thoughts on jury duty

[socca]

• the first time I received a summons for jury duty, I was living in far suburban Cook County in the Chicago area. I was impressed by the power of the state to force me to make the hour-long journey downtown, stay for the day, and make the hour-long journey back. I had never had such an intrusive and life-disrupting encounter with the state before (I had obviously led a sheltered life - I’m sure that there are others with far worse stories to tell regarding the arbitrary exercise of state power ).

• the next two summons for jury duty I have received were in South Florida. Again, two days of my life “wasted” in the service of American justice.

• the latest summons got me thinking: does the current American trial-by-jury system make sense? Consider: around 350 people responded to the latest summons. This means that 350 innocent, law-abiding local citizens were yanked out of their normal lives and “incarcerated” in the jury pool holding room for up to a day. Viewed in the aggregate, this is one year of jail time so that four American citizens could exercise their right to a jury trial. How much jail time were these four defendants facing if they all had been convicted? What if it’s zero? If so, then the math simply doesn’t work - innocent American citizens jailed for a year (in effect), while the defendants aren’t jailed at all.

• the latest time around, I was placed on a jury panel; i.e., one of 45 people grilled by the two attorneys so that 7 jurors could be selected (6 main and one alternate). Roughly half the people on my panel made hilarious and ridiculous claims that effectively prevented them from being selected as jurors. I have trouble believing that these folks were being honest, but who knows? It seems to me that these potential jurors who have no intention of ever serving on a jury are clogging the justice system to the benefit of no one - not themselves and not the “system”.

• this negative experience got me thinking: would the American trial-by-jury system be more efficient and less obtrusive for ordinary citizens if people interested in serving on a jury in return for decent pay registered with the county, took a training course, passed a written examination (roughly the same difficulty as a written driver’s license exam), and became part of a pool of independent contractors the county could call upon to serve on a jury when needed? Many of the features of the current system would remain intact: the judge would still be in charge of making sure that the trial is fair, there would still be a jury selection process, etc. The only difference is that the pool of potential jurors would consist of certified independent contractors rather than randomly selected citizens. Would a jury composed of independent contractors be less likely to deliver fair verdicts? I don’t know.

Thanks for listening to my rant. Carry on!

 

[karen1972]

You wouldn't get a jury of your peers as there is a very small subset that wants to do that and they likely have an axe to grind.

I can tell you I don't mind jury duty anymore as long as its not grand jury, Chicago on California, 6 weeks straight from the far NW suburbs, every day down there from 7-2 and then work wanted me in for an hour or two because they couldn't possibly handle me being gone for 6 weeks straight. The compensation didn't cover the cost of my going.

 

[RobbieB]

Jury duty is just that, a duty. A requirement of citizenship.

 

[Jerry1]

I don’t know, I recently served on a jury for three days. I received $38 for the first day plus mileage and $75 for each additional day plus mileage. As a retiree, that was pretty good money for a few days I really didn’t have anything planned anyway. There were, however, a couple people that did not get paid from their employer, most did. I felt bad for them and I can’t imagine anything was on their mind except getting out of there ASAP. That’s probably not the best person to have on a jury.

While I was amused at some of the characters on the jury, I did feel like that was a jury of their peers. They certainly did look at the case much differently than I did. In the end, we came to a consensus on the verdict. I felt it was less than I would have “recommended” but probably a fair outcome. I don’t think you’d get that from a paid jury pool.

 

[38Chevy454]

I agree with all of your points, but the last one just won't happen. Certain lawyers want the uninformed and easily convinced person on a jury. Many times they do not want educated or higher understanding jurors.
I despise whenever I was given notice, most times being a long way from home and sure as F*** I would not have been a jury of the defendant's peers! Only good thing was that I did get paid by work, but i was still the poor stooge that had to ruin my day(s) going down to the courthouse waiting to see if i was selected. Complete waste of my time every single time.

 

[Aerides]

OP your take on your citizenship duty is probably not mainstream. Or, I should say, hopefully not. While jury duty can be seen as an imposition, it's part of being in this society. And when I've served, the judges saw through flimsy excuses and only dismissed those with valid reasons.

So, that aside, a "professional juror" population, while interesting, would not be something I'd support in this country. I think the possibility for bribery and such would be far greater than the occasional jury tampering we hear of these days. Known jurors in an area would be sought out and coaxed to get on a trial, etc. And jurors might eventually get numb - "seen this one before" and start to let their experience on dozens of similar trials impact their decisions on the one in front of them. (even more than the episodes of law and order they've watched).

That's one aspect of the american system that I like - when I've served it's usually been somewhat interesting and I've learned some new things. I kinda decide to make the best of it once I'm selected and take it seriously, pay attention, etc.

And no, I don't like having to drive downtown in rush hour traffic to arrive at 8am any more than the next guy, but, once every few years, for a couple of days, as most have been, isn't that big of a deal for me.

 

[CRLLS]

How would you feel if you were sitting in the defendant's chair knowing that the jury was made up of people who were there only for the money? Jury duty is just that, a duty. If I were ever being prosecuted, I would hope that anyone serving on the jury, or simply just called to be selected, felt they were doing their part in the US justice system.

 

[marko]

OP your take on your citizenship duty is probably not mainstream. Or, I should say, hopefully not. While jury duty can be seen as an imposition, it's part of being in this society.

For better or worse, I share OP's take on jury duty. Ever since high school, nothing...absolutely nothing sets me off like people making plans for my time, assuming I've got nothing better to do. Yes, I know....it's me, but it's just how I'm wired.

In my personal case, I'm always dismissed and I know that ahead of time so it's a complete waste of everybody's time for me to drive in, find a place to park, go through court security, sit in a room for 4 or 5 hours and then be told that I'm "dismissed". Yeah, I could've told you that the day I got my notice.

 

[Gumby]

One thing that I notice these days is that people talk a lot about their rights, but not about their concomitant obligations or duties. Should you be charged with a crime, you have a right to a jury of your peers. To make that right a reality, someone else has a duty to be a juror. And, in turn, to afford someone else their right to a jury trial, you have a duty to obey the summons to jury duty when you are called.

 

[davebarnes]

What I resent is the wasted time.

My last adventure was sitting in a courtroom for an entire day during selection and the being sent home because my number was such that I was never called. Then, the parties settled and those lucky souls who were selected for the jury never served.

My first experience was sitting in the pool room for a month. Thankfully, my employer paid my wages while I went comatose for 21 days.

 

[badatmath]

It would help if they sent you to the court closest to your house instead of the one that is 2 hours each way.

 

[Lakewood90712]

The California courts are " one day or one trial ", whichever comes first , and usually the first day is a call in system the prev. business day , so many times you never have to appear at all.

The galling thing is the caviler attitude of the courts of jurors time when called in, IMO. The canned video given says how important jurrors are. Then raise the pay to at least equal to the minimum wage. Juror pay in CA hasn't changed in many decades.

 

[wompo]

When I’ve been to jury duty it always seems as though at least half the pool has no chance of being on the jury due to the lawyers questioning. I’m not sure why these questions could not be asked online beforehand so at least the members of the jury pool had a chance of being on the jury. I hate going there and one of the lawyers questions excluded me.

 

[Gumby]

It would help if they sent you to the court closest to your house instead of the one that is 2 hours each way.

Yes it would. That's how it works here in CT. You go to the court for the Judicial District in which you live. We also have the one day or one trial rule. You show up for your day and if you aren't picked, you're in the clear for the next three years. If you are picked, you serve on that trial. As you might imagine, many times all the cases scheduled to start trial on your day have settled before the day even arrives. You get a number to call the night before, and often they tell you that you are not required to report the next day. In that case, I believe you can be called again in a year.

I have been called a few times, but only had to report twice. The first time, they never reached me on the list. The second, I was subject to voir dire (questioned by the two counsel) and then excused (almost no one wants a lawyer on their jury).

 

[Teacher Terry]

My ex and I had the very same first name spelled the same. So one summer we get a jury summons for Terry Smith with no middle initial. It was summer and my husband worked in a hot factory. I was taking 24 credits in college over the summer semester. I had special permission. I would have lost my money and the entire semester. So my husband goes and is delighted because he got paid by his employer, was off 2 weeks for a jury trial and I got to finish school. Having the same name gave us many funny stories. Like when the doctor opened his file and said you had a mammogram). We joked we could have named all our kids Terry.

 

[RobbieB]

If you think jury duty is bad...

We used to have the draft. Yes, you've been selected to go to some place bad that you never wanted to go and carry a rifle and shoot at people you don't want to kill and then you get shot full of holes and die.

Makes Jury Duty look kinda tame eh?

 

[Z3Dreamer]

My emotion is mainly fear. There is not enough parking so I fear that I will get a ticket or towed. We must report by such and such time, so if I am late, I fear I will get in trouble. There is security in the court house, and the guards look at me and don't treat me like a citizen fulfilling my duty. After hours of boredom, who knows what behavior we will exhibit, so I fear being charged by the judge for stepping out at the wrong time, talking too much, bringing the wrong thing into court. Apparently, at some point they outlawed cell phones but did not warn anyone. The cell phone thing was because they did not want you to recording certain things in court even though we are supposed to have open trials.

Wish they could find a way to treat me like a citizen fulfilling my duty, not another criminal being prosecuted.

 

[MissMolly]

Where I live, jury duty is for 4 months. Yes, FOUR months. But they have been accommodating when I needed to be off for a week.

 

[tfudtuckerpucker]

I served on a jury last month. Some lady was ticketed for tailgating, and she requested a trial by jury (I didn't know that is a thing here). Fine was $200. So 40 persons responded to the summons, and reduced to 12. Unfortunately I made the cut. The patrolman had it on video. No question- she had nothing to offer for defense. So we found her guilty and fined her half ($100), plus $100 court cost, so she was tackled at scrimmage. I was paid $15 for 4 hours. Bottom line- I don't think trial by jury should be a right for minor traffic fines. Depending on assumptions, that cost perhaps $5000 in everyone's time, over a $200 fine.

 

[Lakewood90712]

When I’ve been to jury duty it always seems as though at least half the pool has no chance of being on the jury due to the lawyers questioning. I’m not sure why these questions could not be asked online beforehand so at least the members of the jury pool had a chance of being on the jury. I hate going there and one of the lawyers questions excluded me.

90% of voir dire is the atty. seeing how you answer the questions , not so much the actual question. they are playing " 3 minute psychologist" .

 

[travelover]

I've found jury duty to be both educational and eye opening. I served on a jury hearing a case of a young black man accused of first degree murder. His bumbling court appointed attorney obviously was not prepared as he appeared to be reading up on the details of the case as he walked into the courtroom. His defense was laughable as he really didn't even seem to understand what had happened. I never realized that the standards of representation could be so low for such a serious case.

In another case that I served on, I was astounded at how gullible the others jurors were for a case of a guy accused of falsely returning lawnmowers for a refund. The guy had returned something like 20 mowers in one month to Kmart stores and the other jurors thought that might be credible.

 

[SunBlueSky]

When I’ve been to jury duty it always seems as though at least half the pool has no chance of being on the jury due to the lawyers questioning. I’m not sure why these questions could not be asked online beforehand so at least the members of the jury pool had a chance of being on the jury. I hate going there and one of the lawyers questions excluded me.

On one jury summons, the phone call we made the night before had an automated question about whether you had a particular auto insurer (press 1 for State Farm, etc). I can't remember my answer, nor whether it gave me a reprieve...

 

[Gumby]

90% of voir dire is the atty. seeing how you answer the questions , not so much the actual question. they are playing " 3 minute psychologist" .

You would be surprised by what can come out. I once had a jury trial where I represented a commercial lender. The borrower was a local rental car company. The loan was secured by a lien on the vehicles. When the borrower fell behind on payments, the lender called the loan and repossessed all the rental cars. The borrower sued because the repossession put them out of business.

When we got to one potential juror, the written questionnaire made him appear almost perfect for our side, as he was a loan officer at a local bank. I felt that he would certainly understand how loans work more than a typical juror and would know that's just the way business works - if you can't pay, your loan gets called and the bank takes its security. In fact, I was concerned that the plaintiff would strike him.

I started by asking him how he liked his work at the bank. He said, "I liked it better before the recent merger [with a big national bank]". Hmmm. So I asked him why. He said "well, when it was just us here locally, I had flexibility to work out problem loans with the borrowers, but now, MegaBank takes a firm party line with delinquent loans and I can't do anything." Shazzam! I ended up using a peremptory challenge on him.

 

[cathy63]

Having served on 6 juries -- 3 criminal, 3 civil -- I do have some thoughts (well, a lot of thoughts) about this whole process.

First is that yes, I'd like for jury members to be paid a fair wage for their service. I want people who are there to do a job and are willing and able to pay attention and make a good decision no matter how long it takes. Right now, a really large percentage of jurors are driven by a desire to minimize the negative financial impacts they're suffering as a result of being on a jury and this absolutely affects verdicts. This is not good for anyone who is relying on an impartial and fair jury of their peers. As it stands today, if I were involved in a legal proceeding, I am certain that I would prefer a bench trial to a jury trial.

I also think there should be a limit on how many juries or how many total days a person has to serve. I've spent about 55 days actually sitting on juries and another 3 or 4 when I've been summoned but not empaneled. And yet, whenever I sit through voir dire, there are at least a dozen other people, many older than me, who say they've never been on a jury before. I've done way more than my fair share of this particular civic duty. We need to make a much better effort to spread the onus equally across the population.

It's been 3 yrs since my last jury service ended, so I've been expecting to get another summons any day. One thing that I am thankful for is that at least I can choose which courthouse to serve at and change the starting date if I need to.

 

[rodi]

Having been prosecuted (and acquitted, with an order of factual innocence put in) I am a HUGE fan of the jury system. But I've only served on one jury. I get cut when they find out I was prosecuted... and acquitted. The prosecuting attorney is the one doing the cutting... I guess they figure I'd be leaning towards the defendants position.

FWIW the one day one trial thing is not always true... If they don't finish voi dire the call you back for a second day.... If it's a big trial, with lots of jurors cut, it can lead to a third day. And here in San Diego they can call you back in 1 year of you're not selected.... so I had 3 days before I was cut, and was called back the next year since I didn't serve on a trial. I get called every year. Just never selected.