Jury Service

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Having recently been notified that I may be called up for jury service, I have been reading the various material provided and came across the list of those who have the right to refuse to serve as a juror. In Scotland, the list is:

Politicians (Members of Parliament - Westminster, Scotland or Wales - Members of the House of Lords, specified other public offices)

Members of the Armed Forces

Medical & similar professionals (Medical practitioners, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmaceutical chemists, veterinary surgeons and veterinary practitioners)

Members of certain religious bodies (the tenets of whose belief is incompatible with jury service)

Ministers of religion

Those who have served on a jury within the previous five years or who have been excused for a longer period (after particularly long/gruesome cases the judge may excuse the jury members from serving again for a longer period than the standard five years).

In addition there are a number of categories of those who CANNOT sit on a jury:

The judiciary

Others involved in administering justice (advocates, police officers, parole board members etc)

The mentally disordered.

Convicted criminals sentenced to three months imprisonment or more.

Persons on bail.

Short of suddenly discovering that I believed in a religion that is incompatible with jury service, I don't fall under any of them but they did spark of some questions:

Who SHOULD be prevented from sitting on juries?

The list above looked OK to me with the exception of politicians who I think should be on the list of those who cannot be members rather than simply having a right to refuse in order to ensure full segregation between those responsible for making legislation and those responsible for applying that legislation. I doubt this is much of a practical issue as I suspect politicians would exercise their right not to serve.

Do similar exclusions exist in other jursidictions, and if so how do they differ?

Who should have the RIGHT to exclude themselves for jury service and why?

I disagree that holding religious beliefs or office should grant any special rights.

I would also question the list of excluded professions - why should a vet be able to opt out but not a teacher? A dentist but not a farmer?

And finally, as a long shot, does anyone know how the exclusions, especially the excluded professions, came about?

I assume that originally that Doctors were excluded but this gradually widened to related professions. Still confused as to how vets get in!

[Professor Yaffle]

Here's some opinion on the mental disorder exclusion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/07/socialcare.guardiansocietysupplement1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/mentalhealth.clareallan
http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_help/campaigning_for_change/breaking_down_the_wall/jury_service.html
http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_help/campaigning_for_change/breaking_down_the_wall/jury_service_what.html

[Bikewer]

There have been various attempts to use police officers on juries locally, the city of St. Louis sends out notifications frequently. This may be due to the comparatively low percentage of "qualified" jurists in the city...
Prosecutors have expressed that they'd love to have officers on the jury, as they "understand the elements of the law". Of course, they tend to be somewhat biased, which leads to almost immediate exclusion in the voir dire process....

I know some officers who nonetheless have served on civil trials.

St. Louis county lists "being married to a law enforcement officer" as one of the reasons for exclusion.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Here's some opinion on the mental disorder exclusion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/07/socialcare.guardiansocietysupplement1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/mentalhealth.clareallan
http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_help/campaigning_for_change/breaking_down_the_wall/jury_service.html
http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_help/campaigning_for_change/breaking_down_the_wall/jury_service_what.html

Thanks for these, they are interesting.

It assume that the articles deal with the situation in England (and I guess possibly in Wales?). Certainly the restrictions referred to in the first article appear to be much stricter than the restrictions in Scotland.

The article refers to four mental health grounds which disqualify an individual:

Being in hospital (presumably only if the treatment is related to mental health);
Being in guardianship under the Mental Health Act;
If a judge has found them incapable of managing their affairs; or
If they regularly visit a medical practitioner for treatment.

The last one apparently is wide enough to include someone who is seen quarterly by a psychiatrist and gets prescriptions from her doctor.

In Scotland there are three grounds:

Persons receiving medical treatment for mental disorder who are resident in a hospital for that treatment;
Persons receiving medical treatment for mental disorder who attend for more than one day each week to receive that treatment; or
Persons subject to guardianship under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act.

So it would seem that the person writing the articles, who is not qualified to sit on an English jury, would be qualified to sit on one in Scotland.

[Edited to add: Regularly is just totally the WRONG test to apply here. Who cares with what regularity someone gets treatment? As drafted it would exclude someone with a well managed, well controlled condition who has a regular annual check up for 10 minutes with a mental health professional but not someone who has frequent but irregular meetings because their condition is badly controlled.]

[malbui]

I got called for jury service once and went along happily, even buying some new rope on the way, only to find when I got allocated to a case that my aunt was the presiding judge and didn't want me in there. Seems she'd already brought her own rope.

[Francesca R]

Convicted criminals sentenced to three months imprisonment or more.Is there a good reason why in respect of this one?

ETA--This reminded me of the IPS requirement that whoever certifies the photo on a passport application must be of "professional standing in the community" or something. As though somebody on income support cannot be assumed to speak the truth.

[Lothian]

Is there a good reason why in respect of this one?
With overcrowding of prisons and the UK reoffending rate the chances are that they would in the near future end up sharing a cell.

[richardm]

I would also question the list of excluded professions - why should a vet be able to opt out but not a teacher? A dentist but not a farmer?

I wonder if it's the similar to the schedule of reserved occupations from the war? Certainly I recognise dentists from that list. I suppose a school is able to find cover for a teacher relatively easily, and a farm is likely to have a number of workers on it to spread the workload; a vet or a dentist may not find it so straightforward.

Incidentally, the space between me getting the letter about being liable for jury service and actually getting called for jury service was about 2 weeks, so brace yourself ;)

[Francesca R]

I would have probably enjoyed the ten 10am-4pm days I spent listening to almost but not quite entirely irrelevant detail over and over (and the hour and a half of deliberation before returning a verdict), had I not been required to visit my office for an additional 8 hours or so either side of CPS working hours.

[casebro]

Here in America, nobody smart enough to participate on this forum is ever allowed to sit on a jury. The defense will exclude us. They want emotional folks, not intellectuals.

I toss my notices into the bin. And will continue to, unless the system changes to eliminate jury selection other than by random lot. I'll put myself into a random pool, since as a random member, we would all be 'peers'. Once selection bias is introduced, we could no longer be considered peers.

And if I was a defendant, I wouldn't want to be judged by people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

In California, there are no professional exclusions. Except that no defense lawyer would permit most of those listed above on his jury.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Is there a good reason why in respect of this one?

ETA--This reminded me of the IPS requirement that whoever certifies the photo on a passport application must be of "professional standing in the community" or something. As though somebody on income support cannot be assumed to speak the truth.

I was abbreviating slightly. The actual restriction is:

Those who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life or more than 5 years or during her Majesty's pleasure; and

Those who have been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three months or have been detained in a borstal institution and who are not "rehabilitated persons" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

To become a rehabilitated person you appear to have to not have any further convictions for a specified period (length varying with length of original sentence).

So I guess the reason is that the rule is there to ensure that only those who have demonstrated they accept the rule of law are qualified to participate in the application of those laws. Whether that is "good" or not is certainly open to debate.

[Cuddles]

I would also question the list of excluded professions - why should a vet be able to opt out but not a teacher? A dentist but not a farmer?

In addition to the ease of finding a temporary replacement, as noted by Richardm, there's also the consequences. If you can't find a teacher then, in the worst case, a few children get a bit less education for a few days. On the other hand, if you can't find a replacement medical practioner (human or animal), people (or animals) can end up dead. And given that there's really no such thing as a temporary replacement doctor (not on short notice for a few days at least), that's quite a big problem.

[geni]

I disagree that holding religious beliefs or office should grant any special rights.


There are certian relgions where the follower will find the defendent inocent whatever so the pragmatic aproach is to keep them off juries.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I wonder if it's the similar to the schedule of reserved occupations from the war? Certainly I recognise dentists from that list. I suppose a school is able to find cover for a teacher relatively easily, and a farm is likely to have a number of workers on it to spread the workload; a vet or a dentist may not find it so straightforward.

Incidentally, the space between me getting the letter about being liable for jury service and actually getting called for jury service was about 2 weeks, so brace yourself ;)

Interesting thought about reserved occupations, but I suspect not. From a quick google the list that I can find is very different from the right to refuse to be a juror list.

http://www.falkirk.gov.uk/about_council/news/press_item.aspx?pid=2015

"The reserved (or scheduled) occupation scheme covered five million men in a very wide range of key jobs including railway , dock and refinery workers, engineers, miners, farmers, and agricultural workers, police, teachers and doctors. "

Anyone can ask to be excused jury service due to workload issues, so I don't think that is the reason to exclude dentists and vets.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

There have been various attempts to use police officers on juries locally, the city of St. Louis sends out notifications frequently. This may be due to the comparatively low percentage of "qualified" jurists in the city...
Prosecutors have expressed that they'd love to have officers on the jury, as they "understand the elements of the law". Of course, they tend to be somewhat biased, which leads to almost immediate exclusion in the voir dire process....

I know some officers who nonetheless have served on civil trials.

St. Louis county lists "being married to a law enforcement officer" as one of the reasons for exclusion.

When I was called for jury duty, one of the first questions on my questionaire asked me if I was related to a police officer.

I think it's more than reasonable; it's very fair to assume that the family of a police officer has a much different view of the law than the family of, say, a bookkeeper and an electrician.

Also, as much as jurors are sworn to secrecy, I think they do discuss the case at home.

I know I did. :o

[Professor Yaffle]

Thanks for these, they are interesting.

It assume that the articles deal with the situation in England (and I guess possibly in Wales?). Certainly the restrictions referred to in the first article appear to be much stricter than the restrictions in Scotland.

The article refers to four mental health grounds which disqualify an individual:

Being in hospital (presumably only if the treatment is related to mental health);
Being in guardianship under the Mental Health Act;
If a judge has found them incapable of managing their affairs; or
If they regularly visit a medical practitioner for treatment.

The last one apparently is wide enough to include someone who is seen quarterly by a psychiatrist and gets prescriptions from her doctor.

In Scotland there are three grounds:

Persons receiving medical treatment for mental disorder who are resident in a hospital for that treatment;
Persons receiving medical treatment for mental disorder who attend for more than one day each week to receive that treatment; or
Persons subject to guardianship under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act.

So it would seem that the person writing the articles, who is not qualified to sit on an English jury, would be qualified to sit on one in Scotland.

[Edited to add: Regularly is just totally the WRONG test to apply here. Who cares with what regularity someone gets treatment? As drafted it would exclude someone with a well managed, well controlled condition who has a regular annual check up for 10 minutes with a mental health professional but not someone who has frequent but irregular meetings because their condition is badly controlled.]

Ah, that's good to know, since I now live in Scotland, and would have been excluded in England.

[Francesca R]

Also, as much as jurors are sworn to secrecy, I think they do discuss the case at home.

I know I did. :oSo did I.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In addition to the ease of finding a temporary replacement, as noted by Richardm, there's also the consequences. If you can't find a teacher then, in the worst case, a few children get a bit less education for a few days. On the other hand, if you can't find a replacement medical practioner (human or animal), people (or animals) can end up dead. And given that there's really no such thing as a temporary replacement doctor (not on short notice for a few days at least), that's quite a big problem.

That may be the reason the exemption was introduced. However it most certainly is possible to get replacement medical staff at short notice (and with jury service the "normal" notice is apparently three weeks or more). Locum doctors (who do exactly this) are an essential feature of the NHS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_the_doctor/doctorslocum.shtml

[grunion]

I would also question the list of excluded professions - why should a vet be able to opt out but not a teacher? A dentist but not a farmer?

And finally, as a long shot, does anyone know how the exclusions, especially the excluded professions, came about?

I assume that originally that Doctors were excluded but this gradually widened to related professions. Still confused as to how vets get in!Doctor's exclusions are not solely (or even primarily) due to the inconvenience it would cause them or their patients. The reason these professions are generally banned from jury duty is because they are widely considered "experts" by the public, and attorneys and judges fear that their opinions would therefore have more weight in the jury room than that of a teacher, farmer or accountant, in effect subverting the essential democracy of the whole notion of jury duty.

[Tanja]

Regarding people with mental health problems being excluded if they need to seek medical treatment regularly - would it not be logical to exclude anyone who needs to attend medical treatment very regularly (for physical or mental ilness alike), as this could easily interfere with the schedule of the trial? If a trial is expected to last more than a couple of days, then I presume the trial would need to be adjourned if a juror needs to make a regular visit to the doctor, which would be quite inconvenient for the court.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

There are certian relgions where the follower will find the defendent inocent whatever so the pragmatic aproach is to keep them off juries.

Maybe so, but that could also be true of certain non-religious beliefs.

[Cuddles]

That may be the reason the exemption was introduced. However it most certainly is possible to get replacement medical staff at short notice (and with jury service the "normal" notice is apparently three weeks or more). Locum doctors (who do exactly this) are an essential feature of the NHS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_the_doctor/doctorslocum.shtml

Hence my qualification "not on short notice for a few days". Locums certainly exist, but they are generally arranged well in advance and are often in place for months. It's not at all the same as the situation with supply teachers. I've never even heard of a locum being brought in to cover holidays or sick leave. Possibly this is a difference between GPs and hospital doctors, but you're certainly not going to find a replacement for a consultant surgeon for a few days within a couple of weeks.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Doctor's exclusions are not solely (or even primarily) due to the inconvenience it would cause them or their patients. The reason these professions are generally banned from jury duty is because they are widely considered "experts" by the public, and attorneys and judges fear that their opinions would therefore have more weight in the jury room than that of a teacher, farmer or accountant, in effect subverting the essential democracy of the whole notion of jury duty.

At least in Scotland, they are not banned, they simply have the right not to participate. If they wish to serve on a jury, then they can.

If they were banned (or where they are banned) then this would seem a plausible explanation of how that came about.

[doctoraudit]

My notice for US District Court also states full time college students can have their service deferred to after graduation. Alas not the case for me so I get to show up next week.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Hence my qualification "not on short notice for a few days". Locums certainly exist, but they are generally arranged well in advance and are often in place for months. It's not at all the same as the situation with supply teachers. I've never even heard of a locum being brought in to cover holidays or sick leave. Possibly this is a difference between GPs and hospital doctors, but you're certainly not going to find a replacement for a consultant surgeon for a few days within a couple of weeks.

Sorry was reading your qualification wrongly as implying it would take a few days to get coverage, not as referring to getting coverage for a few days.

I am no expert in the field, and agree that there would be a big difference between replacing a consultant surgeon and a GP (who seem to have had no problem at all in finding people to cover their out of hours responsibilities).

If I had to guess, I would suspect that the exemption was introduced back in the days when the local GP had a much larger role in health care and there was much less in the way of replacement/support services to fall back on. At a further guess, this was widened to include "similar professions" to cover some specific examples that were not doctors but were essentially similar (maybe midwifes?) and at a subsequent date a list of those "similar professions" was included to get us to where we are now.

Still not sure how vets got in - is it worse to potentially have some animals die due to the absence of a vet than to have crops rot in the field because the farmer is on jury service or kids get a worse education because they have been taught by a succession of supply teachers?

[Dave Rogers]

When I was called for jury duty, one of the first questions on my questionaire asked me if I was related to a police officer.

In what degree?

There are certainly, at least, some guidelines in some instances based on one's relatives. I was called up for a coroner's court jury a few years ago and was perfectly happy to serve, but there was a "tell us anything else that may be relevant" clause in the letter, so I informed the relevant authorities that my father (by then retired) had previously been a Deputy Coroner. On these grounds I was judged ineligible for coroner's court jury service, a decision I've never quite understood the reason for. While there are, no doubt, certain people who shouldn't be allowed to serve on juries, I find it hard to understand exactly why I'm one of them.

Actually, I can think of one or two, but they're more to do with pedantry than ancestry.

Dave

[King of the Americas]

I live in a relatively small county, and have been called at least 4 times in 10 years.

They plead out once, so I didn't even have to show up, then I got dismissed because they had more than enough to fill the jury pool, and twice to get to be questioned by the attorneys.

Neither time did I get actually selected to serve.

Having seen two real juries picked, I think lawyers are not looking for people 'like me'. I have opinions, that I often find difficult to keep to myself, shall we say.

I don't think attorneys want strong minded people on a jury. I think they want clay, that they can mold, 'listeners', willing to absorb a version of the story.

I always tell people if you don't wnat to serve, then speak up during the questioning...

[Darat]

This is totally non-sourced:

I thought the professions exemptions came about because they were professionals and therefore not considered to be the "peers" of the people they would have to decide about? And I think most of the exemptions by profession in England & Wales were ended by Blunkett? (ETA: Exemptions ended link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/21/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation)

[richardm]

This is totally non-sourced:

I thought the professions exemptions came about because they were professionals and therefore not considered to be the "peers" of the people they would have to decide about?

What if you had a murderous vet?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

In what degree?

There are certainly, at least, some guidelines in some instances based on one's relatives. I was called up for a coroner's court jury a few years ago and was perfectly happy to serve, but there was a "tell us anything else that may be relevant" clause in the letter, so I informed the relevant authorities that my father (by then retired) had previously been a Deputy Coroner. On these grounds I was judged ineligible for coroner's court jury service, a decision I've never quite understood the reason for. While there are, no doubt, certain people who shouldn't be allowed to serve on juries, I find it hard to understand exactly why I'm one of them.

Actually, I can think of one or two, but they're more to do with pedantry than ancestry.

Dave


I actually do have a former police officer in my family but, in my case, it would also have absolutely nothing to do wth anything.

My mother's sister's husband is a former cop but I've met my Uncle Andrew only as a very small child and have no memory of him. I know my aunt and his daughter, my cousin, very well but since my mother's relationship with him is very bad and he and my aunt was estranged from him for a very long time, I only know him from stories and photos. He's supposed to be a very unpleasant person.

So when they asked me about relatives in law enforcement, I answered that I didn't have any.

I was knocked off from jury selection in a civil trial presumably because the person suing was Navy yard electrician who had gotten asbestos poisoning and I disclosed that my father is an electrician. I also mentioned that I had actually heard of asbestos poisoning.

Even my dad was befuddled when I told him I could have been rejected cause of it: "What does that have to do with the trial?"

I was very disappointed about not being selected. I'd love to sit on the jury of a civil or criminal trial; I must be the only person in America that actually wants to be called.

[Galaxie]

Here in America, nobody smart enough to participate on this forum is ever allowed to sit on a jury.

:confused:

I guess I must be the exception to the rule then? Or it means I'm dumb.

[jj]

Here in America, nobody smart enough to participate on this forum is ever allowed to sit on a jury. The defense will exclude us.

So I thought. With law enforcement experience (albiet not much and long ago), research scientist cred, etc, I figured I'd get laughed out of the jury pool.

Nope, wound up doing two weeks on a civil trial.

The report of same is here, somewhere, someplace.

[dasmiller]

I was very disappointed about not being selected. I'd love to sit on the jury of a civil or criminal trial; I must be the only person in America that actually wants to be called.

Evidently you're not the only one. I've seen people lie to stay on the panel. In one case, several years ago, they were asking each panelist "Have you or a relative ever witnessed or been a victim of a crime?" I've lived in relatively low-crime areas most of my life, but over a lifetime, it still adds up. I was working up a list - car was stolen, robbed at gunpoint, my brother's business was broken into a few times, a credit card fraud problem, a few minor thefts, etc - and that's just the 'victim' part.

One of the other panelists, a few seats ahead of me - 69 years old, lived in Compton CA his whole life (yes, THAT Compton) - "Have you or a relative ever witnessed or been a victim of a crime?" He thought for a moment, then said, "Nope."

(okay, maybe I'm too cynical, but . . .)

[Dunstan]

Most U.S. states have made a real effort over the last 10-20 years to try to get more representative juries. A lot of "professional" exemptions have been eliminated, and in general judges are very reluctant to excuse people for cause based on normal work demands. And most judges are also wise to the tricks people use to try to get themselves booted, though I suppose if you're willing to lie blatantly enough under oath you probably will manage to get dinged.

Within the last year, both the mayor of Los Angeles and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court have served on juries.

I'm not saying that it's all sunshine and roses and equality, but it's just not the case in most jurisdictions I'm aware of that "only dumb people serve on juries."

It's also a tad simplistic to suggest that one side's lawyers wants to get rid of the smart jurors while the other side wants to keep them. I suppose it might be different in criminal cases, especially if there's a "three strikes" law at issue, but generally cases don't go to a jury if they're so obvious that only a dumb juror could find for a particular side.

What you really want is a smart juror who is sympathetic to the arguments and themes you intend to present. Then you not only have a good chance at that juror's vote, but also at having them persuade others in the jury room.

[dasmiller]

And if I was a defendant, I wouldn't want to be judged by people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

For me, it would depend on whether I was actually guilty ;)


In California, there are no professional exclusions. Except that no defense lawyer would permit most of those listed above on his jury.

Odd things happen. I was on a jury in a criminal trial, and we had a police officer as an alternate. Everyone was a little surprised by it, but the defense atty was had used most of her dismissals and whoever was after the cop (I don't remember the specifics anymore) looked even worse for the defense.

[luchog]

Maybe so, but that could also be true of certain non-religious beliefs.
Which is why any juror who admits to being familiar with groups such as the Fully Informed Jury Association are routinely dismissed; and can even be found in contempt of court for failing to volunteer their support of or association with these groups, regardless of whether they're ever actually asked about such.

[luchog]

Regarding people with mental health problems being excluded if they need to seek medical treatment regularly - would it not be logical to exclude anyone who needs to attend medical treatment very regularly (for physical or mental ilness alike), as this could easily interfere with the schedule of the trial? If a trial is expected to last more than a couple of days, then I presume the trial would need to be adjourned if a juror needs to make a regular visit to the doctor, which would be quite inconvenient for the court.
This may be true; but I think it far more likely that they're excluded because people with that degree of mental illness are far less likely than average to be able to adequately judge the facts in a case, and come to a rational conclusion.

[The Drain]

I've always wanted to serve on a jury, but I've never been asked - it's so unfair.

Although, come to think of it, all the really interesting trials in Northern Ireland (and across the border too) are held in our 'special' non-jury courts...

[TragicMonkey]

I suspect a vet exclusion is due to the agricultural work--cows and things--more than for house pets. Britain did used to be a very agricultural sort of place, and a dead cow is a pretty serious thing.

[TragicMonkey]

What if you had a murderous vet?

I'm looking forward to that remake of "All Creatures Great and Small". Take that, Tricki Woo!

[ConspiRaider]

I was able to avoid jury duty for years, because of financial hardship, brought about by my being a sole proprietorship business. I develop and support software, and absence during business hours could really deal a terrific blow.

That was fine, for awhile.

Then California said: Too bad. No longer an excuse. You will take our $15 a day for jury service and smile, you toad.

So they got me into the Beverly (achoo!) Hills Courthouse. Made me jury foreman. I did Raymond Burr the whole (achoo!) time in the deliberation room and not surprisingly, we had a hung jury. The judge decreed that a gavel-shaped thundercloud follow me (achoo!) around and storm on me for 2 to 5 years.

[Delvo]

I was knocked off from jury selection in a civil trial presumably because the person suing was Navy yard electrician who had gotten asbestos poisoning and I disclosed that my father is an electrician. I also mentioned that I had actually heard of asbestos poisoning.

Even my dad was befuddled when I told him I could have been rejected cause of it: "What does that have to do with the trial?"With some subjects, people who've heard anything about it before have most likely heard something fairly distorted and prejudicing about it, making them less likely to be fair and impartial.

[Dunstan]

With some subjects, people who've heard anything about it before have most likely heard something fairly distorted and prejudicing about it, making them less likely to be fair and impartial.

The other concern is that you don't want to turn what's supposed to be a six- or twelve-person jury into a one-person jury. By that I mean that if a juror has (or is perceived to have) personal expertise in an area, the other jurors may defer to him. It's like letting an expert witness waltz into the jury room and give an opinion without subjecting him to cross-examination or any accountability whatsoever.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I was able to avoid jury duty for years, because of financial hardship, brought about by my being a sole proprietorship business. I develop and support software, and absence during business hours could really deal a terrific blow.

That was fine, for awhile.

Then California said: Too bad. No longer an excuse. You will take our $15 a day for jury service and smile, you toad.

So they got me into the Beverly (achoo!) Hills Courthouse. Made me jury foreman. I did Raymond Burr the whole (achoo!) time in the deliberation room and not surprisingly, we had a hung jury. The judge decreed that a gavel-shaped thundercloud follow me (achoo!) around and storm on me for 2 to 5 years.

Isn't it so unfair that someone like me, who would consider it a treat to be on a jury and is constantly hoping to get called, gets booted from a lawsuit and won't be drafted for at least another three years and that someone like you is actually made foreman?

I actually tried to volunteer for it, which you can do in New York, when I was 18. The week I came back from my summer vacation. Really.

[ConspiRaider]

Isn't it so unfair that someone like me, who would consider it a treat to be on a jury and is constantly hoping to get called, gets booted from a lawsuit and won't be drafted for at least another three years and that someone like you is actually made foreman?

I actually tried to volunteer for it, which you can do in New York, when I was 18. The week I came back from my summer vacation. Really.
I suppose so, EeneyMM.

A school of thought amongst lawyers during the voir dire is that if they detect (or if a jury consultant in the gallery detects) that someone really wants to be on a jury, it's a red flag. That person could be scratched because it can indicate the potential juror has an agenda. You might have telegraphed that impression. Or not. People can be booted off the jury / alternates for no reason, or superfluous reasons.

The law is fascinating, and maybe you can just sit in the gallery for trials? I think if I ever do a book, I'd get my fill of courtroom spectating.

There is this weird thing about being on a jury. You do feel special. You know that after everything is said and done, after all the fireworks are over - you da man, you da woman! Buck stops with you. The lawyers well know this, and will go out of their way to win you over. It's a bit like being an actor in a film. There are all these other folks prepping and setting things up and fussing over you and meanwhile the scene is maybe just you and another actor. It's an odd feeling. It's also sobering in that they absolutely expect you to deliver the goods.

[doctoraudit]

I was on call for jury duty next week. I called for my report time and my number was not picked. How am I supposed to use my JREF wisdom to dispense justice now?

[richardm]

I'm looking forward to that remake of "All Creatures Great and Small". Take that, Tricki Woo!

CSI: Darrowby

[Cuddles]

Isn't it so unfair that someone like me, who would consider it a treat to be on a jury and is constantly hoping to get called, gets booted from a lawsuit and won't be drafted for at least another three years and that someone like you is actually made foreman?

I actually tried to volunteer for it, which you can do in New York, when I was 18. The week I came back from my summer vacation. Really.

Maybe it's one of those "Those who most want to lead are those least suited to do so." things. On the other hand, maybe it is just unfair.

[Moon-Spinner]

Several years back I overheard a person where I work talking about being called for jury duty (she was going to the selection process). She was going on about how she was ready to say "Guilty" no matter what, and added that she would rather send a innocent person to prison than take a chance on letting a guilty person go free!

I advised her to make sure she mentions that when she goes, and walked away thinking "Good Gawd!" :boggled:

[joobie]

And if I was a defendant, I wouldn't want to be judged by people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

what about the people who are smart enough, but take their civic responsibility seriously?

because (anecdotally) there are a lot of those folks.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I suppose so, EeneyMM.

A school of thought amongst lawyers during the voir dire is that if they detect (or if a jury consultant in the gallery detects) that someone really wants to be on a jury, it's a red flag. That person could be scratched because it can indicate the potential juror has an agenda. You might have telegraphed that impression. Or not. People can be booted off the jury / alternates for no reason, or superfluous reasons.

The law is fascinating, and maybe you can just sit in the gallery for trials? I think if I ever do a book, I'd get my fill of courtroom spectating.

There is this weird thing about being on a jury. You do feel special. You know that after everything is said and done, after all the fireworks are over - you da man, you da woman! Buck stops with you. The lawyers well know this, and will go out of their way to win you over. It's a bit like being an actor in a film. There are all these other folks prepping and setting things up and fussing over you and meanwhile the scene is maybe just you and another actor. It's an odd feeling. It's also sobering in that they absolutely expect you to deliver the goods.

You know, I think I did telegraph that I really wanted to serve. Just about everyone in my pool was grumpy, bored and disinterested throughout the whole process and I was the only one who looked happy to be there.

Maybe it's one of those "Those who most want to lead are those least suited to do so." things. On the other hand, maybe it is just unfair.

I agree with you. In general, it seems that the person who volunteers the most information about themselves, asks the most question and draws the most attention to themselves gets kicked out. It seems that the people who show the least personality, show the least interest in the case and know the least about the law are the ones who are picked.

It's the "peg that sticks out gets pulled out" scenario. Maybe the best way to get chosen is to say as little as possible.