Opinions on Jury Service?

[Whatever4]

I’ve received 5-6 jury questionnaires, but I’ve been called to serve only twice. The first time was when I was a young legal secretary and having difficulty understanding how, as a person, the lawyer I worked for could live with himself after defending a child abuser. I understand that everyone is entitled to a defense, but some people are just scum. After explaining my conflict, the judge dismissed me.

Second time, I needed to up my meds just to get through the day prior to serving. I was physically and mentally unable to leave my house the day of the trial. It’s not a good thing to not show up when called for jury duty. The bailiff called me the next morning, quickly realized I was making little sense, and told me to provide a letter from my doctor which would permit the bailiff to remove my name from the jury pool. I will never be called again. For which I am grateful. I believe in “innocent until proven guilty” in theory; but my life experience has taught me otherwise.

[Klaatu]

I served on a jury once for a four day trial. It was extremely interesting. I won’t say I enjoyed it as it was a child abuse case, but it opened my eyes as to how the system works.

What struck me was after we reached a verdict and the trial was over, the judge, prosecutor and defense attorneys came into our jury room for a question and answer session about the trial. It was laid back and the judge said it was a way to help both sides learn what went into how a jury makes a decision. I don’t know if this is common or not.

[sinjin]

I think it is a civil duty to serve on juries. I appeared 6 times for jury duty and served twice. Once was for a personal injury suit where the plaintiff’s own dr testified against her. Bleh, some of the old ladies on the jury wanted to give her $$$ because the insurance company would pay. No way, No money for her!

The other was a bank robbery where the accused’s car was reported stolen prior to the robbery and was subsequently used in the bank job. None of the bank robbers were ever brought up on charges only the guy whose car was stolen. Yeah, we let him go too.

Jury duty…just do it.

[drewtwo99]

I’ve gone down for jury service once, but didn’t even get to voir dire. My number was too high so I wasn’t even selected.

I hope I get chosen again. I would love to serve on a jury, even for a minor crime or civil case. I’ve always been fascinated by law and courts. I know a lot of it would be boring, but I’m good at entertaining myself.

[kayaker]

I’ve been called three times in my life. The first time I was looking forward to it, but I called the night before and was robo-told I wasn’t needed. The next two times I was self employed and explained that I’d be happy to serve, but several of my employees would be out a days (or more) pay and was excused.

While I’d love to serve on a jury, my views on drug laws and nullification, should they be revealed, would likely cause me to be booted.

[Spiderman]

@Disposable Hero

I’ve always wondered why people are so against the idea and go to extraordinary lengths to get out of it

Civic duty my ass! It is the single most hypocritical & illegal action our government takes.
If you’re arrested, you have the right to remain silent, but as a juror you are required to state personal information & your private beliefs during voir dire. Hell, the registration questionnaire in my county has the following question:
Marital status:
[ul]
[li]Single[/li][li]Married[/li][li]Separated[/li][li]Divorced[/li][li]Widowed[/li][/ul]
Separated? Really? Unless it’s a civil divorce case or criminal domestic assault case why the eff are my (hypothetical) marital problems anyone’s business & how do they play into my decision in a case?
Despite living with someone for a number of years, Bill Carroll went from single to widowed in less than two days. What does it matter what the legal status of his relationship is?
Lets move on to the illegal actions:
Suspends first amendment rights. That free press thing; it doesn’t apply to you Mr. Juror because you’re not allowed to read anything about the case. Is it really a free press if it’s not available to certain people?
The single biggest ‘cultural’ event of the year (as measured by television viewership) is going to happen this Sunday night, but 18 unlucky people, potentially must leave the room if the defendant’s name is even mentioned.
Those minimum wage laws, they don’t apply to the court systems. Sorry Ms. Juror, suck it up.
This is my guaranteed out from having to serve. I don’t get paid for jury duty. Paying me less per day than I usually make per hour gives me a huge incentive to get the trial over with ASAP. The premise that 11 think he’s guilty but I know that “The car that made these two, equal-length tire marks had positraction. You can’t make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark!” & argue that point which would extend the trial & therefore continue to hurt me financially is a huge conflict of interest.
Let’s not forget the biggie: kidnapping. Oh, but when a judge does it they don’t use the word “kidnapping”, they say “sequester”.
My mom was one of the first jurors chosen for a murder trial & was immediately kidnapped even though my sister was sick, in-the-hospital-sick. The trial hadn’t even started yet as they were still picking the other jurors but she couldn’t even be with her daughter who could have used a parent about then. Remember, the guy accused of this murder was allowed some limited TV & visitation rights while he was in jail; my mom, not so much.

[wolfman]

The only time I was ever called was for the home district Federal court, while I was 2500 miles away at college. They understood immediately and said I was excused so no issue but it seemed like it would have been interesting to do Federal cases.

[Baker]

I once made sure a certain person was NOT selected for jury duty.

A friend of mine was going on trial, accused of first degree murder. During the jury selection process I was there part of the time, along with other of his friends.

It took quite a while to get a jury seated. At one point there was a break, and everyone was outside the courtroom milling around. I overheard one potential juror(idetified by tags they wore) bitching and moaning. She said “Why don’t we just hang him and get this over with!” So I found my friends’ lawyer and discreetly pointed out Miss Bitch, and told him what I’d heard. Suffice it to say she wasn’t subsequently selected.

[JohnGalt]

I lived in the same city for 28 years before I was called for jury duty, which I consider my civic duty.

I had just been laid off the previous week so it was an interesting transition time for me.

It was a two-week long murder case from a different venue, involving a father, mother and 11-year old child all shot by a shotgun (the mother survived). They asked specifically if pictures of the victims would be too unsettling. The 911 call from the boy where you heard him him being shot was pretty difficult to take.

I was the 14th juror chosen (they didn’t want ANY problems with this trial…) and subsequently didn’t have to be sequestered or decide on the verdict, although I agreed with the final decision. It gave me a chance to sit in the courtroom as a spectator when the verdict was read; the jury assistant marshal reserved me a seat.

I also got to talk to the family of the victims after deliberations started at the end of the day. They were very interested in my view of the presentation, and it was helpful for me to make a connection with the people affected.

After the verdict was read, I had to stop my car on the drive home to catch my breath and had a sobbing attack. We (the jurors) got together a week later to debrief and compare notes; there was some real bonding going on.

[BigT]

I might have said jury duty was a citizen’s duty until I became more educated on how it works. A system where they flat out restrict your ability to do your own research or expertise means they really just need warm bodies of basic competence. The people who want to serve will do just as well as those who don’t, so why should anyone who doesn’t want to serve be drafted?

The only real reason I can think of to go on a jury is if I want to nullify. Finding of fact can be done by any rational person. It’s only if you want to go beyond that that the individual juror matters.

[BigT]

@Bricker

Do you also believe you have a constitutional right to lie about this plan if asked during voir dire?

I would say both are equally permissible, as both are things you are technically not supposed to do, but since no one can prove you did them, it doesn’t matter.

If this is more about reading a right to nullify into the right to trial by one’s peers, then doing so inherently requires also reading into it a right to do what you can to avoid being prevented from exercising that right. How can you call it a right if the government can make a law the completely forbids you from exercising it? Would you have a right to bear arms if the government outlawed the production and sale of guns?

[Urbanredneck]

@HeyHomie

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!

That wouldnt be allowed.

From what I have heard is Fonzies “expert” testimony would have been thrown out and been a reason for a mistrial. As a member of the jury you can only rule on facts presented in the case by the lawyers. You cant bring in your own expertise into a case.

Same with the movie “12 Angry Men”. Thing is, if someone really did go out on the town and did their own detective work like what was depicted, they would have been removed from the jury. They might even have been arrested for contempt of court.

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

@Urbanredneck

That wouldnt be allowed.

From what I have heard is Fonzies “expert” testimony would have been thrown out and been a reason for a mistrial. As a member of the jury you can only rule on facts presented in the case by the lawyers. You cant bring in your own expertise into a case.

Same with the movie “12 Angry Men”. Thing is, if someone really did go out on the town and did their own detective work like what was depicted, they would have been removed from the jury. They might even have been arrested for contempt of court.

That is not true. A juror with some special expertise in the matter at hand would certainly be allowed to try to convince other jury members. What you can’t do is go out and get evidence, or sit in the jury room and Google things (they take your laptops and phones) or bring in law books. If you have the knowledge in your head, it’s fine. You can bring in any expertise you happen to have. That doesn’t mean you’ll be able to convince the other jurors.

For instance in one of the juries I served on, one of the counts included “obstreperous behavior.” “Obstreperous” was not defined. Apparently nobody else had ever heard the word before. I was allowed to say, and did say, that I was an editor, and I knew this word, and it meant rowdy, disruptive, uncontrolled. I could do that. What I couldn’t do was bring in a dictionary, for instance after lunch, to look it up and say, “See, here’s what it means.”

[engineer_comp_geek]

I just recently served on a jury.

I’ve been a registered voter since I was 18 and I’m on most of the lists that they say they gather names from (tax records, driver’s license, voter registration, etc) but it took them over 30 years to finally call me in for jury duty. I can’t say I was looking forward to it, but overall it wasn’t so bad.

In my county, you get called up and you have to show up each day for about a week. You sit in a big room with a bunch of other potential jurors. Periodically, the computer selects a “panel” of jurors (I believe 32, typically). That panel is taken up to the courtroom and questioned, and then the prosecution and defense take turns crossing people off of the list until they get down to 12. If you are selected, then you sit on the jury and, if the trial finishes before the week is done, you go back into the big room and back into the pool of potential jurors. It was all random, so you could potentially serve on a different jury each day you are there, or you might not get called up at all, or anywhere in between. Some people served on two juries that week. Others didn’t serve on any.

In my case, Monday was a holiday so I didn’t have to report until Tuesday. I sat and did nothing all day Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday I was finally called up for a panel. After the questioning, I was selected for the jury.

It was a short trial. The jury selection was done in the morning and the prosecution and defense both made opening statements. Then we broke for lunch. The prosecution called two witnesses. The defense did not call any. The defense also did not present any evidence. The prosecution and defense made their closing statements, and we deliberated for 15 minutes. We found the defendant guilty on one charge and not guilty on the other. The first charge was pretty straightforward. The second one was more circumstantial and there just wasn’t enough evidence to prove that the defendant was guilty on that one. A few minutes into the deliberations we took a quick vote just to see where we were, and we were all unanimous on the not guilty for the second charge, and 11-1 on guilty for the first. At that point there was no sense even discussing the second charge any more so we focused on the first.

The trial was over by about 3:00 pm and the judge told us that we didn’t have to come back on Friday.

It wasn’t that bad of an experience. The two days of sitting around doing nothing were a bit boring.

@Voyager

BTW, it hasn’t come up here but in similar threads someone says that engineers never get picked. Not true around Silicon Valley at least - no one ever brought that up and I got picked twice.

Yeah, but you just about can’t swing a cat in Silicon Valley without hitting an engineer.

FWIW, I’m an engineer and I was selected. I’m in southern PA, an area where the engineer density isn’t quite so high.

I have friends and relatives who are police officers. That didn’t stop me from being selected either.

@Urbanredneck

That wouldnt be allowed.

From what I have heard is Fonzies “expert” testimony would have been thrown out and been a reason for a mistrial. As a member of the jury you can only rule on facts presented in the case by the lawyers. You cant bring in your own expertise into a case.

In the jury I served on, we were given a list of charges and the conditions required for the defendant to be guilty on each charge. The judge’s instructions were that the prosecution would present evidence (not facts) and the defense may or may not present evidence, and that a lack of any defense is not evidence of guilt. The judge made it very clear that it was the jury’s job, and no one else’s, to determine the facts in the case. We were to base our decision on the evidence presented, and “common sense”.

Based on that, if one juror understands that the facts presented don’t make sense, they can say why and if the other jurors agree, then the jury can certainly find that the facts of the case are not as the prosecution presented them.

That is my understanding of it, as a recently served juror, based on the instructions that the judge gave to us.

[Clothahump]

I get called every 3-4 years and have to go sit down there in the jury room. I will never be called because more than half a lifetime ago, I was a deputy sheriff.

[Steve_MB]

@Voyager

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.

The example you give is irrelevant, as it is a matter of specialist knowledge rather than common knowledge.

If someone testified that they saw someone using magical powers, flying through the sky like Superman, surviving untroubled with a snug airtight plastic bag over his head for an hour, etc, I would be perfectly entitled to disregard the testimony as obviously erroneous, delusional, or fraudulent, based on common knowledge that such events are simply not possible.

[Voyager]

@Steve_MB

The example you give is irrelevant, as it is a matter of specialist knowledge rather than common knowledge.

If someone testified that they saw someone using magical powers, flying through the sky like Superman, surviving untroubled with a snug airtight plastic bag over his head for an hour, etc, I would be perfectly entitled to disregard the testimony as obviously erroneous, delusional, or fraudulent, based on common knowledge that such events are simply not possible.

Witchcraft was a pretty silly example. I can’t conceive of a trial where the prosecutor claims that the crime was committed by walking through walls and the defense makes no objection or does not cross-examine. The Fonzie scenario was a lot more realistic.
You can use what everyone knows. It is perfectly permissible to say that you don’t trust a witness and so will discount that testimony. My impression was that what is not allowed is someone setting him or herself up as an expert in the jury room without any vetting.
I was reacting to your mention of the facts. Facts are presented in court, not what an expert on the jury says. Facts get checked by the adversarial system.

[Voyager]

@Hilarity_N.Suze

That is not true. A juror with some special expertise in the matter at hand would certainly be allowed to try to convince other jury members. What you can’t do is go out and get evidence, or sit in the jury room and Google things (they take your laptops and phones) or bring in law books. If you have the knowledge in your head, it’s fine. You can bring in any expertise you happen to have. That doesn’t mean you’ll be able to convince the other jurors.

As I mentioned, an expert in the area of the trial was excluded from the jury for saying he would do exactly this - use his expertise instead of the testimony. The questioning didn’t even get to whether he would try to convince anyone else - voting based on his expertise was enough.

For instance in one of the juries I served on, one of the counts included “obstreperous behavior.” “Obstreperous” was not defined. Apparently nobody else had ever heard the word before. I was allowed to say, and did say, that I was an editor, and I knew this word, and it meant rowdy, disruptive, uncontrolled. I could do that. What I couldn’t do was bring in a dictionary, for instance after lunch, to look it up and say, “See, here’s what it means.”

Why didn’t you ask the judge what the meaning was in the context of the case? Maybe not this word, but I’d guess that some words have different legal meanings from dictionary meanings.

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

@Voyager

As I mentioned, an expert in the area of the trial was excluded from the jury for saying he would do exactly this - use his expertise instead of the testimony. The questioning didn’t even get to whether he would try to convince anyone else - voting based on his expertise was enough.
Why didn’t you ask the judge what the meaning was in the context of the case? Maybe not this word, but I’d guess that some words have different legal meanings from dictionary meanings.

If nobody had known the word, I guess that’s what we’d have done.

[Guinastasia]

I have to call and/or go online tomorrow to find out if I have to go Thursday. I’m really hoping I don’t. The last thing I want is to have to go downtown in this weather. I mean, I love downtown Pittsburgh, but not when the temperature’s below freezing. Especially since you get the wind off of the rivers, which makes it even worse. (Yes I know it’s a stupid reason not to want to go, but then if I’m not even chosen, I’ll risk frostbite for nothing)