Have You Ever Been Called To Jury Duty?

[Sassy]

I've been called twice. The first time I had to go and I was suppose to go in tomorrow but my group didn't have to go.

So what have been some of your excuses to get out of it? ;D

Crap...can a mod make this a public poll?

[watermock]

I told them I was in jail. I'll never forget how they let the short bus decide the O.J. trial.

Jury selection is half the battle. Does anyone remember the excuses for aquittal? Things like...I just didn't understand the DNA thing...the blood was planted....the glove didn't fit...

It was fairly simple...there was a 1 in 5 billion chance the blood wasn't OJ's, the blood trail went right from the murder scene to his house and even his hotel room....the blood is given a preservative or it will ferment...the gloves were tight on TV...dried with the blood of the victims, how idiotic to have him try them on. They were dried with blood! It still amazes me. He's right on TV with the gloves. Another TV take has him wearing the black stocking cap from some B movie. It's still amazing he walked and is looking for the killer in South Beach.

[ludo21]

yep, but i am in school so they let me go, and i got paid from work to sit at home all day, what a great day!!

[The Big E]

Received notices, yes. But I've never responded. I think they've cracked down on people like me here in CA, but so far I've skated through.

[Clockwork Orange]

I've been called but never had to serve. The first time was right after I turned 18, I had to go down to the courthouse, sit there, watch a movie about my civic duty and then sit there some more. Finally they came in and told my group that our case had been plea bargained and that we were free to go. The second time was about a year ago. I got a summons in the mail but was able to call the night before to see if I needed to go in and found out that I was excused.

2 for 2 so far. :thumbsup:

[Sassy]

Received notices, yes. But I've never responded. I think they've cracked down on people like me here in CA, but so far I've skated through.
How did you do that without "contempt of court" charges?

[Elway 4 Life]

Received notices, yes. But I've never responded. I think they've cracked down on people like me here in CA, but so far I've skated through.
In texas they fine you if you dont show up.

[Bronx33]

I remember i was selected 5 years in a row (i always thought it was random) and never got to serve but they did waste my time and money.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Served on 3 of them and was turned down to serve on one other. If you're called you should do it unless it's next to impossible.

[Clockwork Orange]

In Colorado they issue a warrant for your arrest if you pull a no-show.

[24champ]

Received notices, yes. But I've never responded. I think they've cracked down on people like me here in CA, but so far I've skated through.
you too?:giggle: I got several notices too and never responded. Oh well.

[ak1971]

just tell them you love drugs and hate minorities. That will get you off.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

In Colorado they issue a warrant for your arrest if you pull a no-show.
They must have 1000s of those outstanding then.

[Sassy]

So what has everyone's cases been?
I got a guy that robbed a convience store and tried to take out the ATM that pretty much admitted to it.

[Clockwork Orange]

They must have 1000s of those outstanding then.

Possibly.

[The Big E]

How did you do that without "contempt of court" charges?
Good question. I've done it several times over the past 10 years with no repercussions.

I guess I'm just an outlaw, a rebel, a dangerous criminal, one step ahead of "the man". Yeah, that's it. I'm a"jury duty dodger". Be afraid. Be very afraid. :yayaya:

[ludo21]

So what has everyone's cases been?
I got a guy that robbed a convience store and tried to take out the ATM that pretty much admitted to it.


Mine was public indecency. Mexican dude caught jacking off or something :wiggle:

Guy next to me said he had to pee every 5 minutes so he ws excused. :rofl:

And the otehr guy next to me (Navajo dude) said he hated cops, so he was also excused. LOL

Fun times

[The Big E]

you too?:giggle: I got several notices too and never responded. Oh well.
One of these days we'll be sorry. My wife responded, got it postponed, and then they were all over her arse. She cleared it up, but I admit I found it amusing.

[Hotrod]

I was on a jury once. Some old timer thought some other old guy stole his deer head. So they had a huge fight and basically beat the crap out of each other. We decided they were both pretty much guilty of complete stupidity so we found the one having charges filed against him not guilty.

LOL I love living in smalltown nowhere ;D

[The Big E]

So what has everyone's cases been?
I got a guy that robbed a convience store and tried to take out the ATM that pretty much admitted to it.
He doesn't sound like the brightest bulb on the tree. Did he try to physically remove the ATM?

[Elway 4 Life]

Lady sueing the big hospital here because she said they mis diagnosed her. She was just trying to get paid. It took 3 f-ing days because we had to listen to all these long winded doctors give testimony. It sucked big time.

[Sassy]

He doesn't sound like the brightest bulb on the tree. Did he try to physically remove the ATM?
No...just tried to break in to it.

Then he brought his girlfriend/along with his infant son to court for "sympathy".

[24champ]

I have a question, lets say your listening to a good hour of extremely boring testimony, would it be ok to intervene and tell the judge that you need to go to the bathroom?

[watermock]

Why the problem? They pay you 6 dollars a day or something and you get free cold sandwiches and listen to posturing lawyers making rediculous comments.

I could of closed the OJ case in 7 days.

[24champ]

http://www.thezreview.co.uk/posters/posterimages/juryduty.jpg

[Sassy]

Why the problem? They pay you 6 dollars a day or something and you get free cold sandwiches and listen to posturing lawyers making rediculous comments.

I could of closed the OJ case in 7 days.
Here they give you a whopping $25 for the first day and then $50 per day after that and you buy your own lunch.


What I hate is that you have no privacy ... they ask you almost as many questions as they do the guy on trial. Too personal!

Speaking of OJ...has anyone ever been sequestered? (Sp?)

[-Slap-]

It not hard to avoid jury duty. If you don't have connections to just make it go away :), simply tell them you're paid on commission. That should kick you free right away. If you're actually forced to appear in court, and it should never reach that point, tell them you'll make a great juror because you can tell if people are guilty or innocent just by looking at them.

[Garcia Bronco]

The best part about jury duty is the cases:

I was out there recently to fulfill my civic duty. Awesome. You basicaly get a days notice, and you are on call for a month. You check to see if you are up on Wedndsday for a month. Anyway, I get called down to the city courthouse. In the letter I received to let me know I had been "awarded" jury duty was a list of all these things I couldn't bring into the gig. I can't take drinks, food, cell phones...in fact...no small electrical devices of any kind are allowed in the courthouse. Of all the people that I told I had jury duty...no previous participant told me to bring a book. Turned out a guy from my office was called in...and we served on the same jury pool...in a........Criminal Trial.

Keep in mind I didn't make the jury...so my knowledge of the facts are very limited...nor do I know the outcome

The defendant(He) was up for assaulting a woman in the city. Some odd questions from the DA and Attorney. The DA asked if any of us thought if someone provide a personal service for someone else...would it be okay to take back a tip?... The Attorney objected...and it was sustained. Strange question though...he wasn't arrested any where near a resturant. What kind of service could it be? They showed pictures of the girl's injuries and they were minor injuries, and could have been caused by god knows what.

The Attorney is up...he asks if we should suppose guilt just because the guy was indicted for assault. I raised my hand....he immediately folded his arms...and I could tell by his body language that he was pissed...haha...He asked me to explain. I told him that "Well...the officer arrested him. The grand jury indicted him....we are here for a reason."

I got tossed out....so did my co-worker.

As we were leaving the courthouse we could only come to one conclusion:

She was hookin...and the defendant tried to get his money back when she would let him do her in the butt...and then...It got physical.

[24champ]

It not hard to avoid jury duty. If you don't have connections to just make it go away :), simply tell them you're paid on commission. That should kick you free right away. If you're actually forced to appear in court, and it should never reach that point, tell them you'll make a great juror because you can tell if people are guilty or innocent just by looking at them.
watching george carlin are we?;D

[-Slap-]

Indeed, but again, it should never reach the point that you have to actually go downtown.

[Nuggets4]

My mom actually ended up on a jury for a case that took almost a full month. A guy was on drugs and killed a county police officer. Real nasty case.

[Hogan11]

I got called and had to sit through a gut wrenching child molestation case....it was very sickening and very brutal. I was honestly tramatized by it.

As a result, I'm never, ever serving on another jury again and I don't care what anyone thinks about it. Never, ever again.

[ak1971]

I was on a jury once. Some old timer thought some other old guy stole his deer head. So they had a huge fight and basically beat the crap out of each other. We decided they were both pretty much guilty of complete stupidity so we found the one having charges filed against him not guilty.

LOL I love living in smalltown nowhere ;D


Hotrod I assume you've been in that fine county jail of yours. Seems like everyone who lives in that town ends up in there for some stupid reason or another.

[smalltowngrll]

I used to get called every year when I lived in Tucson. The very first time I was called I got picked to sit on a Federal Drug Smuggling case. It was one of the most interesting things and I learned so much about our legal system. It was a lot different than the lower court cases. We were in deliberation for two days...and it got pretty heated in there.

Another time my group was selected to be "screened" for a drunk driving case. Needless to say I told the judge I thought the guy was guilty as hell and to throw him in prison...before they even tried the case! It worked! :) I didn't get selected!

[Sodak]

Back to Sassy's question. How can a person get out of jury duty?

Can I un-register to vote?

[loborugger]

I used to get called every year when I lived in Tucson. The very first time I was called I got picked to sit on a Federal Drug Smuggling case. It was one of the most interesting things and I learned so much about our legal system. It was a lot different than the lower court cases. We were in deliberation for two days...and it got pretty heated in there.

Another time my group was selected to be "screened" for a drunk driving case. Needless to say I told the judge I thought the guy was guilty as hell and to throw him in prison...before they even tried the case! It worked! :) I didn't get selected!

I lived in El Paso a few years back, and it was the same deal... getting called once to twice a year. Amazing. I guess the pool of registered voters is tiny and the # of drug cases is astronomical. Everyone I knew that was registered to vote never went 2 years without getting the call.

Never served. Being a white dude that speaks English only gets you disqualified PDQ.

[smalltowngrll]

FYI...Jury summons are not based on voter registration solely. It is only one of many sources. Department of motor vehicle records are also used.

[Sodak]

FYI...Jury summons are not based on voter registration solely. It is only one of many sources. Department of motor vehicle records are also used.

Good to know. I'm still confident in my abilities to get out of it if they ever come calling...

[TexanBob]

I enjoy jury duty. Only once did I not enjoy it and that was when it was settled after they whetted our appetite with the premise of the case so we wasted four days hearing a story that we don't know the ending of.

And once you've been on a jury that has reached a verdict, they want you back so they aren't stuck with hung juries or ones that can't make up their minds. They've skipped over others just to get me on the jury for that reason.

I've been on the jury for a prostitution case, a speeding ticket, a land deal in Belize, a civil suit with such a convoluted plot you'd think somebody would have made a movie about it, and a bank fraud case. You meet new people and it's interesting to watch groupthink in action.

But if you *have* to get out of jury duty, my best suggestion is to find a "David Duke For President" t-shirt. Be prepared for some scowls but nothing says "nutjob" like that - nothing, at least, that won't get you tossed in jail for contempt. You'll still sit through the voir dire but you'll never get picked. If that's too radical, carry a Bible and answer each question with "If the Lord wills it..."

[Popps]

I'd happily serve on a jury again.

When I got called, I postponed it a couple of times, like most people. I didn't want to miss work, etc. I finally had to go down... and of course, got called into the final pool.

First off, unless the judge is a real bonehead, you're NOT getting out of jury-duty. These guys have heard every line in the book. They don't care if you miss work, etc. As our judge pointed out, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (literally) couldn't get out of jury duty. As for the other tactics (saying you hate blacks, etc.)... those won't work on a smart judge. Our judge would have asked you "do you hate black people?" If you answered yes, he would have said, "but you WILL follow my instruction to judge this case solely on the merit of the evidence, correct?" If you say no... you're disobeying a judges order. (You can be cited.)

Again, unless the judge is an idiot, you're not getting out of it.

I didn't try to get out, but I did answer yes to a question on the jury-screening questionnaire that I thought might get one of the lawyers to toss me. (Are you in favor of legalizing prostitution?) No luck. Despite my yes answer, both lawyers wrote me into their pool.

I was elected foreman, which is not a big deal... and likely only because I exchanged a few words with the lawyer during screening... most people just said yes/no. I said yes to being foreman, mostly because I saw it as an opportunity to move things along more quickly. (A decision I was later happy I made, and I suggest anyone else do, if given the chance... these things can really lag.) Not that I wanted to rush though the process, but I felt like I could keep things moving.

Long story even longer, it turned out to be one of the most interesting and fulfilling things I've been involved in. The case itself was idiotic. A small-time prostitution charge with flimsy evidence. It was a complete waste of tax-payer money... the judge even said so after the trial. (Judges are allowed to be very candid after a trail is over, one of the many things I didn't know going into the process.) But, the experience itself was still rewarding. You become completely engulfed in it. You can't sleep. I can't imagine what jurors on a murder trial (for example) must go through.

Plus, remember this... it could be you in that defendant chair some time. I've heard horror stories about some juries. We were lucky with ours... but if you think about the people you encounter on a daily basis, how many of them would you trust with your well being as a jury member?

Just do it. It really is a crucial civic duty. I hated that I got called... and the judge told us all that by the time we left, we'd feel differently. He was right.

[TheManeMan]

I was supposed to go on Jan 9...I didnt postpone it, and I didnt show up...it was my first time being called for Jury Duty, and I just brushed it off...hopefully there isnt any repercussions for doing so...

[Dr.5280]

Just start nodding off. Bingo you're out of there. Boring as church. I was glad to get back to work.

[Blueflame]

When my twins were tiny, it seemed that I was receiving jury duty summonses approximately every six months. Each time, I'd send in a letter requesting to be exempted... which were granted. By the third or fourth time, however, I told hubby that if I got one more, I was going to just show up in the courtroom with two extremely active toddlers in tow. Now, he was good friends with the judge and told him what I'd said.... and the reaction was priceless.... "NOOOOOOOOOO... you just tell her she won't have to worry about it anymore." And y'know what... I've never received another jury summons (knock on wood). :P

One of my friends once told me he got out of jury duty by telling the judge he had a problem with uncontrollable flatulence...

[Kaylore]

I have and it was canceled. I actually really wanted to do it.

[broncofan]

Yes...but I was in school so I got out of it. That's the only notice I've recieved.

[Sassy]

When my twins were tiny, it seemed that I was receiving jury duty summonses approximately every six months. Each time, I'd send in a letter requesting to be exempted... which were granted. By the third or fourth time, however, I told hubby that if I got one more, I was going to just show up in the courtroom with two extremely active toddlers in tow. Now, he was good friends with the judge and told him what I'd said.... and the reaction was priceless.... "NOOOOOOOOOO... you just tell her she won't have to worry about it anymore." And y'know what... I've never received another jury summons (knock on wood). :P

One of my friends once told me he got out of jury duty by telling the judge he had a problem with uncontrollable flatulence...
Ha! That works!

My boss also sent a letter saying it would cause a hardship for the community since she's a daycare teachers/director and they didn't have the staff if she left which worked.

[Crushaholic]

This has been years ago, but I got a notice in the mail. However, the case was settled before I had to go to court. I know people hate the inconvenience on their lives by going to jury duty, but past high-profile trials have made me wish for people with common sense on these juries.

[enjolras]

I was called once, was pooled.. sent to lunch and told to report back at 1:30. I got back and was told the case was tossed more than two hours before. A simple phone call would have been.. awesome.

The system definitely needs to show MUCH more respect for the Jury members.


That said.. ducking Jury duty sucks. It always seems like the most capable are the quickest to 'get out of' jury duty just because it inconviences them somehow. Our legal system requires the cooperation of its best and brightest citizens.

[broncocalijohn]

Received notices, yes. But I've never responded. I think they've cracked down on people like me here in CA, but so far I've skated through.

I hear that too but I just write down that i am self employed and owner run (which is true). No me, no business, no taxes to earn so they take that one. Best is to say , "Is there any blacks or mexicans on trial?" Of course it would help if you are white saying this. They do not want a racist on there. The onlyproblem with making up excuses is the idiots that dont know how, are the ones who end up being our "peers". We complain ie. OJ trial when we might have doubled the IQ rating between the other 11 jurors. When I retire, I will make up all my civic duties to do it. Until then, screw it!

[broncoholic]

I've been called a couple of times, and only served on a jury once.

It was a child molestation case, and pretty disturbing. It was pretty difficult to sit in the box and look at this scumbag and not go over the rail and take a swing at the guy.


Interesting side note. At the beginning of the trial, the DA gets to call a witness to identify the defendant, so he calls a young lady up to the stand.

DA: Do you know the defendant?

Lady: Yes.

DA: Is he in the courtroom?

Lady: Yes

DA: Can you point him out?

Lady:He's right over there (pointing)

DA: When was the last time you saw defendant?

Lady: Two years ago when he was raping me behind the dumpster at a seven eleven.


CLASSIC! I didn't know that was allowed. Anyway it was his 3rd strike and he got life...It was very satisfying

[bendog]

Indeed, but again, it should never reach the point that you have to actually go downtown.
I got out of it twice in Denver by crying to the Judge about work/school

My dad would go in and actually get on panels, but he'd say he believed anyone who got arrested must be guilty of something ... which isn't far from the truth, but got him kicked from actually serving on a jury.

I got summoned and actually got a kick out of going in, cause I knew the then public defender, and he and his office actually cracked up just seeing me.

If ANYONE gets summoned, and you can't get cut loose with a phone call, which is something in retrospect I am not proud of doing, all you have to do is lie about one of the generic reasons to be kicked loose even before panels are selected: habitual gambler, drunkard or convicted of felony.

[Beantown Bronco]

Received the post card twice, but got to call in the day before both times and both times was told that my pool would not be needed. Even if I ever have to show up, I doubt I will ever get through to the actual jury since I work for a law firm. Nobody I work with has ever made the cut.

[Hotrod]

Hotrod I assume you've been in that fine county jail of yours. Seems like everyone who lives in that town ends up in there for some stupid reason or another.

Ive been there but just visiting other people. Im actually involved in a pretty nasty case right now. I cant give much info but it involves

1. My daughter
2. A cops wife
3. A person framing **** on my daughter >:'(
4. Said person being caught lying to the police
5. Said person being in deep deep ****

Anyone know what the possible penalty for lying to a cop during an investigation is? Im pretty sure they frown on that kind of ****

[-Slap-]

Just start nodding off. Bingo you're out of there. Boring as church. I was glad to get back to work.
I could pull this off without much trouble. When I'm sitting somewhere totally bored, I'm borderline narcoleptic anyway. Its almost gotten me into trouble in meetings before.

[Popps]

This has been years ago, but I got a notice in the mail. However, the case was settled before I had to go to court. I know people hate the inconvenience on their lives by going to jury duty, but past high-profile trials have made me wish for people with common sense on these juries.

Exactly.

Like I said, we were really lucky with our jury. Only one guy was a bit of a goof. (Besides me, of course.) This particular guy kept wanting to judge the case on whether or not he though the girl was guilty, which is not how you judge a case as a juror. You judge the case by whether or not the evidence PROVES innocence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and in our case... it didn't. It took 10 of us trying to convince this one guy of that fact before he finally saw the light.

The funny thing is, I think everyone in our jury thought the girl was guilty. But, the evidence was garbage. You can't put people away on flimsy evidence.

But, your high-profile trials analogy is a great example. People bitch about the O.J. trial outcome, but then turn around and try to skip out on jury duty. You can't have it both ways.

[sirhcyennek81]

Got the notice, got up at 8 am, went to the Jury pool, did not get selected. All in all, a good waste of 2 hours. But hey, i had nothing better to do then jury duty. Was a learning experience.

:Broncos:

[-Slap-]

This has been years ago, but I got a notice in the mail. However, the case was settled before I had to go to court. I know people hate the inconvenience on their lives by going to jury duty, but past high-profile trials have made me wish for people with common sense on these juries.
Your wishes will go unanswered. The general populace lacks the intelligence and the training to lay aside their own prejudices and perform as effective jurors. There should be professional jurors, who are trained jurists, then most of the monkey business would cease.

[sirhcyennek81]

Defeats the purpose of a jury of your peers. Who would trust a person who is a trained jurist? When i went for jury duty, this one woman felt the need to confess every bad thing she had done when they called her name for questioning.

:Broncos:

[-Slap-]

Defeats the purpose of a jury of your peers. Who would trust a person who is a trained jurist? When i went for jury duty, this one woman felt the need to confess every bad thing she had done when they called her name for questioning.

:Broncos:
I would trust a person who is a trained jurist much more than I would the average idiot walking down the street. Maybe because people like the woman you described are often impaneled anyway.

[Old Dude]

Your wishes will go unanswered. The general populace lacks the intelligence and the training to lay aside their own prejudices and perform as effective jurors. There should be professional jurors, who are trained jurists, then most of the monkey business would cease.

I have to disagree with you on this one.

Professional jurors would be a nightmare. Think of all the political crap that would go into their selection. Not to mention scandals, payoffs, and all that. Eventually, they'd just be another arm of the prosecution, the same way most Grand Juries are now.

[sirhcyennek81]

I dont plan on breaking any laws where i would need to put my faith in 12 other people. BUT thats me...

:Broncos:

[-Slap-]

I really don't understand your reticence. You would prefer your fate being decided by someone who knows nothing about law as opposed to someone who does? I think a more informed juror reduces the amount of garbage attorneys can get away with, thus forcing cases to be decided more upon evidence. I guess if I was guilty and paying for a high priced mouthpiece, I would prefer a layman in the jury box. If your goal is to actually see gulity people punished for their crimes, than lets impanel people who actually understand the law.

[Old Dude]

I dont plan on breaking any laws where i would need to put my faith in 12 other people. BUT thats me...

:Broncos:

Most innocent people probably don't plan on getting charged.

But it happens.

[sirhcyennek81]

My fate will be determined by my defense attorney, who better know the law.

:Broncos:

[Old Dude]

I really don't understand your reticence. You would prefer your fate being decided by someone who knows nothing about law as opposed to someone who does? I think a more informed juror reduces the amount of garbage attorneys can get away with, thus forcing cases to be decided more upon evidence. I guess if I was guilty and paying for a high priced mouthpiece, I would prefer a layman in the jury box. If your goal is to actually see gulity people punished for their crimes, than lets impanel people who actually understand the law.

If you don't trust juries, you could always waive the right and choose to be tried by a judge.

I trust juries more than I trust judges.

The judge may know the law, but the job of the jury is to determine the facts. Judges usually tend to resolve those in whatever way is most politicaly expedient to them. Professional juries would do the same.

It boils down to the fact that I trust citizens more than I trust politicians.

:USA:

[-Slap-]

I have to disagree with you on this one.

Professional jurors would be a nightmare. Think of all the political crap that would go into their selection. Not to mention scandals, payoffs, and all that. Eventually, they'd just be another arm of the prosecution, the same way most Grand Juries are now.
Well, they would certainly have to operate as a branch independent of the District Attorney's office, or that kind of collusive behavior would certainly be the result.

I agree that you're opening up a lot more potential conflicts of interest, but I think harsh sanctions (like immediate dismissal) for jurors who violate those laws would reduce the number of violators. Hell, you can buy influence from some of the judges in this town with a couple hundred dollar contribution to their election campaigns. Judges, even embattled ones, are able to marshall enough resources to protect themselves against all but the most serious allegations. Professional jurors wouldn't wield that kind of clout.

[Old Dude]

How would you determine who gets to be a professional juror in the first place?

If they are appointed by elected officials, then it becomes purely political. They'd just appoint their buddies & cronies.

If they are elected themselves, then they are, by definition, politicians.

What's more is this. Being well-versed in the law doesn't automatically mean that a person is well-versed in common sense or life experiences. And you'd probably also find your juries composed of a disproportionate number of white upper middle class types, who, as a general rule, aren't exposed to prejudice, mistreatment, or poverty.

The jury's main function should be to find the facts in a given case, and the best way to do that is with a cross-section of the community of all representative ages, ethnic & economic backgrounds, and so forth. Individual jurors might not be that smart, but twelve of them putting their heads together usually do a pretty good job of getting to the truth.

[Mile High Shack]

not sure why I've never been called, but I haven't

[broncos-rock]

I have been called three times for jury duty. I sat on a rape case in adams county but it was a he said she said thing with no physical evidence. I also was called recently and I knew the district attorney ( her son is friends with my son). I tell what was terrible about that case was the defense attorney was just horrible, iactually felt bad for the defendant because you could tell he got the cheapest a** attorney the guy could'nt even remember the jurors names or anything. All in all a pretty good experience so far.

[-Slap-]

How would you determine who gets to be a professional juror in the first place?

If they are appointed by elected officials, then it becomes purely political. They'd just appoint their buddies & cronies.

If they are elected themselves, then they are, by definition, politicians.

I think we see the scope of this job very differently. I would hire professional jurors like I would any other department of county or federal workers in this country. I would train them the same way. They would be subject to review and given progress reports and evaluations like any other employees. They would also receive continuing education courses to keep them current on the laws and legal trends.

What's more is this. Being well-versed in the law doesn't automatically mean that a person is well-versed in common sense or life experiences. And you'd probably also find your juries composed of a disproportionate number of white upper middle class types, who, as a general rule, aren't exposed to prejudice, mistreatment, or poverty.

Under my proposal, you would see the same cross section of humanity represented as you would find in any county or federal building across the land. Which is to say the least, quite diverse. The only difference is the people in the Jurors Department would be well trained in areas of jurisprudence.

Professional jurors who display prejuduce or fail to follow a set guideline of protocol can find work elsewhere.

The jury's main function should be to find the facts in a given case, and the best way to do that is with a cross-section of the community of all representative ages, ethnic & economic backgrounds, and so forth. Individual jurors might not be that smart, but twelve of them putting their heads together usually do a pretty good job of getting to the truth.

I think that's a very optimistic perspective. Why do people represented by high priced attorneys usually walk and why are people represented by public defenders usually found guilty? Does the very nature of truth change for those 12 jurors?

[Old Dude]

Minorities are severely underrepresented in both the judiciary and at every level of the legal profession, from paralegals on up. Why would this be different for professional jurors?

Secondly, the judge feeds the jury all the law they need to know in a given case. The judge decides what law is applicable, not the jurors. Jurors only decide facts. ie, who to believe and how much weight to put on different poieces of evidence. Giving them legal education would not help them with their main function.

How on earth do you "review" factual findings by juries? How do you decide that a juror was correct or incorrect in believing or not believing a particular witness? Not even judges will second guess them on that, because it often turns on subtle things like demeanor, and you simply can't review that unless you videotaped the thing. It would take forever.

The problem with high priced vs. discount defense attorneys has a lot to do with the resources that they can put into play in investigating a case. If you have a lot of money you can hire more investigators, do better research, dig deeper, run more tests and get better experts. That would all be the same regardless of who the juror is.

[Dagmar]

I'm hoping you have to be a citizen to be called. Should give me a few more years before I have to do it....

[Hotrod]

Im in OD's corner on this one. I certainly would not want my jury to be appointed/hired/pros. I think you would lose one of the greatest gifts we have in America the right to be judged by the people and not the government. IMO thats a pretty large piece of the gift of freedom.

[Beantown Bronco]

[QUOTE=-Slap-]I would hire professional jurors like I would any other department of county or federal workers in this country. I would train them the same way. [QUOTE=-Slap-]

If that isn't the best bit of unintentional comedy ever…..I don't know what is.

[REB]

I've been called twice and got out of it. My problem with it is to me it is forced servitude. It's the government telling me I have to serve or I can be fined/jailed. That doesn't sit well with me. I'm a registered voter and vote because I choose to do so and I think that's the way jury duty should be as well. They'd get alot more cooperation from capable people if those people weren't made to feel like they have a gun to their head. So it should be voluntary like voting or serving in the military or do like Slap suggests and create professional juries. jmo

1-2-3 :Broncos:!!!!!!! :charge:

[Beantown Bronco]

If signing up to be a juror was purely voluntary, then the "juror pool" would most likely be at least half full with people with an agenda. The other half would be unemployed or senior citizens.

No thanks.

[-Slap-]

Minorities are severely underrepresented in both the judiciary and at every level of the legal profession, from paralegals on up. Why would this be different for professional jurors?

I'm not sure if you read the post I made above, but minorities are not underrepresented in county and federal offices. Nor would that be the case for a professional jurors department.

Secondly, the judge feeds the jury all the law they need to know in a given case. The judge decides what law is applicable, not the jurors. Jurors only decide facts. ie, who to believe and how much weight to put on different poieces of evidence. Giving them legal education would not help them with their main function.

First off, if judges are responsible for all the law that is required to decide a particular case, you're counting on a group of laymen to assimilate this information pretty much on the fly and then quickly register important decisions. I also believe attorneys are able to obfuscate matters to confuse jurors regardless of judges instructions. These tactics would not confuse professional jurors.

How on earth do you "review" factual findings by juries? How do you decide that a juror was correct or incorrect in believing or not believing a particular witness? Not even judges will second guess them on that, because it often turns on subtle things like demeanor, and you simply can't review that unless you videotaped the thing. It would take forever.

I think you can appoint monitors who would rotate around and observe cases and deliberations without providing input. Jurors would be graded on job performance like any other employee. Inattentiveness, refusal to participate fully in deliberations, combativeness, all of these would be areas in which a juror could be marked down. Examples of prejudice or bias would be strictly sanctioned.

The problem with high priced vs. discount defense attorneys has a lot to do with the resources that they can put into play in investigating a case. If you have a lot of money you can hire more investigators, do better research, dig deeper, run more tests and get better experts. That would all be the same regardless of who the juror is.

I disagree, for the most part. I believe laymen are much more easily impressed by window dressing than professional jurors would be. I think professionals would be more likely to look past the court appointed DA or the hack lawyer and examine the evidence presented, not the presenters.

[-Slap-]

[QUOTE=-Slap-]I would hire professional jurors like I would any other department of county or federal workers in this country. I would train them the same way. [QUOTE=-Slap-]

If that isn't the best bit of unintentional comedy ever…..I don't know what is.
I typed that fully expecting that kind of response.

Obviously nobody of competence works in a federal or county building. The private sector is the only place where people actually work hard.

[Popps]

If signing up to be a juror was purely voluntary, then the "juror pool" would most likely be at least half full with people with an agenda. The other half would be unemployed or senior citizens.

No thanks.

Exactly why it's important for people to fulfill their civic duty, and again... this coming from a guy who hated the idea of being dragged off of my job for a few days, etc.

Our legal system is based on being judged by a jury of your peers. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not so good. But, the law enforcement/legislative system is already on the state payroll.

Do we really want your well being as a potential defendant based solely on people who draw an income from the very system that's trying you? Since when did we start trusting our government workers to that extent?

In fact, one of the first things a judge will instruct you about in jury-prep is NOT to take a policeman's word to be any more truthful than a civilian's, just because he/she is a cop.

[Old Dude]

[QUOTE=Beantown Bronco][QUOTE=-Slap-]I would hire professional jurors like I would any other department of county or federal workers in this country. I would train them the same way.
I typed that fully expecting that kind of response.

Obviously nobody of competence works in a federal or county building. The private sector is the only place where people actually work hard.

I think state & federal workers work as hard as anyone, but, again, they don't represent a fair cross section of the community. By definition, you'd be excluding people in the private sector, unemployed people, students, retired people, and so forth.

[Old Dude]

... [F]or the most part. I believe laymen are much more easily impressed by window dressing than professional jurors would be. I think professionals would be more likely to look past the court appointed DA or the hack lawyer and examine the evidence presented, not the presenters.

That does tend to miss my original point, which was that the difference between a good legal presentation and a poor one often has more to do with investigative resources than charisma.

But even if we assume that lawyers are nothing more than psychological manipulators, sophists and illusionists, I think a panel of professional jurors is just as susceptible to that as random members of the public. They have their own sets of prejudices and preferences, and cagey lawyers would soon know what those were and prepare for them in advance - - a much easier task than dealing with random citizens.

[Old Dude]

...
I think you can appoint monitors who would rotate around and observe cases and deliberations without providing input. Jurors would be graded on job performance like any other employee. Inattentiveness, refusal to participate fully in deliberations, combativeness, all of these would be areas in which a juror could be marked down. Examples of prejudice or bias would be strictly sanctioned.
...


But sometimes combativeness is a good thing. Twelve Angry Men, for example. And what do you do if eleven jurors think that witness X is lying, and the last juror believes the witness. Do we automatically assume that there is something wrong with the holdout juror? Wouldn't this system reinforce conformity and groupthink?

[Popps]

But sometimes combativeness is a good thing. Twelve Angry Men, for example. And what do you do if eleven jurors think that witness X is lying, and the last juror believes the witness. Do we automatically assume that there is something wrong with the holdout juror? Wouldn't this system reinforce conformity and groupthink?



Imagine you're on trial for allegedly striking a police officer, even though you didn't. You're going to have ten cops testifying that you hit him, and a jury fully of employees who draw their paychecks from the same place as the cops?

It's just not going to happen, and for very good reason.

[Beantown Bronco]

But even if we assume that lawyers are nothing more than psychological manipulators, sophists and illusionists, I think a panel of professional jurors is just as susceptible to that as random members of the public. They have their own sets of prejudices and preferences, and cagey lawyers would soon know what those were and prepare for them in advance - - a much easier task than dealing with random citizens.

There is a reason why every law firm I know of in Boston assigns 90% of the young attractive female associates to litigation in their first year. Very few percentage wise make it to other areas like real estate, finance and trusts and estates where there is far less face contact with third parties that require persuasion.

[watermock]

Gotta love america...taking an ATM by a chain dragging it loose, the throwing it nthe back of the truck...

[-Slap-]

[QUOTE=-Slap-][QUOTE=Beantown Bronco]

I think state & federal workers work as hard as anyone, but, again, they don't represent a fair cross section of the community. By definition, you'd be excluding people in the private sector, unemployed people, students, retired people, and so forth.
No, you're right, by definition, nobody from those classes would be represented. Its possible that people who were truly interested could serve on a voluntary basis, though. They would simply have to pass a minimum proficiency test regarding their duties as a juror, similar to the standards required by professional jurors. The information required to pass these exams could be made available at all county and federal buildings.

So, you see, none of those people would be excluded, if they really wanted to participate.

[-Slap-]

That does tend to miss my original point, which was that the difference between a good legal presentation and a poor one often has more to do with investigative resources than charisma.

But even if we assume that lawyers are nothing more than psychological manipulators, sophists and illusionists, I think a panel of professional jurors is just as susceptible to that as random members of the public. They have their own sets of prejudices and preferences, and cagey lawyers would soon know what those were and prepare for them in advance - - a much easier task than dealing with random citizens.
A cagey lawyer is always going to have an advantage of his less cagey counterparts, agreed? No matter what the playing field, this will be so.

I'm not necessarily talking about charisma, although, certainly that plays a part. I think when I mean obfuscating the facts, the technical term I'm looking for here is "legal mumbo jumbo". Professional jurors are going to have more experience with legal terms and be better able to make informed decisions in more complex cases.

Back to the point of charisma, I would have to say one of my reasons for wanting to see professional jurors is my desire to actually see a famous person convicted of a crime in this country. It appears to be relatively impossible because many jurors are so easily starstruck.

[-Slap-]

But sometimes combativeness is a good thing. Twelve Angry Men, for example. And what do you do if eleven jurors think that witness X is lying, and the last juror believes the witness. Do we automatically assume that there is something wrong with the holdout juror? Wouldn't this system reinforce conformity and groupthink?
Fine film, one of Henry Ford's best. By combativeness, I'm talking about someone who shows a pattern of arguing about issues tangential to the deliberation.

[REB]

tangenitals? crazy nudists..... ;)

[gudgref]

I've been called twice. The first time I had to jump through all these stupid hoops, basically because the clerk couldn't read. She argued that I couldn't get out of jury duty because I was a student, even though she didn't bother to look at the fact that I lived in Colorado but was summoned for jury duty in Los Angeles. Oh, and the LA County jury summons was sent to my Colorado address.

Duh.



On a more serious note, how exactly do they choose who to summon? I thought it was random, and then my father got summoned for 13 straight years. This in a county of several million.

[Sassy]

Does anyone know if you don't have to go in is it for the entire month? Can they call you back in as long as it's the same month they had you down for?