Jury duty

[QRTRHRS]

I too have listened to a couple of days of nonsense retoric while serving. I have also gotten out of drug cases by stating that I am zero tolerance which is true. Overall, as I said in my first post on this topic, serving is a rewarding experiance. Though, I did know someone who's life did get rather stressed because they had to serve five weeks on a sequestered federal jury.

 

[deere755]

I am not trying to get out of serving all together. With the pay cut my wife took this year and my job has been slow I am not looking forward to getting $15.50 a day instead of my regular wage but we will be ok. My problem is the timing. This is a very busy time for me and I am pretty much a one man operation. Winter or summer would be a lot better. I would like to just move the time of serving. As for being boring I sat in on a trial as a witness in a law suit over a combine that 2 neighbors of mine went together and bought. There life long friendship ended over a piece of equipment. I never got called to the stand but listened to the lawyers ask the same questions over and over all day long. If I had not been subpoenaed I would not have sat there all day. Come to think of it I got $25 for that day. Pays better then jury duty.

 

[Western]

Ok I'll be the party pooper. personally I think it would be my civic duty to serve, as boring as it may be. Yes it is a PITA, but look at the jury pool theses day's, If , God forbid, you had a trial civil or criminal trial you would want a level minded, educated jury (if you were innocent)

Of course there are hardships and reasons not to go, but it is part of our American system and we "are" Americans.

(For purposes of full disclosure.)
I will likely never be able to serve. Like Bird, I have a Law enforcement background. I have been a state witness and a federal witness as a fact of my prior employment, but I go to my summons and as soon as they get to the police part I either get bumped, or become a bargaining chip. in other words the defense will have to make a concession on one or two others to get rid of me.

During the trials I have partaken in, I usually had a great respect for the jurors. After all the time an agency goes through and all the prep, paper work, with the tax payers footing the bill, you then present your case or give your witness account to 12 jurors/tax payers.
and let them make the call based on the (hopefully) facts.

Look at it this way,
Not every one will get an invitation to serve their democracy, so YOU ARE LUCKY!

Ever wonder how some one could get 2 mil for spilling coffee in their lap??

 

[czechsonofagun]

Ever wonder how some one could get 2 mil for spilling coffee in their lap??

OK, I will be party pooper too:

The McDonalds Coffee Case

As you can see it was never 2M and the reality is bit different from the circulated version.

 

[Ronbo]

No one should have to take such a financial hit due to jury duty that it damages their credit. If I ended up being sequestered for 5 weeks, who is going to pay my mortgage, car note, utilities, food and health insurance?

How is my employer going to stay in business without replacing me?

Since I have been replaced at my job, where am I going to work after jury duty?

I have no problem serving on a jury, but my family and my lifestyle should not suffer (possibly irreparable damage to my credit) for jury duty. The system is broken. Would I ever have a "jury of my peers" sit for a trial? No. I am white, male, educated to the graduate level, make very good money. What is considered my peers?

Ron

 

[JB4310]

The system is broken. Would I ever have a "jury of my peers" sit for a trial? No.

Ron

Only if your peers are a bunch of "Blue Heads"

JB.

 

[mjarrels]

Peers if they own the same colored tractor as you!

mark

 

[wolc123]

I went twice, about 10 years apart. Both times I went along with everything right up to the point where the judge asked if anyone didnt think they could serve for some reason. Each time, I was the only one to raise my hand. The first time (I dont remember what the case was) I said I was too busy at work and he let me go. The second time, an arson case, I said that my own house had burned down in the past, which did happen when my grandparents owned it, and he let me go again. I think it is best to go when you are called initially, then take the first ticket home after you get there. Unless you have a real emergency, all you will be doing is adding stress to your life with a temporary defferment because you know that they will get you in a short time. This way, you will be free from service for a long time. In both cases, I only lost (1) day of work. This method surely wouldnt be as effective if everyone rasied thier hands, but with the high unemployment in most areas right now, that shouldnt be a problem. In my own opinion, juries should consist entirely of retired folks, and unemployed. That may stack the deck a little one way or another but that might be a bigger detterent against committing a crime. As far as malpractice suits and such, I think a good way to end that problem would be to require all laywers to serve 5 years in China or India before practicing in the US. It seems that those countries have far fewer laywers percapita than we do here so this would even things out a bit.

 

[Mickey_Fx]

I'll through in my thoughts. I see serving as a duty. I know I'd be unhappy if I found myself before a judge for something I was not guilty of and facing the reality of having a hard time setting a jury because far too many couldn't be bothered. Hope this doesn't happen to you that have expressed you desire to not participate in our system of justice.

Just filled out a survey form for US district court earlier this week. Must have been a half doz reasons one could claim in order to not serve. Among those were people in law enforcement, firemen, taking care of aged, infirmed, handicapped family menmers. One can also get dismissed if you have knowledge, insight, into things that might be an issue in a specific case. Years ago I was screened for US Grand Jury and the survey asked about profession. My profession required me to deal with facts and not conjecture. Never heard back from the court. Defense lawyers are not really interested in jurors that can't be hoodwinked to some extent.

Set on a jury a couple yrs ago, a drug case. I learned a lot. For one thing, the defense attorney did all the jury instructions, almost not a peep from the judge or prosecutor. Unfortunately, the 3 stooges could have presented a better case. Defendants admitted to being drug users but not on the day they were arrested. Police didn't collect a lot of evidence in plain sight but did collect a few small poly bags and a tube housing from a ball point pen. All the lab test confirmed was at some point the bags came in contact with cocaine. Evidence collect from portion of the house that was not where the defendants normally lived.

The jury spent almost 100% of their time discussing want a poor job the prosecution did. We all wanted to convict the accused but the prosecution didn't make the case by a long shot.

I'd serve again, it's part of my duty as a American citizen.

 

[ragkar]

The first time that I was called, the prosecution selected me as the third juror to be interviewed on a murder case. That was because I was a civil servant and professional (electronics engineer). Sure enough, the defense used up one of their challenges dismissing me as people like me usually side with the establishment.
The case was a biker that lived with his bedridden mom. He beat her to death and then set fire to the mattress to conceal it. Unfortunately for him, forensics discovered where he had candle lit the mattress (he hoped that people would think that it was a dropped cigarette). He was the type that wore wrist straps with spikes and they found spike marks on her corpse. He got the death penalty. I would have voted that way too, but I'm glad that I didn't have to.
The third time that I was called, all fifteen cases were settled on plea bargain. Now I won't be called for another five years.