I’m 27 and have yet to receive a jury summons, unless you count 1) the pre-summons questionnaire that I received while I was a full-time student, which I filled out with my class schedule and tuition bill and never heard anything more about or 2) the summons for the guy who lived in the apartment before me, which I wrote “return to sender, no longer at this address” on and dropped back in the mail.
I would like to have the experience at least once.
I was a judge’s assistant for many years, the person who swears in (and sometimes quietly at) prospective jurors, the jury after it is selected, handles the exhibits, etc. I will add my vote to loach’s and to Asmovian’s, that I wish everyone would understand that jury service is a civic duty and one in which they can take pride over a job well done.
That said, if there was anything I could change about our legal system, it would be to eliminate lay jurors and instead have professional jurors. People who have no axe to grind, no job to return to, who actually understand the law they are listening to and their purpose for being there. I could tell story after story after story about how little jurors understand the process, how many lawyers and judges take this completely for granted and how many mistrials we declared as a result of juror misconduct. Mostly the juror misconduct was unintentional. But not always.
For those of you who found the process boring and spent a lot of time waiting around, I would simply offer the following explanations: First, there are many things in play, and court calendars are fluid by nature. Cases do often settle at the eleventh hour, so we may not know until you are actually waiting in the Jury Commissioner’s office that there are no trials going forward that day, after all. And yes, they are often a waste of time and very expensive, so many judges are quite welcoming of eleventh-hour settlements. You can be sure that if you were thus inconvenienced, it was far less so than if you’d been made to sit on some bullshit trial for a couple of weeks – or often longer.
I promise you, we are hearing way more cases on a daily basis than the ones on which you reported to potentially serve. Literally dozens of cases are heard each day in various stages of the process: Arraignment calendars, pretrial motions calendars, preliminary hearings, etc. Sometimes those calendars take longer than we expect them to. That may delay jury selection – which causes you to have to wait around even longer. But we’re not playing cards or making posts on Facebook, wasting your time intentionally. We’re working.
It’s not that hard to get out of jury duty, if you must. No one wants you there if you hate being there anyway. Trials are expensive. No point in taking the chance that you’ll fuck it up out of spite. Just say you can’t be objective, or say that you won’t get paid during the time you work, or that you’re a student studying for final exams. Or get really creative. I once was in the middle of a voir dire where a man jumped up and said, “I have to be excused, Your Honor!” The judge asked him, “Why, sir?” The fellow replied, “I just shit my pants!” Worked like a charm, and no one double-checked to make sure he was telling the truth.
Don’t expect knowing a lot of cops, lawyers or other justice types to save you from jury duty. I knew many, many of them – and was still sworn in to serve on a case (which settled mid-trial).
Lawyers’ approaches to voir dire and the type of folks they want on a jury are as wide and varied as the lawyers themselves. Some want people who can think; others don’t want any natural leaders or ultra-intelligent types. Depends on the lawyer and the type of trial.
In general, I think it’s a great experience for everyone to have, although sometimes a little too much like watching sausage being made. Just be true to your oath and do your very best to be impartial, and you’ll do great.
I served jury duty twice, and found it to be very interesting. I’d certainly serve again if given the opportunity.
I’ve been called for jury duty several times and have been selected three times. The first was for two counts of malicious mischief; the second was for assault with a deadly weapon; the third was for one count of grand theft embezzlement and one count of unauthorized use of a credit card.
The county I live in has a one-day-or-one-trial system. That is, you’re excused if you’re not assigned to a trial on the first day. Some neighboring counties place potential jurors on call for a week. I’m happy that I’ve never had to deal with this.
I find the process interesting once I get into the courtroom. There’s a lot of waiting around until then. There’s always something to pay attention to during the trial: the judges instructions, the voir dire process, the presentation of evidence and the summations. I like to try to figure out the reasons behind peremptory challenges - sometimes it’s not obvious. There can be long breaks, so I always bring a book.
Jury deliberations can be stressful. You and eleven strangers have to try to agree on a verdict or verdicts. It’s important - your decisions will have big effects on people’s lives, and you want to get it right. Sometimes the other jurors just don’t see things your way. In the three cases I was on, all of the jurors took deliberations seriously. There was a juror in one of the cases who seemed too ignorant and dumb to be there, and that was frustrating.
My feeling about jury duty is that it’s a responsibility. There are unpleasant aspects to it, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to lie to get out of it (or not to show up, which some people do). My experiences taught me something about what actually goes on in a courtroom, and also a few things about how crimes like embezzlement and fraud are detected.
I have served on a jury and found the actual trial interesting. However, the process is not very interesting. So far in my life I have: Had a 2-week jury service, during which I had to go sit in the jury room and wait for my number to be called. When that happened, taken to the room where voir dire occurred. When rejected, back to the waiting room in case the number was called again. Very boring. They don’t do it that way any more. Now it’s one day, and if you don’t get called, that’s it–but they can call you up again next year.
They have called me a lot.
I have been on several juries, both civil and criminal (but mostly criminal). I have been rejected from a jury because I knew one of the lawyers. Once we got the whole jury empaneled and the parties decided to settle. Apparently this happens a lot. Once we spent three days listening to testimony and then were dismissed, I have no idea why.
However, I have done it, and now I’m tired of it. I don’t want to go because the venue is a place where parking is iffy and expensive, public transportation lets you off blocks away in even the best case, and the walk from the bus stop to the courthouse is unpleasant. Then you have to take off your coat and go through security, possibly take off your belt. Unpleasant. Then you’re in a room full of people who you have to wonder where half of them got dredged up from, and hope that if you are ever before a jury, they are NOT on it. Plus about a fourth of them will be coughing, sneezing, wearing too much perfume, etc. Then you can read your book or whatever, but not very attentively in case they call your number. You can go out to the restroom or to smoke but you can’t stay out very long. It’s boring.
Usually someone at your office is pissed off because you aren’t there doing your usual stuff. They can’t really do anything about it. They have to pay your regular salary for the first three days–although in my case, the last few times it’s only been one day.
I just did it again. Sat there from 9 to 11:30 and then someone came and called a bunch of numbers and said the rest of us could go home.
I did get called once when the day I was supposed to show up was the day before my due date. Got out of that with a phone call (they don’t want someone going into labor during the trial). Another time I woke up really sick on the day of jury service and called in, and that wasn’t a problem either. And one time I was late, when I was already on a trial, because I couldn’t find a safe place to park and lock up my bicycle. Security called the judge’s chambers, and the judge said I could park it right there in the courtroom.
I honestly don’t know how they get people to serve on juries where they’re sequestered. I don’t think I could do that. My son was just called for the Aurora theatre shooting trial (along with 9000 other residents of the county) and he’s been excused, fortunately, because that one’s going to takemonths.
That depends on how the law defines witchcraft and the extent to which the prosecution can prove the accused is guilty. If witchcraft is defined as use of supernatural powers granted by the Devil, for instance, and the prosecution fails to demonstrate that Satan exists, that would be grounds for a juror to vote not guilty.
I served once - a gypsy cab driver was robbed and assaulted with a ‘dangerous instrument’. It was pretty interesting. One thing that was interesting was how precisely worded the definition is for ‘dangerous instrument’ and how ambiguous it turned out to be, put into practice.
[QUOTE=dangerous instrument]
any instrument, article or substance, including a “vehicle” as that term is defined in this section, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.
[/QUOTE]
We found guilty on the robbery part and not guilty on the dangerous instrument part since even the victim, who received a bad scratch, couldn’t say what the guy used to scratch him.
Like others have said, they let you know up front how long the trial’s going to take. My last time when I just started a new job (and jury duty’s not covered by my employer) the official word in the big room was you can’t simply claim financial hardship to get out of a trial. However, during voir dire the lawyers asked if anyone is unable to serve because of financial hardship. This was a week+ trial. I said look, I just started a new job, I’m not covered, etc., and they let me go without any grief. A little later I was sent home and that was it.
I don’t think you are correct. The facts are what is testified to, not what you know.
The civil case I was on involved a woman supposedly hurt by an elevator. One of the potential jurors was a civil engineer who had served as an expert witness in several trials. During his examination he was asked if he could make a judgment based only on the testimony. He answered that he would not be able to ignore his expertise, and if uncontradicted testimony on the principles of machinery was bull, he would use his knowledge instead. He was excused. I’d have answered the same as he did if the subject were something I was an expert on.
I’ve been on a jury once and almost on another but it was settled out of court. In both cases it was individuals suing a company. I found it very interesting.
My wife was on a murder trial that lasted for a couple of weeks. I would have loved to be on that one!
So what are you supposed to do if the case hinges on testimony you know cannot be correct? I know you aren’t supposed to ‘testify’ in the deliberations, but how do you bring that up? Say, if the case hinged on ice sinking in water or something else physically impossible.
I get called all the time. I consider jury duty to be a very important civic duty as well as a very important civil right. I always go, but was only selected once. Most of the time what happens is that we would go through the voir dire, get sent to lunch, come back and learn that everyone can go home.
I’ve been told that this is because many defendants, when seated in court and seeing that this is really happening, will choose to plea bargain at the last minute.
The one time I was selected it was for a 2 week murder trial. It was HORRIBLE. I hope I never have to do anything like that again.
The courtroom was nice, the chairs were comfortable and the court workers, including the judge were all very nice and accommodating. At first the process was fascinating and I was all like “wow, this is just like how it is on TV”.
Then came the pictures of the victim. And the heart rending testimony about long time abuse, alcoholism and poverty. And more pictures.
I stopped sleeping well on the second day and even when it was over and I could talk about it, I couldn’t talk about it because it was so terrible. So, Jerry, be careful what you wish for, I wouldn’t wish an experience like that on my worse enemy.
If I’m ever called for another murder trial, I will be honest and tell the judge and lawyers that I cannot do another one. Its been my experience that no prospective juror who doesn’t want to be there for whatever reason will not be selected, so I’m quite sure that I will be dismissed.
Called, never served. Do not want to serve.
I am not the least bit interested in doing my civic duty by judging anyone for anything. There seems to be enough here that want to, I say let them.
It’s not just that. I’ve heard of several accounts where the prosecution had a bullshit, weaksauce case. So the DA didn’t really prepare for trial. Instead, the DA ginned up enough documents to make it appear they were getting ready for trial, and threatened the defendant with absurd sentences. The case was a murder case, threatening a person who wasn’t involved, so the DA could threaten decades in prison.
On the day of the trial, the DA offered probation if the defendant would take a plea. The defendant declined, and the DA dropped the case.
I don’t have a factual answer, but I can tell you that in an episode of Happy Days, The Fonz was on a jury and the defendant was accused of snatching a woman’s purse while driving by on his motorcycle. Thanks to his knowledge of motorcycles, The Fonz knew that the prosecution’s version of events was impossible. He convinced his fellow jurors to vote Not Guilty, an innocent man was freed, and The Fonz saved the day!
I would sure as hell try to convince my fellow jury members. But I might be doing the wrong thing.
One hopes that if one attorney had a case depending on ice sinking, the other attorney would cut that testimony to shreds. It is not the juror’s job to make the lawyers be competent. The more likely case is that the knowledge is more esoteric. It might not be as correct as the expert juror thinks it is, and jurors are not allowed to go and research the case on their own. They are also not cross-examined in the jury room. How would we get along in GD if we were not allowed to call “Cite?”
Basically. you are trading off the unlikely event where one side says something blatantly wrong in court and is not challenged versus the more likely event that a juror claims expertise he or she does not really have, and thus sways the other jurors.
I served on a jury and enjoyed it, but only because I was a student at the time and not getting paid. The whole thing ended up costing me money, between the bus money to get to the courthouse plus going and getting a lunch.
If I was missing work, even one with as meager of pay as mine, I would have been pissed. Why isn’t the government held to the same minimum wage laws that they impose on the private sector?
I had postponed my service to be over winter break, and it was obvious that a lot of other students had done so too. Our jury pool was about 2/3 college students, plus a couple of professors and other people who worked at schools. The case was against a college student for breaking a social host law (throwing a party where underage people could get alcohol). The poor prosecutor couldn’t have had a worse pool. We did let him off, where if the jury had been a bunch of retirees, I suspect they might not have. To be clear, we did believe that the prosecution had not proven his guilt to the necessary standard. The prosecution did prove there was a party where alcohol was consumed, but the defendant blamed his roommates, claimed he wasn’t there for most of the party and didn’t know it was happening ahead of time, and the prosecution didn’t prove that wrong. I think the defendant was lying through his teeth, and I bet many people would have convicted him, but I think we were more willing to consider his implausible story good enough in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Served twice, once on a cocaine distribution case and most recently a horrific gang rape case.
The cases were obviously not enjoyable but I’m glad I did my civic duty, both trials were extremely interesting (although the second one was pretty tough at times) and if I was ever on trial I’d feel good knowing that I had a jury like either of the ones I served on.
I started threads about both cases, I’ll see if I can dig them up.
OK, here’s the vile one.
The defendant is serving over 400 years.
I was called for regular jury duty once during college. I waited at the courthouse a couple hours and then was called for voir dire where I said I was a student and they dismissed me.
Then a few years ago I was called and had to serve on a grand jury. This meant I had to go every day for an entire month! I chose the morning slot, which was 9am-1pm, because my job starts at noon. It’s fine if you aren’t working, or like me work later, but I don’t know how someone who works a 9-5 type job could do it. They only paid $30 (at the time) per day if your job didn’t cover it. So you are basically out an entire month of work!
I served on a case involving kidnapping, armed robbery, and car theft when I was a young college student. I thought there was no way they would let a “kid” like me on the jury, but apparently both prosecution and defense saw in me what they wished to see, and I was in.
The trial lasted three days, and it was an open-and-shut case. I do remember that bus fare came to $1.20 (this was a while ago) round trip, and reimbursement for carfare was set at $1.10.
It was a very good experience and I would do it again, but life has certainly gotten more complicated since I was a footloose and fancy-free college student.