There was debate in a political science class over whether or not this is technically possible. The instructor said that jury selection is based on pure chance so I asked the question of whether or not a juror chosen would be an actual “part” of the criminal or civil case.
Is there a database in which information can be entered to exclude this information such as judge, plaintiff, attorneys, etc or is it luck of the draw and then dealt with according to the slim chance that one is chosen (and immediately excused)?
In most places, jury pool selection is done randomly. So a person who is “interested” in a trial – as a party or as a witness – could be part of a pool of candidates from which the jury is drawn. However, that person would likely seek a deferment of his jury service on the ground that he had to be at trial (i.e., that he is busy that day so can’t serve). Assuming he did not, and assuming further that the panel to which he is assigned is the one for his trial, the judge would dismiss that juror for cause. So, yes, a person could be in the pool of people from which his jury is selected, and no, a person cannot sit on the jury in a trial in which he has an interest.
You are correct that there is no attempt to weed out interested people before they enter the pool. After all, at least in major metropolitan areas, there are several jury trials beginning at once, so even if a person has an interest in trial A and cannot serve there, he may have no interest in trial B, so could serve on that jury.
Anecdotal, but I read a news story recently where the dead murder victim got a jury summons for his trial. (Nobody had taken him out of the appropriate computer database quickly enough for being dead, I guess.)
This wouldn’t be possible around here, at least not the “got a summons for his own trial” bit. When you get a summons for jury duty, you report to the courthouse and wait in a common area with everybody else who was summoned for that day. As they need jury pools for specific trials, groups are formed at random and sent off to that courtroom (where they’re further winnowed down to the final jury). So you’re not summoned for a particular trial, but have a chance of being seated on any jury trial that’s scheduled to begin that day.
Ignoring just for a moment that it would be very hard to be sitting both at the defense table, and back in the back of the court room where the jury pool sits.
First question asked of a potential jurror
Do you know any of the following people [list of all people connected with the case including the defendant]
Hard to answer that one no, if your name is mentioned.
Potentially innaccurate anecdote which does not answer the question, but does describe someone who would not have made an appropriate member of a jury, follows. Read on at your own risk.
A couple of years ago, I was part of the jury pool for a particular month in KY. Due to the way they arranged things, one had to call or check the website to see if your number was needed on a particular day. Most people were expected to be on one or two juries, but an unusually large number of cases went to trial during the month, so many of us served on three or more. One particular day, several juries were seated in the morning, and anyone not selected was required to show up in the afternoon when a jury which was thought to need a broader jury pool on average to find a jury was to be selected.
As they started jury selection, they read the list of names of people involved-- and one member of the juror pool identified himself as having been a hostage when the accused had robbed a bank. Furthermore, he had told his story (including the fact that these men were about to come to trial) to everyone who held still long enough to listen during the time of jury duty that month.
Between those who were contaminated by listening to him, and those who had read the article in the paper (which stated that they had been convicted of robbing other banks, a piece of information that jurors were not supposed to know prior to convicting them of robbing this bank)–about half to two thirds of the jury pool was deemed contaminated and they continued the trial until the next month-- despite some possible complications due to restrictions on how long a time could pass between arrest and trial.
Two and a half years ago, my wife received a municipal jury summons for the small city in which we live. At the time, she was nine months pregnant. Her due date was less than a week from the date she was to report for service. In fact, her jury service date conflicted with a doctor’s appointment. She attempted to re-set her jury service for a time after the baby was born. The judge refused. She reported for jury service. The baby was dead four days later. We’ll never know if that judge’s heartless incompetence killed our son.
This story may not directly address the OP, but it is easily the most inappropriate juror story I can imagine. Despite my best efforts, that judge still sits. I have made it a mission to have him removed, and if possible, remove his llicense to practice law. Unfortunately, that’s not easy.
That’s kind of been my thought. I simply hate the fact that others in our community are “judged” by this guy. Obviously, most people aren’t in the situation we were in. However, if his judgement is so faulty in what should be a pretty easy call (“Gee, do I excuse a pregnant juror, or make her appear anyway?”), I figure his judgement is similarly impaired when considering more difficult questions. Unfortunately, the city council and the city attorney failed to act appropriately and fire the !%^#^#. Part of the reason may be that there simply aren’t that many people in town qualified to sit as municipal judge. They missed that point that he isn’t qualified either.
God only knows why that actually happened.