Jury Duty Summons

[erictank]

Here they call about 200-250 people per week.  (yes you have it all week).  Call in each day for the next.  they tell you whether to come in or not.  Once in, you can get voir dire'd several times, but once you've been picked for a jury, that's it.  Doesn't matter if they then settle before the trial, you've been on a jury, when the case is done, so are you.

Or you can get picked for a couple weeks long murder trial.   


And yeah, not a whole lot of Jury Nullification possibility there...

There certainly are cases where I, at least, wouldn't find it appropriate - murder is, as far as I'm concerned, something we can legitimately punish via the legal system.

And it's not about getting out of jury duty anyways. I truly would not object to sitting on a jury - but I also truly believe that at least for a substantial number of cases, I would not be PERMITTED to do so.

[K Frame]

The only time I have ever been called for jury duty was not long after I moved to DC. They had (may still have) a 1 day or 1 trial system. I was pooled for a cocaine possession/distribution case (virtually unheard of in DC  ).

Everyone had to go up before the judge and the two lawyers and answer a couple of questions. When I said that I worked for NRA, I could see the defense attorney getting antsy, and when I said I had been previously employed as a newspaper reporter covering the courts and police beat in Pennsylvania, the prosecutor got kind of antsy.

Needless to say I did my 1 day and was out of there.

I'm rather surprised that I've never been called in Virginia.

[HankB]

YIPPEE!

Just got an email from the jury system that this afternoon the court cancelled the trial I was scheduled to appear for on Monday, and my jury service is COMPLETED until the next time I'm called.

 

[Jamisjockey]

I got whittled down to selections on a civil suit about two summers ago.  Turns out the plantiff was an Army deserter who's made a lot of stupid decisions in his time.  During selections his lawyer basically told us everything we were going to hear in the trial. 
Tried to come up with stupid excuses why dumbass deserted the Army back 10-15 years prior.  I was not amused, and promptly dismissed.  You should have seen the plantiff spitting daggers when I was directly questioned by the judge.
"Why would you feel bias?"
"Well your honor, I was in the Marine Corps, and there is no justification for deserting volunatry military service...."
lol

[230RN]

I tried to volunteer as a juror once --not on any particular case --just for the "life experience" and they told me they did not accept volunteers.

Was called up for one a couple of years ago, but I honestly had legitimate reasons to not serve... I would have liked to, actually.

But that "jury nullification" thing is funny.  It seems like nobody in the legal system itself likes it.  I guess they just don't like "amateurs" making decisions about the complex and prolix legal profit system they built. 

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

Be polite, be respectful, and tell 'em you believe in Jury Nullification. Fastest way to get kicked off a jury there is.

Yeah, my way was slower.

A few years back I was summoned. My state has a "One day/one trial" system.Show up for the day you're summoned, and if you don't get picked for a trial that day you're good to go for two (or three?) years before they can call you again. If you get picked, you're on the hook for the duration of the trial.

I may never be called again.

I don't remember the nature of the case, and it doesn't matter. Initial voire dire (unlike the previous time I was summoned) was conducted as a group exercise. The two attorneys asked a bunch of what they probably thought were routine questions, to sort out the obvious conflicts of interest before proceeding to one-on-one (or, actually, two-on-one) questioning. Among the questions was this: "Would you have any problems following a judge's instructions about the law?"

Being under oath, I raised my hand -- which took everyone in the room by surprise. "You would?"

"If I didn't agree with the judge's instruction, yes I would have a problem following it."

At that point they sent all the other potential jurors back to the waiting room so they could tag team me in earnest. After the "But you HAVE to follow the judges instructions" gambit failed, they asked me why I thought I would have a problem following the judge's instructions.

"Because the Supreme Court said I don't have to," was my answer. They didn't like that. At all. They put me in a small room off the courtroom and went looking for a judge. Then I heard snippets of a fairly heated conversation, after which I was brought back into the courtroom, where the bench was now occupied by a judge. The judge proceeded to ask me the same questions the attorneys had already asked, and I gave her the same answers. She tried the same "But you HAVE to follow the judge's instructions" gambit, to which I again responded that the Supreme Court said otherwise over two hundred years ago, and had never departed from that.

The judge told me I was mistaken and that I should go home and do some research, then she dismissed me.

So I went home and looked up Georgia v. Brailsford (1794). In that case, John Jay (the first Chief Justice) ruled that "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_%281794%29 )

So I wrote to the judge and informed her that I had followed her order and done my research, and that my research clearly indicated that I was right and that she was wrong. She never responded. It would not surprise me to learn that I am now permanently blacklisted from jury duty.

Interestingly, a hundred years after Brailsford, in 1895 in Sparf v. United States, the Court said that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of juror nullification although jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. Judges don't like being held accountable, or having anyone second guess them. That's why it is up to us to ensure that as many people as possible KNOW that they don't have to follow judges' instructions on what the law says or requires. If we think a law is unjust, or doesn't make sense, we have not only a right but also a duty to ignore the judge and vote appropriately.

[De Selby]

Note that this meme about juries is legally about as credible as the income tax constitutionalises - judging the law means "deciding what it means", not "deciding if you like it" in that early Supreme Court case, and refers to a long tradition of separating interpretation of the law from fact finding.  This continues to be an issue - "what can be found as a matter of law, or a matter of fact?"

It offers zero legal support for jury nullification.  Jury nullification is not a legal right but a statement of the obvious - deliberations are not reviewable, so there's no effective remedy if a juror decides he doesn't like the case and refuses to be convinced that he should convict. 

[HankB]

"Would you have any problems following a judge's instructions about the law?"

Actually, my answer would be along the lines of "Well, not knowing WHAT the instructions are going to be, or in what context they'll be given, how in the world can I POSSIBLY agree to follow them? That would be like agreeing to a contract without any idea about what's in it!"

Judges are usually very well schooled in the law, but they're not infallible - if they were, we wouldn't have appeals courts, and panels of judges would never hand down split decisions.

And if a law is so complex and arcane that it takes a judge to understand or explain it . . . how in the world can it POSSIBLY apply to anyone EXCEPT another judge?

[230RN]

  You should have seen the plantiff spitting daggers when I was directly questioned by the judge.
"Why would you feel bias?"
"Well your honor, I was in the Marine Corps, and there is no justification for deserting volunatry military service...."
lol

Similar to once when I was rear-ended by someone and had to take him to court.  One of the potential jurors said he wouldn't be able to render a fair judgment. 

Lawyer asked him why, and right in front of the other potential jurors, he said, "I'm a dispatcher at (large trucking company) and we keep drumming it into our drivers that there's no excuse for a rear-end accident."

I winned.  Yay.

[Hawkmoon]

Note that this meme about juries is legally about as credible as the income tax constitutionalises - judging the law means "deciding what it means", not "deciding if you like it" in that early Supreme Court case, and refers to a long tradition of separating interpretation of the law from fact finding.  This continues to be an issue - "what can be found as a matter of law, or a matter of fact?"

It offers zero legal support for jury nullification.  Jury nullification is not a legal right but a statement of the obvious - deliberations are not reviewable, so there's no effective remedy if a juror decides he doesn't like the case and refuses to be convinced that he should convict.  

Did I mention jury nullification?

As HankB posted right after yours, how can you know if you'll agree with what a judge tells you the law says until you've read the law and heard what the judge says? If laws were clear, simple, and easily comprehended, we wouldn't have any situations where a lower court ruling is reversed by an appeals court and then unreversed by the Supreme Court. There would be no room for judges like our "wise Latina" justice, who thinks she is entitled to "interpret" the law through the lens of her Latina-ness.

The legislators who write laws theoretically represent us, the People, so in the end it's only proper for us, the People, to decide what we think a laws says and means, it's not up to some judge (who may be objective or who may have an agenda, or who may be smart or may be stupid but politically connected) to tell us what we have to accept as what the law says and means. To me that's not far from directing a verdict.

[Boomhauer]

"I'm a dispatcher at (large trucking company) and we keep drumming it into our drivers that there's no excuse for a rear-end accident."

He's wrong.

There are people that will cut in front of you and slam on brakes to cause you to rear end them so they can get a payout. They target commercial drivers but will also do it to the everyday person.

[230RN]

He's wrong.

There are people that will cut in front of you and slam on brakes to cause you to rear end them so they can get a payout. They target commercial drivers but will also do it to the everyday person.

Oh, to be sure.  I'm just quoting the dispatcher.  I reckon what he meant was no excuse due to inattention or tailgating.  

As an OTR driver for a large food supply company once told me, "It's hard to stop with 80,000 pounds of cheese in the box you're hauling."

In years of commuting, I've noticed that in congested traffic conditions, the truck drivers tend to go about 5 MPH slower than the general flow, in the center lane, leaving a large distance to the vehicle in front of them --which people take advantage of.

And they keep that constant speed.  I guess it avoids shifting, as well as providing a safety cushion.

Terry

[KD5NRH]

As an OTR driver for a large food supply company once told me, "It's hard to stop with 80,000 pounds of cheese in the box you're hauling."

Solids are bad enough; try it with a half tank of any liquid.

In years of commuting, I've noticed that in congested traffic conditions, the truck drivers tend to go about 5 MPH slower than the general flow, in the center lane, leaving a large distance to the vehicle in front of them --which people take advantage of.

And they keep that constant speed.  I guess it avoids shifting, as well as providing a safety cushion.

That's just a manual transmission habit, and why I absolutely despise people who turn a full-stop traffic jam into stop-and-go by leaving a huge space then taking it up a couple feet at a time.  I'd rather just shut down and relax until things start moving in a meaningful manner again, but instead, even when I can see that all lanes are totally blocked ahead, there will be a full car length gap ahead of me if I sit still for 30 seconds, due to the compounding effect of a couple dozen idiots who can't just settle in and wait.