, getting delayed so the judge can fulfill this duty, or a member of the defense, forced to burn a peremptory in order to get him off the panel. That’d be fun, kicking him off a panel in state court, and then representing a client in front of him in Federal court.
From a former assistant prosecutor, I was told that he liked having attorneys on his panels, and that if he were representing a defendant, he’d like having law students on his panel. Something about the difference between clean theory and messy practice, with practicing lawyers being more sympathetic to the latter.
thank you for that lesson. he asked why, i gave him a reason. (I don’t even see in the post he cited any discussion of judges and favoring prosecutors!)
want to come back to the driver’s license thread and talk about your statutory interpretation capacities?
I’ve had two DC superior court judges say the same thing when I’ve been called to jury duty. I believe there was a story about Justice Breyer showing up for jury duty in New England. Teh Internets say he was challenged by defense counsel.
I have no idea of Judge Hittner’s biases, if he has any at all. However, if I were defense counsel, and I wanted a judge in my panel—because I felt my client was technically innocent, but otherwise repugnant; because the law concerning my client was vague and confusing, and might mislead the jury that the law covered my client while a legally trained mind would see that it didn’t, or other reasons—then why not just move for a bench trial? If the defense didn’t ask for a bench trial—and it’s the defense’s choice in Texas Criminal trials—I’m guessing they won’t be thrilled with getting a judge as a trier of fact anyway. (If either side wants a jury in Texas Civil trials, as a rule of thumb, they get one, regardless of the type of trial or relief sought. Texans love their trial by jury),
And let’s be honest, during deliberations, does anyone really think that a Federal District judge isn’t going to be taking over the discussion? And in a manner that’s likely to be beneficial to your garden variety state court defendant? (Who’s probably guilty anyway, or they wouldn’t be on trial… I kid, I kid.) But mainly, I drew up the situation the way I did in order to highlight a darkly-humorous potential dilemma.
I used to work for a judge in the same courthouse as Judge Hittner. Hittner’s own jury sevrice and his willingness to have the U.S. Marshals fetch reticent jurors so he could offer them free lodging during their service were well known, as was Hittner’s reputation for taking absolutely zero BS in his courtroom. While I was there a panel member gave Judge Hittner a smartass answer during voir dire indicating that felt his time was better spent elsewhere, at which time Judge Hittner pointed out his own juror badge from when he served in state court which he now kept framed in the jury box. He then proceeded to lecture the panel member on his civic responsibilites/chew on his ass for an excruciatingly extended period of time. The much shamed panel member apologized profusely.
One of the questions asked is whether the prospective juror knows any of the people involved in the case. I would think that if a lawyer lived in the same county where s/he practiced, s/he would be almost guaranteed to know at least one of the attorneys arguing the case, and/or the judge.
Yes, and this comes up a good bit in my smallish-city sized hometown. However, just knowing one of the parties, lawyers or the judge isn’t enough to get you excluded for cause; there has to be some reason why that relationship would prevent you from listening to the evidence, applying the law and ruling on the case. My dad once sat on a misdemeanor jury where the defense attorney was a friend who once officed with him, and the prosecutor was a friend he’d tried cases against. Neither side struck him and he ended up on the jury. He found the guy guilty, and told the defense attorney “I wish I could have ruled for you, but your guy was clearly guilty!”
A friend of mine was selected for jury duty while she was a law student. They made her the foreman so I’ve also had the experience that the other jurors probably defer to someone of that background
Maybe it’s naivete, but I think lawyers shouldn’t care who’s on the jury as long as you have the facts on your side
I’m a prosecutor. Usually, just writing “prosecutor” in the “Employment” section of the juror questionnaire is enough to get me on my merry way. When I got summoned last year, however, I did end up sitting through two voir dires in one day; apparently, none of the cases set for trial that day took the plea bargains, and there weren’t enough jurors for full panels for all the trials, so the unselected jurors from the morning trials had to wait around and sit through a second round of questioning in the afternoon. I was there the whole day, more than ten hours. ugh.
Lawyers in my state aren’t automatically exempt, but there’s a general feeling that an attorney on your jury is more likely to critique the performance of the lawyers than to decide the case on the merits. No one wants that.
Unfortunately, yes, I think it’s naive. The case against O.J. Simpson, for instance, was plenty strong IMHO. Who sits in the box can make a big difference.
