Jury Duty?

Post Reply New Topic

I know I don't exactly fulfill the prerequisites for this forum, seeing as I'm 21, in college, and living at home still, but I figured there would be more people in this forum who might have had this experience. So... pop quiz! What are the three civic responsibilities of all American citizens? And out of those three, guess which one I have just been called for?




So yeah. It really blew my mind when I was checking the mail last Valentine's Day and I had a letter from the county clerk of court. I was freaked at first because I had been fired from my job in January and there was a lawsuit involved, and I thought it was repercussions from that. Well, it WAS a summons, but not the one I was expecting; instead of being summoned as the defendant in the aforementioned lawsuit, I was being summoned for jury duty.

Let me put it in perspective for you. I JUST turned 21. In fact, I was still 20 at the time I received the summons. My parents are in their late 40's and have NEVER received a summons for jury duty. Here I am just barely out the gate to adulthood and I'm already being called upon as a citizen of the United States to fulfill my civic duty.

Believe it or not, I'm actually kind of excited. The inner workings of the US Justice system have always been an interest of mine, and now I get to actively participate as a member of a jury (assuming of course I make it through selection). What's more is that it's the county court and not the municipal court. The municipal court handles most of the smaller citations that get processed by the city police, most of those are bench trials, but the county court handles more serious offenses, so there are more jury trials during a given judicial term. And while the idea of deciding the fate of an accused person isn't exactly appealing, I believe my inherently tolerant outlook on life and my beliefs as an agnostic and a political moderate would help me make decisions based on the facts of the case and not social prejudices. In other words, if the person whose trial I am serving on is innocent and wrongly accused, I'd be their best friend; if they're guilty and the evidence is there to prove it, I'm their worst nightmare.

Besides, since I'm not going to school at the moment, it's not like I don't have the time. Plus if I do make it to a trial, the county court here will actually pay the jurors $30 for every day they serve on a trial. The way they do it here in Albany County is that they nominate resident citizens at random and then weed them down to a pool of about 1000 or so potential jurors; these people are then called case-by-case throughout the six-month judicial term to undergo the jury selection process until a final 6 (or 12 if it's a grand jury) are selected.

So... has anyone else been summoned for jury duty or actually served on a jury before? What were your experiences like?

I've been called for jury duty twice. It was an interesting experience. Many people try to get out of it but I always remember that many countries have no such system and I see it as my responsibility.

I got called once, but I was so awkward and panicky at all the questions they asked, they just let me off the hook

i hate jury duty. i wish they'd leave me the HELL ALONE!! !
my older sister never has been called, but i've been hassled with the crap 10 goddamned times!

A "citizen" trades one's allegiance for protection from the government.
Yet It has been ruled by the supreme court that the US owes no duty of protection to the people.

So, where does that leave us? (those who claim to be 'citizens' of the US)
They owe nothing to us, so we owe nothing to them.

Things like jury duty and the like are only but conscription orders from the state.

Screw 'em
I'm gonna do whatever I can to get out of it. It's a pain in the butt and they don't even pay minimum wage.
Legal proceedings are dead boring anyhow.

It's not always boring. One case I sat on jury for was about 3 guys who robbed a grocery store. It was like the 3 Stooges robbed a grocery store. One of them had a gun. They went in and told everyone to get on the ground. One witness testified that the guy with the gun forgot to pull his ski mask down. When he realized the witness could see him he said "oops" and pulled it down. They went into the managers office and stole a bag of nickels and a bag of checks, one of which fell to the ground and was stepped on leaving a perfect sneaker print. Then they ran out into a quad area of an apartment complex next door. The manager of the place testified they kept running into each other. They ran off into the woods. A cop testified that he noticed a patch of blue on the ground and discovered that one of them had tried to hide under a pile of leaves but part of his jeans weren't covered up. It wasn't boring but it was kind of sad.

Another way to look at Jury Duty is from a therapeutic perspective.

Jury Duty is a chance for an Aspie who has issues dealing with interaction with strangers to experience a controlled environment with very clear and specific rules. You are directed where to stay, what is and is not appropriate (and when) in talking, decorum, etc. At the same time, you will be interacting with a room full of complete strangers, all of which have their own little apprehensions about the process as well. Even NTs have their own issues when it comes to it, which puts an Aspie on a more level playing field.

Even if you are not sat but merely in the pool room, this gives you a chance to observe many types of people and how they interact in a confined space. I see the whole thing as very interesting.

The Jury pool is usually pulled from the counties VOTERS REGISTRATION ROLLS. You can register to vote at the age of 18....so guess what? You can be called on to be in a jury as young as 18.

I've served on a jury twice - both were short trials.

The first time I was in my 20's. I tried to get out of it because I was extremely busy at work and it also meant I had to get to the court house. I dressed as weird as I could and dyed my hair black - it didn't work, they picked me anyway. That trial was disturbing and it bothered me for a long time. (Sorry, I don't mean to discourage you.)


Then recently I had to serve again. This time I dressed my normal weird way and accepted that I might get selected, which I did. This trial was a bit more interesting, and I took notes and did my best to be a good juror. It worked out okay.


One of the most difficult things for me is when there is only testimony as evidence - no solid evidence. Because I tend to pick apart and dissect "beyond a reasonable doubt", it can be difficult for me depending on the circumstances.


If you're in the middle of a lawsuit, you may not get selected if the judge thinks you will have a biased opinion. If you've had any type of personal experience that is similar to circumstances in the case, you may not get selected. If you have any relatives who are in the justice system - judge, police, etc - you may not get selected.


All said, it's an interesting process, but it's not always "fun" and it can be inconvenient for most people.

Another case I sat in jury for was a situation where 2 cops pulled up to a housing project and some guy just started running. They caught him but not before the cops said they saw him throw something away. It was a cigarette which when tested showed trace amounts of crack. The guy didn't live there but his mother did. He had never been in trouble before. We brought back a plea of not guilty for various reasons. Personally, I knew sending him to prison on such a flimsy thing would ruin his life and it just wasn't worth it . It may well have been his cigarette but I think we made the right choice. The lawyers for both sides and the two cops that testified were all a bunch of hotdog punks and didn't impress me. It was interesting though being in the deliberation room, because there were people that wanted to send him to prison. I might have thought differently if he was a repeat offender or showed evidence he was a dealer. He was foolish enough to run when he saw the cops, otherwise he wouldn't have had to go through all of that. Cops are like predators, if you run they will chase.
...and BTW, by flimsy thing I am not intending to discount the dangers of crack. I've seen it destroy lives more than once in my life.

I can see what you mean. However, even though the guy was acting suspicious as all hell, from what you described the evidence against him was flimsy at best. The only physical evidence they found was the cigarette, and even if they saw him throw it away there's no guarantee that they found the right one again, especially if he threw it into an ash tray or other waste receptacle where other cigarettes could have been. (After all it's hard to tell them apart.) And most people who have grown up in metro areas and been around gangs and the like will have a fear and mistrust of law enforcement, which might lead them to bolt even if they aren't breaking the law.

But going by the physical evidence, there isn't much that could have been used to convict him. Eyewitnesses aren't a reliable source. Just because they've taken an oath to be honest doesn't mean they will, and even if they are they can still forget important details that can make or break a case, especially if they were the victim or were in under a high amount of stress when the crime took place (i.e. being held at gunpoint, seeing someone else get murdered, etc.) Eyewitnesses are merely used to confirm what the physical evidence has already shown, and without corroborating physical evidence a case essentially comes down to "he said, she said", which at that point there is no morally or legally correct way to convict the defendant.

Anyone on trial in a criminal case is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". I remember having an argument with someone about this, he said that even if someone was not guilty of the charges they were going to trial for, the fact that they were being tried meant that they were guilty of something. Unfortunately this mentality seems rampant among most people. However, the whole point of having criminal trials in the first place is to determine what happened and whether or not the accused is responsible. If every defendant in a court of law was guilty of something, there'd be no point in having trials to begin with, or even an judicial system.

This reminds me of a joke I read.

This woman gets called in to do jury duty. She tells them she wants to be excused because she doesn't believe in the death penalty. They tell her it's not a death penalty case, it's a case where a man got in a fight with his wife and burned her brand new full length mink coat. The woman said ok, I guess I can reconsider the death penalty.

I never got anything in the mail about jury duty. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. They can't prove whether I got anything in the mail or not.

I don't think I could do it. Having to go somewhere every day is hard for me and if the jury was secluded there is no way I'd do that. I need to be at home with my computer and my stuff.

Jury duty is hilarious.

I show up for selection, answer their questions honestly, and watch both lawyers scribble like mad listing all the reasons I'm the first potential juror they want eliminated.

So much for my faith in our justice system.

Personally, I'm terrified of jury duty. It's one of the reasons that I don't vote (there are others, but that is a big one). Being forced to sit in a room and discuss something that I couldn't care less about with a bunch of strangers... well lets just say that my version of Hell has a jury room in it.

i try to think of things to say to make either side not want me in their jury.

In the UK there potential jurors are not interviewed before serving (you get told the nature of the case and can say if there is any reason why you would not be suited).

The lawyers can reject jurors, but need to have good reason, simply going on occupation/ appearance is not enough.

The only time I sat on a jury the case collapsed after two days (with the witnesses required to attend for a third day to determine whether they were in contempt of court or not) so we were not required to make a decision (the defendant accepted a reduced charge).

-----

The jurors do not decide on the sentence, that is usually done at a later date by the sheriff/judge.

In Scotland the jury can return three different verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven. Legally the latter two have the same meaning, however in the public eye there is a difference. It would be better to change it to Proven Guilty and Not Proven Guilty as the jury is not tasked with determining whether the defendant is innocent, only whether they are (beyond reasonable doubt) Guilty.