jury duty

[kaysixteen]

I gotta go to jury duty tomorrow, first time in my life.  Any jury vets have any comments or suggestions?

[dismalist]

I was once summoned to jury duty. It promised to be a fascinating case, one of embezzlement [IIRC] in connection with a national defense project. Alas, I was not chosen to be on the jury. I don't know why.

Decades ago, my father was summoned to jury duty. He was not chosen either. His theory was that he nodded approvingly too often when the DA was making his pitch.

Now you know how to get out, but not how to get in!

Best of luck.

[Ruralguy]

Just look like moron. Then you'll be a shoo-in.

[mamselle]

I've read that some large percentage of those with advanced degrees are turned down by the defense because they prefer not to have jury members who can follow arguments and keep up with the evidentiary twists and turns of a case.

M.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I went once and actually got called in for a case with about 20 other people. The judge asked us all for our names, occupations, and history with the legal system. She then asked us to raise our hands if we would not be able to serve for what could be a few days. I raised my hand and the judge asked if I was tied up with teaching (since I had told her I was a professor). I said yes, and she dismissed me. Based on this experience I concluded that juries must usually be filled with retirees and the unemployed.

[Wahoo Redux]

Do you want to serve?

My father was an attorney and, as I think is the common wisdom, once told me that lawyers do not want to have educated jurors because they are too difficult to manipulate.

I was called for jury duty last year.  If there is one thing I never want to do in my life it is serve on a jury.  I was called to interview for the last available seat, and instead of simply dismissing me, the lawyers grilled me for almost 20 humiliating minutes, and then the judge weighed in, asking me repeatedly if I "could follow instructions" (something I am not good at----I believe the judge saw the PhD on the survey form and decided I would be good at reading and comprehending; I should have specified I am only good at metaphors and the Monomyth).  Finally, both defense and prosecution asked that I be released to the great and obvious consternation of the judge.

They released me because I admitted----as the form ASKED me to----if I had a family member who had been in trouble with the law (which I do) and would this affect how I felt about court proceedings (which it would).

That is the short version of this grotesque event in my life.

God, it was awful and humiliating.

Chances are you will get lucky and be released because of your job and advanced education.

Good luck.

[Parasaurolophus]

If you want to be released, just tell them you know about jury nullification.

I would like to serve on one someday, because I think that my evidentiary standards are appropriately strict and I think it's crucial that they be met in any case brought to trial (especially where the collection and presentation of evidence is concerned).

But I'm told that philosophers, in particular, are a pain in the ass for those kinds of reasons, and so tend to be dismissed. I'm not surprised, since we have a reputation for not playing nicely in interdisciplinary contexts, either. Shrug.

[sinenomine]

When I've been at jury duty, I've heard local lawyers say they like having professors on juries because they understand logic and argumentation. That being said, the last time I was called, the case was about a guy who had gotten picked up for drunk driving in front of my house, so I was let go.

[jerseyjay]

As others have raised, the key question is do you WANT to serve or not?

If you do NOT want to serve, indicate that you have strong opinions about things and you cannot set these aside just because the judge tells you to. You can have strong thoughts against law enforcement (police always lie, they frame people up) or in favor of law enforcement (the cops would not arrest somebody who is innocent) or about the law itself. In particular cases, you can indicate that you your own experience has left you unable to be objective. The last time I was called for jury duty, it had to do with a crime involving homeless people, and several people were not selected because they claimed to have had bad experiences with homeless people and/or drug addicts. Extensive involvement with the criminal justice system (being a victim of a crime, being related to criminals, being related to law enforcement, being related to attorneys, being in law enforcement, being a lawyer) also seems to get people off jury duty.

[Among the potential jury pool last time I was called were: several current security guards; somebody whose father was a police officer; somebody whose brother was a convicted criminal; somebody whose father was a police officer AND a convicted criminal; a retired lawyer for the ACLU; several victims of crime who believed that the police didn't do anything to find the criminals. None was selected.]

If you WANT to serve, then you can acknowledge whatever biases you have but indicate that you can set them aside, follow the judge's instructions as to the law, and try to be objective and open minded. There are reasons you might not get picked (e.g., having an advanced degree) but being open minded and objective would place you in the top third of possible jurors.

[fleabite]

I've been called perhaps five times. On several occasions, I was called into a room for the voir dire on a case, but my name was not pulled out of the hopper (that is, they interviewed and chose twelve jurors, but my name was not drawn during that process). On one occasion, I served as a juror on a short case (robbery). On the most recent occasion, I was interviewed during the voir dire but not selected. I had some fairly specialized knowledge relating to the context but not details of the case, and I suspect that ruled me out.

I find the whole process very interesting but find it a bit upsetting that people try to get out of serving. It may be inconvenient, but I consider it a civic duty and a way to keep the system of justice in the US as fair as possible. I'm surprised that people in this thread report being called so infrequently. In my region, you get called every seven years.

[Puget]

I've been summoned 4 times but only had to report twice (follow the instructions-- there is usually an automated system to call into or a website to check the night before to see if you are actually needed). The first time, I wasn't selected for one jury, went back into the pool for another trial, but then court closed early for the day due to snow. The second time the defended did not show up for court, so we all waited around for several hours and then were sent home.

I have heard from colleagues though that lawyers especially don't want psychologists on their juries and so I'm doubtful I'll ever serve-- I actually think it would be pretty interesting, and psychologists and other scientists are actually who you'd want since we're trained to objectively evaluate evidence, but that is NOT what the lawyers want the jury doing.

[ergative]

When I've been at jury duty, I've heard local lawyers say they like having professors on juries because they understand logic and argumentation.

They clearly haven't met Reviewer 2.

[ab_grp]

I've been summoned 3 times and served twice (civil case involving a car accident, criminal case involving alleged drug dealing).  I was thankful for numerous reasons (including outright fear and also the logistical inconvenience) to get ousted after voir dire for a federal case involving nearly 10 defendants each facing nearly 30 charges that went on for several months.  I believe that citizens deserve a fair trial and that it is important to serve, but that doesn't mean there aren't some cases I'd like to stay far, far away from.  I do struggle with that. 

[mythbuster]

First. Thank you for doing your civic duty. My father was a judge and he felt that jury duty was a greater civic duty than even serving in the military (and yes, he was a veteran).  He once got called for the jury pool in his own courtroom, and yes had to excuse himself in front of everyone else.

Bring a book to read while you wait and have a plan of where you will get lunch.

The one time I was in the pool, they asked us questions that essentially were about our politics without actually asking. Which TV news do you watch: CNN, Fox or MSNBC?  So don't be surprised if they ask these supposedly silly questions that are really fronts for other things.

While I would love to serve at one point, I was glad to not be pulled for that jury. It was an ambulance chaser case that they predicted would take 3 months!

Since it's not the first of the month you are not likely to get pulled for grand jury duty either- in uour county those all get formed at the start of the month so everyone tries to reschedule if they get a date for the first week.

[ab_grp]

I can't modify my post but forgot to add the suggestions part, though I realize you were called for today, so this is probably too late.  Maybe it will help someone else.  You (in general) should take a look at what is allowed at the court where you will be serving, because the restrictions can be very different.  I believe that for the federal case I got out of and for the civil case I was able to bring basically whatever I wanted, there was adequate space to sit around, etc.  I had to go straight from the federal case to a grad school class, so I must have had my book bag with me (took the train).  I'm sure I had a book to read in there, as well as snacks.  For the civil case, we could even bring computers.  But for the most recent, a district court case, we could not bring any bags of any kind in.  I wore travel pants that had a lot of pockets (no book).  No phones were allowed in the courthouse at all, nor anything that could transmit (like a Fitbit).  No food or drink of any kind was allowed.  The security was basically like TSA with metal detectors and scanners and emptying of pockets.  Some of this was relaxed after the jury was selected and taken to another area.  After jury selection, we were pretty much sent right to lunch.  In that case, I had enough time to drive home and eat quickly and drive back (not possible in the other cases, so finding a nearby restaurant is a good idea, and beware that areas near courthouses can be very busy at lunchtime!).  When we came back, we were allowed to bring a clear bag and snacks or water.  Same restrictions were still in place for electronics, but there was less of a security protocol.  Also, if you are in a hot area and have to leave your phone in the car, best to figure out some way to keep it cool.  Between when we returned from lunch (about 1) and the end of the trial (about 6:30?), my phone overheated. 

I am interested to hear how things go/went for you, Kay!

As for the questions we were asked, in the two cases I served on it was mostly whether we could serve the one or two days that the trial was expected to last (I think this excluded a nurse in one case, for example); whether we knew the defendant (and the plaintiff in the civil case), the attorneys, and so forth (or worked at the detention center); and whether there was some aspect of the case that we could not be unbiased about (e.g., one man's relative had been badly impacted by drug dealing).  In the federal case there was a longer questionnaire we had to fill out about what TV shows we watch, as mythbuster noted.