Jury Duty

Post Reply New Topic

I used to work for a federal law enforcement agency so I'm wasn't allowed to be called for jury duty. It's been 7 years since I left and still never received a summons so I am wondering if my time there has struck me off the list for jury duty permanently. I guess there is always a chance that cases I worked on still could make their way to the courts even after all these years.

I have gotten two notices for jury duty. The first was for a grand jury. I was only an alternate so I had to call in every day and my number never came up. The second time I got a notice in the mail and the date was 2 or 3 months away. I put the notice on my desk and it got covered up with papers. The date I was supposed to go in or call them I completely forgot about. I still have not heard anything from them so I hope I never get in trouble for it.

I just got a summons today; how timely. I wasn't concerned about it. The last time I went for jury duty they disqualified me (another state entirely) because I was on active probation for a felony. Unfortunately, that's been expunged from my record (can't believe that is unfortunate!) so it won't matter.

I was very excited to serve as I think I'm good at detached judgment; reading this thread has made me reconsider. I know I won't be able to pay attention, won't do well with the sensory stimulation, won't do well with having to be still . . . I'd actually make a terrible juror. Now I'm worried that they will make me serve and I'll do something I can't help that will get me in trouble.

I was very excited to go the first time too, and anxious to be picked and felt fortunate and all. I found out the hard way how naive I was.

It doesn't have anything to do with the facts of the case, or the law or anything. It's a pressure cooker of how you get along with other people - the other jurors. Since that's my weakest point, it was a nightmare.

And consider this - after our case was over the judge came into the juror room to thank us all for our service and dismiss us, and he told us some horrible stuff about the person who had been killed - how he had done the exact same thing before to someone else, lured them to his home (he was a crackhead) and attacked them - he stabbed a person 42 times and then got off because of a new law about killing someone in your home being okay or something.

Since he got off, he didn't like this other guy (they argued over a woman) and he set up the whole thing to be the same kind of crime. Instead the guy didn't come all the way into the apt, they argued loudly and the crackhead started to pull a HUGE knife out of his inside vest pocket but this guy had a gun on him and he drew it. The crackhead shot mace into the other guy's eyes - now blinded he accidentally pulled the trigger - and since the gun was positioned downwards and not drawn all the way he was sure he hadn't hit anyone. He ran off - totally blind and in pain and trying to get help. His buddy had him get in a car and they drove off. LATER he learned that the crackhead had been hit by the bullet and killed.

The crackhead's first attack and killing was left out of this trial. Convenient, huh?

The judge told us about it very matter of fact - hey it's not his problem after all. He has no guilt over a verdict because HE didn't make it! All of the blame is on us, the jurors. And when we don't even get all of the facts to make the decision......

what a mess.

Reminds me of a funny story from I believe it was Michigan a cat was accidentally summoned for jury duty due to a mistake the family made when filling out their census.

That seems unlikely; I was given to understand that jury summons were based on voter registration and not the census. After all, they ask for no names in the census; how could they summon the cat?

Regardless, I'm very amused by the idea, and I believe Midas would do badly due to his total NT-ness despite cathood, yet Girl's skeptical detachment would make her a perfect juror. Unless it is food time when she becomes irrational.

I don't know about each state, but in Wisconsin, jurors are picked from people with registered driver's licenses.

Look up cat and jury duty on youtube

lucky you, i get called on average 3 times per year. in my little community, there just aren't too many folk but lots of crimes, so do the math.

Jury duty is the legal obligation of a citizen no different than paying taxes. It is the price that we pay to have frameworks in place to well order a civil society.

It is quite possible to argue that these institutions are illegitimate, or broken--indeed, that kind of debate is very healthy for a society. But the fact remains that until we replace it with something better, the court system we have is the one that we will continue to live with. That means that citizens owe their obligation to the State to respond when called upon.

Now there are some for whom service on a jury would be a hardship. Those who cannot sit for long periods or those who are self-employed and whose income is the sole source of support for their family, for example. For these cases the court can, and should make exception. But if everyone tries to fit themselves into an exception, then the burden will be placed on fewer shoulders.

There are those for whom jury duty is merely an inconvenience. For those who look for an excuse to avoid jury duty, I have no sympathy. For those who lie, or exaggerate their hardship in an effort to avoid inconvenience, I have contempt.

For those who shoulder the burden (for it is a burden), I have hearty thanks.

I've never had it yet but if I ever do I plan to say that it is against my religion to judge the faults of others; which is true.

Does anyone know if you have to fill out the medical exemption form before you're summoned or when you're summoned? I could not serve as a juror.

I do not owe anything which requires my sitting in judgment of another person. There is nothing which can be held over my head that is a valid exchange for this. It is something which is considered necessary, but is far from it.



I am not looking for an excuse, I am not suffering unduly by attending, I am simply unable to honestly perform this function, it is vile, and inspires contempt to force others to do this.

It is not even something which emerges from religion, it is far stronger an argument, as it is based on reality.

I know, reality has little place in a court of law, nor any government preceding, but that is my point exactly.


Who are you to say that you are qualified to pass judgment on anyone but yourself?

You have obviously never served on one.

I had all these lofty high thoughts about it too and thought it would be an honor and I could really help and make a difference and all that crap. Then I went.

Never, ever again.

Just the fact that they're giving you only a FEW things and then telling you to judge someone - lock them up - possibly kill them - is unbelievably inhumane. If we actually heard all of the evidence and could make a rational decision of some kind, it might have some merit.

Instead they give you eggs and flour and butter and tell you to make a cake. When it comes out tasting like crap because of all the other stuff you didn't get to use - sugar for instance - oh well. You're just stupid because you baked a bad cake.

When someone's life or freedom is on the line and it's not just a cake, then it's insane to limit what you are able to know about and hear and then told to make such an important judgement on another person.

I still have nightmares, and I still cry with guilt on how I let that person down because I couldn't deal with a locked room full of people shouting at me and being hateful and aggressive. I caved and it's not something I'm proud of. I will live with that forever. The person who was not guilty went to prison for 6 years. I have no idea if he survived that or what happened to him. He could have been killed in prison or killed himself or lost his family over the whole ordeal. It's really a shame. I have that on me now, because I thought I was doing my civil duty and following the rules and being a good person and doing the right thing.

This is a facile argument which is anything but realistic. I am not suggesting that the trial by jury system is a perfect model--far from it. But it is a superior system to the alternatives. The presence of juries as triers of fact introduces an element of unbiased, common-sense decision making. I can understand your reticence about the court system--if you have a better idea, then share it. Otherwise, recognize it for the flawed, but necessary institution that it is.

This is not a case of me, or any individual, claiming an ethical or moral right to pass judgement, but rather twelve ordinary, reasonable people playing the part that the law has created for them as decision makers in a process. It is a decision making framework that sits atop an adversarial process. It has served well for over 8 centuries, and will continue to do so until someone conceives of a better way.

I see this as no different than voting, or paying taxes. In Canada, the first-past-the-post voting system and rigid partisanship has unbalanced the House of Commons. But I still vote. Government makes spending decisions with which I do not agree. But I still pay my taxes. Juries sometimes get it wrong, but I would serve on a jury if summoned. (I am presently immune from summons due to my professions, though).

It appears to me that your claim that you cannot honestly perform this function is itself dishonest. It appears to me that you have all of the cognitive ability to listen to evidence, separate that which is credible from that which is not, and answer the question of whose story you believe.



You make the mistake of confusing evidence and fact. There are many facts that juries are not permitted to hear, and there are cogent legal reasons why juries are not permitted to hear them. Trial lawyers and judges spend considerable time in procedings to determine whether or not particular matters are admissible as evidence before the jury, and which facts cannot be presented.

You, as a juror, are not responsible for the laws of evidence. It is not you who has made the decision about what could and could not be presented to you. You were responsible only for making an honest decision on the basis of the information that was presented to you, and only that information. It is for the courts to determine whether your decision was reliable in view of the information that was excluded.

If a jury's decision is manifestly unsupportable on the face of the evidence, there is scope for a higher court to intervene, and you can be certain that a lawyer for an accused will not allow that opportunity to go untested.

You, as a juror, are merely one tooth on a single cog in a larger machine. Don't exaggerate your own responsibility for the "cake."

I don't think that I'd be able to handle jury duty.