USA jury duty question

Post Reply New Topic

I got a summons yesterday. I actually WANT to serve on one - always have! But I also have PTSD and DID along with the ASD. I filled out the form correctly with that information but I want them to let me serve. Anyone have any insight on this topic?
Can they discriminate because of my disability?

Just show up at the time and place stated on the summons. I don't believe you have to reveal your disability right away. You could reveal it while the lawyers question you in order to determine if they want you to be a juror for their case. They might still pick you. It never hurts to try.

Show up at the time of the summons. They will ask if there is a legal reason that one cannot serve. There are very few of them and therefore most people will not have a legal reason. You do not have to say anything at this time. If they court staff later determines there was a legal reason, you could simply say you did not know.

As for individual cases, that is dependent on the attorneys. Be honest in answering questions when asked. If you think you will have an issue with a case due to your disability, bring it up and let the court workers decide. Otherwise, if they don't ask, you don't have to tell. The court personnel do not have to tell you why you were not selected for a jury. In fact, each attorney has a set number of set asides for jurors where no legal reason has to be given and they can use them on anyone.

Finally, alot of the US juror system setup is in the mode of hurry up and wait. I don't thing you can bring in a computer and many states do not even allow you to use your phone so make sure you have a bunch of good books you can read while waiting.

You don't need to tell them anything. They do not discriminate. If you have a problem sitting around, there might be an issue. The only thing that is important is the fact that you are not a felon.

The OP stated there was a place on the form for such information. At least in their area, it gets revealed right away.

Ditto. Unless they specifically ask, and then play it down as much as possible.

Also, don't get excited. Chances are, you will sit around all day and not get a case at all. And even when they do call you, you're likely to be dismissed before anything starts. Nothing personal. Bring a book and/or homework, a stim toy or something to fidget, lunch, snack, and expect to be sitting for a long time, in a big room with maybe a hundred people.

Also, make sure you check the night before to see whether your whole group has been cancelled. I think they do that half the time. Somewhere on your card with your juror number or the info they sent is probably a phone number for a recorded message or a website you can check.

Well, they can discriminate. There's no "right" to be on a jury. In the voir dire process, a lawyer can dismiss X candidates for no reason at all (preemptive challenge). Once he's run through that number allotted to him, he must have a cause for dismissing, which the judge may or may not allow.

It's illegal to deny a person to serve on a jury because of race, but if you use a preemptive challenge, no examination behind why is allowed. If you don't use a preemptive challenge, a reason must be given. Which way a lawyer goes may run to his rationale for not wanting a candidate on the jury or how strongly he doesn't want them on the jury (not willing to risk the judge not agreeing with him). A judge should never allow barring a candidate solely because of race unless a jury is already heavily packed with one ethnicity and the objection is a non-diverse jury panel.

You can be denied for any reason...if the lawyer thinks something about you won't favor the outcome for his client.

I served once and I hope I never have to do it again. But I respect your desire to do so, so I wish you the very best with it.

Its against the law to lie in order to....either way.... get jury duty, or avoid jury duty.

So dont lie about anything. But you dont have to volunteer anything unless they ask.

Its not obvious to me whether your conditions would help, or hinder your chances.


The attornies interview people in order to tease out your prejudices and biases and whether or not your mix of quirks helps their case or not.

If your PTSD was the result of you being a victim of a crime that might well effect you getting on a jury. But HOW it would effect it is anyone's guess ( the prosecution might want a crime victim, the defence might not- or thats what I would guess- its all mysterious alchemy how they pick juries). That was one of the important questions they asked me (were you a victim of a crime?) when I showed up for jury duty for winnowing the crowd down.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 02 Apr 2014, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you can do the job, then there's no reason why you shouldn't be on a jury. Your perspective may be useful since you will be focusing on facts more than NT jurors. That's the point of a jury--multiple opinions.

But don't be dishonest, and do ask to be excused if you are chosen for a case that will cause you distress. You can't be a good juror if you're an emotional wreck, or else zoning out to protect your sanity.

My husband told them he had Aspergers and the lawyer, said thank you, NEXT.

You have no right to serve on a jury. You just have to show up.

Lawyers look to stack the jury in their favor, so if you stand out in anyway, your chances are nil.

Lawyers stack the jury in their favor. Isn't that something? I find it so (I don't have a word for it) that different combinations of jurors could potentially render a different verdict. They call that justice? I have always had trouble with this. Think about it. Lawyers go to school for many years and must then pass a difficult bar exam. A judge needs not only legal training, but also vast experience. These are highly trained people with a lot of schooling in law. And who determines the ultimate outcome of justice? Jurors...people not required to have any training in legal matters. And lawyers throw at the jurors their best display of persuasion at the expense of ultimately sending someone to jail...or worse...death. It reminds me of the short story, "The Lady of the Tiger." Pick a door. You have a 50/50 chance of freedom...and a 50/50 chance of death. And for people who have complete confidence in the jury trial system, one cannot tell me that an innocent person would not be worried when the jury comes back in from deliberation. It's a game.

I've never served on a jury or experienced a real courtroom in action...except on television. I may be off base in my above statement as I have no experience there, but I often think about it.

I used to get called a lot to serve on jury duty. I don't want to serve on a jury. The last time they sent me the notice to send back with my information on it, I sent them the fact that I have poor blood circulation in my right leg due to a blood clot that ended in a pulmonary embolism (not good for me to sit for prolonged periods of time), and that I was diagnosed with Asperger's and had a hard time focusing on matters that didn't interest me. I've never been asked again.

In most places, a judge is either elected or appointed. They need not even be a lawyer or have any legal training to hold the position (even though most do).

Juries are not "legally educated" people because the standard of law is what a "reasonable person" would do, and if the jury was made of people educated to think like lawyers, you'd get easy convictions on legal technicalities. In the USA, the jury has the right to refuse to go along with what the law say must be done. It's the power of the people to say "we feel the law is wrong and won't be a party to imposing an injustice on the accused."

If the jury consists of people of average intelligence and good conscience, they can be pretty spot on with doing what is right. The danger is when a jury can be bullied by a judge to do what they are told (e.g., you MUST convict when they have the right to refuse to do so) or they can be hand-picked to be such idiots about the subject matter that they are deciding a case on what they are told is right and wrong and not what common sense would tell them from knowing a basic amount of information about the subject matter involved in the case.

Just as a democratic process only works when you have an educated populace capable of doing critical thinking and reasoning, a jury system only works when you have relatively intelligent people of good conscience who can think for themselves.

That's not quite accurate. It is illegal for an attorney to exercise his/her peremptory challenges in a way that shows a pattern of discrimination against a "protected class"---race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, and so on. If the other side can show the judge such a pattern, the attorney using the challenges can be forced to offer what's called a "neutral" explanation for challenging those jurors. So there are rare occasions when a reason for using a peremptory challenge has to be given.

According to this research, one in eight juries get the wrong verdict. That's not good. That's my problem with the jury system. Whichever lawyer gives the best acting job or show can persuade a jury.

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/ ... uries.html