Jury Service - Do it, or else!

I was called up for Jury Service and am due to start my second week tomorrow. Has anyone else had to endure this? Sitting in the room that time forgot?

I've now gone through a week of what I thought would be an interesting experience but I haven't even been called up to a case. I've gone through two huge books while sitting in the same chair in the waiting room for 4 days, and I'm dreading going back.
It's such nice weather out, and I'm stuck indoors, because if I don't turn up I'll be fined. I'm just lucky that we have a bank holiday today and Friday, so it's only three more days I have to be there.

Anyone else done the service before? What was it like for you? Any tips on how not to melt with boredom?

I noticed this is GC but I will be uncharacteristically coherent for once.

If I were in your position and I had to make a jury decision on a case, I would absolutely vote to acquit the accused regardless of evidence.

I've never done jury duty as I live in the UK. I dunno why anyone would complain about doing it. Sounds like fun. I'm serious.

I would love to have jury duty, especially if I was assigned to a drug case, with all the evidence in the prosecution's favor. That would be glorious. Of course, I will never have the opportunity now that I will have committed the unforgivable crime of being able to actually follow wtf the lawyer's say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

I've never done jury duty as I live in the UK. I dunno why anyone would complain about doing it. Sounds like fun. I'm serious.

---

There is still jury service in the UK but to be called up for it you must be on the electoral register for your current address. You cannot volunteer for it, it is merely something that could be required of you in return for your right to have a say in the running of the country. How else did you believe they made a jury for a case at crown court level?

I got called in once and totally wanted to be put on a case, but, after spending the entire day just smurfing sitting around, the prosecutor dismissed me on account of she was smurfing retarded.

Never been called for jury duty. I would probably just come off as a smurfing racist to get out of it though.

Whenever I get called for jury duty I put on my best lisp and develop a blank stare.

Do NOT act like an obnoxious angry bigot to try to get out of jury duty. Judges are used to those things, and they will notice. And not only will it not get you out the door, but if you go too crazy you could wind up in jail for the night.

I wouldnt want to be called for jury duty. Not because of the time it takes, but because I wouldnt feel comfortable passing judgement on others.

I wouldn't mind doing jury duty but I'm a journalist so I will never have to do it.

Don't think they let certifiably crazy people do it.

Not that I'd want to anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Do NOT act like an obnoxious angry bigot to try to get out of jury duty. Judges are used to those things, and they will notice. And not only will it not get you out the door, but if you go too crazy you could wind up in jail for the night.

---

Haha, I figured they would be. Does subtle prejudice or dickish behavior work though?

Subtle prejudice works, yeah. Or saying something that would make either of the lawyers think you might be biased against their client. I was dismissed because I made a comment about teenagers being dramatic, and then making a sassy comment when the prosecutor said something stupid about it.

But there were a lot of people who were obviously trying to say things to get out of it and the judge was like "Ha, no."

I've actually had to do it twice. Yes, twice.

The first time was in a tiny Oklahoma town where I never even got assigned to a case, so I suppose it doesn't really count.

The second time was a few months ago though, here in Columbus. The case? A 50 year old woman suing a 20 year old guy with whom she got into a car accident, which he was at fault for. Apparently she fell down some stairs 30 years before the accident and messed up her vertebrae. Well, after the accident (which was little more than a fender bender, but in the passenger side of the car rather than the back or front) she decided that she was feeling worse than usual. So what did she do? She went to a dozen or so of the most expensive doctors she could find, almost all of which told her they didn't see anything new from new vs old xrays. Then you know what she did?

She decided to go to an acupuncturist, which she swears is the only thing that would help her. But the pain would always come back a couple days later, and she'd go right back.

So, she had, alone, a $75,000 outstanding bill for the acupuncturist, compiled with tens of thousands for all the doctors she saw and prescriptions she got through them, which for some reason she decided to never pay or even attempt to get aid for.

She wanted us, the jury, to order this guy, 20, who's barely about to start his life, to pay all these bills, AND KEEP PAYING FOR THE ACUPUNCTURE SESSIONS INDEFINITELY.

Needless to say, none of us were going to give her what she was asking for, but unfortunately the majority of our group were idiots swayed by emotion.

I won't reveal the outcome because it's too rage inducing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Haha, I figured they would be. Does subtle prejudice or dickish behavior work though?

---

The easiest way to get out of it is, in the very beginning, when they're picking jurors for a case, both the defending and prosecuting attorneys, along with the judge, will ask you a series of questions pertaining to things that would possibly give you a bias in the case.

There's really no way for them to check to see if what you say is true or not, so just making something up for every other question would work well. Sadly I didn't think to do it until afterward.

Well if that works then I'm all set. :monster:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

being able to actually follow wtf the lawyer's say.

---

NEVER pluralize with an apostrophe! NEVER NEVER NEVER!

I got called up twice during my time at law school. Back then, I was still on the electoral roll in my hometown, so I was let off. One of the Ciminal Law lecturers totally encouraged us to attend if we ever got the chance, but it was never actually feasible for me at the time.

I've been enrolled in my current city for years now but haven't received another summons to jury service. Figures.

Nothing so far. I moved out of NZ when I was 18, and have only been on the UK electoral register for a short time now.

DMKA: Surely if you were part of the jury then they could not be found guilty if a single person said 'not guilty', and therefore you could have stopped them being found guilty on any part? Or is it simply a majority vote now on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peegee

I noticed this is GC but I will be uncharacteristically coherent for once.

If I were in your position and I had to make a jury decision on a case, I would absolutely vote to acquit the accused regardless of evidence.

---

Basically this, unless it were something like a violent crime for which the accused was clearly guilty. On the other hand if it were something stupid like drugs or prostitution I'd definitely vote to acquit regardless of how clear the case of transgression was, since the fact that the laws exist is a clear violation of human liberty to begin with.

Of course, now that I've admitted this publicly, I may have ruined my chances of ever getting jury duty. If they actually care enough to search people's post history on a Final Fantasy message board, which they probably don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

Nothing so far. I moved out of NZ when I was 18, and have only been on the UK electoral register for a short time now.

DMKA: Surely if you were part of the jury then they could not be found guilty if a single person said 'not guilty', and therefore you could have stopped them being found guilty on any part? Or is it simply a majority vote now on?

---

WesLY can confirm this for certain, but I believe the way it works is that if it were a criminal trial it would require a unanimous vote to convict, but for civil trials it just goes by majority vote. This sounds like a civil case so basically the guy was smurfed. Isn't our lawsuit-happy "justice" system lovely?

edit: apparently criminal trials require unanimous verdicts if the jury is composed of six people or less, but non-unanimous verdicts have been upheld where the jury was larger. Wikipedia

Wow. This is the kind of thing you guys should be marching over. That's totally crap if it is in fact the case. Majority of a mere handful of people who, let's face it, often won't have much of a clue? Stupid, stupid, stupid. No wonder so many people sue each other over there. :( Sad.

Also, six people? So much for Twelve Angry Men! Great movie.

So in America do you get called for a certain case or something? Because here (in Britain) you get called up for two weeks and might have to be part of a Jury in a few cases over that time. Or none.
So far, I have had none, and you can't leave you just wait in the waiting room. I did get one today which I was glad for because I do actually want to do it, just not sit in the waiting room for 2 weeks. Anyway, the guy then changed his plea to guilty so we had to leave:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

WesLY can confirm this for certain, but I believe the way it works is that if it were a criminal trial it would require a unanimous vote to convict, but for civil trials it just goes by majority vote. This sounds like a civil case so basically the guy was smurfed. Isn't our lawsuit-happy "justice" system lovely?

---

It depends on the state. Federal and some states require unanimous verdict; other states require less. But it is never simply a majority that I know of. If it's a jury of twelve, my guess would be between 9-12 jurors would have to agree to find for the plaintiff in most/all states.

Same with criminal trials. In maybe half the states plus federal cases, it has to be unanimous. The rest have allowed 1-3 dissenters, depending on the jury size.

I'm surprised that a lot of you are talking about ways to quit jury duty. I would jump at the opportunity to not have to work and to usurp the justice industry.

Aaron brings up a good point that an obviously dangerous person should be locked up. I might take those cases seriously only bc if 'a reasonable person' would not vote to acquit based on the evidence, then it would not make sense for me to vote to acquit, and I would get in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

DMKA: Surely if you were part of the jury then they could not be found guilty if a single person said 'not guilty', and therefore you could have stopped them being found guilty on any part? Or is it simply a majority vote now on?

---

Well mine was a civil case, so it was majority vote. We had ten jurors and at least 7 needed to agree for a verdict.

Seeing as her car damage was already paid for by the guy's insurance, I didn't think she deserved crap beyond an apology. Unfotunately seven of them disagreed with me and argued over how much she should get.

I really felt sorry for the guy because he was just a plain old guy. He didn't have a rich mommy and daddy and he didn't have gobs of cash laying around, much less what she was asking for.

I would have been sympathetic for her condition if she wasn't an idiot who ran up bills she couldn't pay and actively trying to destroy someone else's life in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

DMKA: Surely if you were part of the jury then they could not be found guilty if a single person said 'not guilty', and therefore you could have stopped them being found guilty on any part? Or is it simply a majority vote now on?

---

Well mine was a civil case, so it was majority vote. We had ten jurors and at least 7 needed to agree for a verdict.

Seeing as her car damage was already paid for by the guy's insurance, I didn't think she deserved crap beyond an apology. Unfotunately seven of them disagreed with me and argued over how much she should get.

I really felt sorry for the guy because he was just a plain old guy. He didn't have a rich mommy and daddy and he didn't have gobs of cash laying around, much less what she was asking for.

I would have been sympathetic for her condition if she wasn't an idiot who ran up bills she couldn't pay and actively trying to destroy someone else's life in the process.

---

so what happened?

Wait, wait, she got paid by the guy's insurance and the defendant himself? Unless she only got a percentage from the insurance, that's double recovery. Although I guess the insurance might not have paid for the acupuncture "medical" expenses, and he shouldn't need to either. I wonder if he could've argued contributory negligence due to her being an idiot.

Exemplary damages, perhaps? If you guys even have them in your legal system.
DMKA's story is both sad and, as I understand it, wholly indicative. It's why I prefer a few aspects of our civil system: juries usually aren't involved in civil cases at all, with the judge or judges reaching a decision and setting the quantum of damages. Also, there's usually no right to seek damages for personal injury, with an elaborate statutory compensation scheme in place to cover losses and costs. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it prevents people from financially ruining each other over relatively minor, blameless acts.

I just want to be part of a hung jury. /smug

I got called in for the first time this year, but I got out of it luckily due to being a full time student. There would just be no time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justy

I just want to be part of a hung jury. /smug

---

Why did you drop the "Lusty" portion of your name again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justy

I just want to be part of a hung jury. /smug

---

Why did you drop the "Lusty" portion of your name again?

---

And how did he get to change it within a year? I smell insider job!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I got called in for the first time this year, but I got out of it luckily due to being a full time student. There would just be no time.

---

So I couldn't start spouting racial epithets?! D:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I got called in for the first time this year, but I got out of it luckily due to being a full time student. There would just be no time.

---

So I couldn't start spouting racial epithets?! D:

---

no that would be counterproductive. And I re-illiterate: why do you want to skip on jury duty?

Because I have better things to do. :colbert:

I was lucky. For a few years I was able to get out of it cause of convictions. Now...those convictions are spent. I was called once in 2003 or something didnt have to attend. No such hope now if I'm called....well one. When you show up for the selection arrive in a Nazi Brownshirt & a polkadot dress. Make suere you drool & say 'Capri-Sun' over & over. You'll be home again before you were even asked to sit down.

I hope I never get jury duty. I worry that my short attention span will get the better of me, and I'll just vote with the majority to get it over with and end up really screwing somebody over :(

Oprah Ticket Gets Woman Out Of Jury Duty
Awesome. Try this Julian, you racist bastard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peegee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justy

I just want to be part of a hung jury. /smug

---

Why did you drop the "Lusty" portion of your name again?

---

And how did he get to change it within a year? I smell insider job!

---

It was TAKEN from me. :(

smurf that noise, I hate Oprah.

Is it because she's black or because she's a woman

It's because she's a crazy moron.

But that might actually have to do with your choices...

I will probably never forgive Oprah for popularising that Law of Attraction bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:.

California has a one day one trial policy, so you only have to sit in the waiting room one day if you are not selected to sit on a jury. I was an alternate juror for a murder trial about 7 years ago, the defendant was an 18 year old boy who had stomped a and stabbed a 9 year old boy to death while on meth. We weren't actually deciding whether or not he was guilty, but rather determining his degree of guilt. The defense attorney was pushing us to find him guilty of involuntary manslaughter but nobody was buying it. He was found guilty of 1st degree murder which is what I would have voted for if I had been called in to replace one of the jurors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jentleness

We weren't actually deciding whether or not he was guilty, but rather determining his degree of guilt.

---

That... makes no sense to me. Didn't the jury have the option to find him not guilty on all charges? The manslaughter charge was just a lesser-included offense (meaning that every element of manslaughter is also in murder, though not vice-versa, and he could only be found guilty of one).

I would've been skeptical that a stoned eighteen-year-old could form the requisite intent and premeditation typically required in state laws for first degree murder. However, voluntary intoxication generally is no defense to murder, so second degree murder might have been more fair. It should be noted that I have no idea about the specifics of the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jentleness

We weren't actually deciding whether or not he was guilty, but rather determining his degree of guilt.

---

That... makes no sense to me. Didn't the jury have the option to find him not guilty on all charges? The manslaughter charge was just a lesser-included offense (meaning that every element of manslaughter is also in murder, though not vice-versa, and he could only be found guilty of one).

I would've been skeptical that a stoned eighteen-year-old could form the requisite intent and premeditation typically required in state laws for first degree murder. However, voluntary intoxication generally is no defense to murder, so second degree murder might have been more fair. It should be noted that I have no idea about the specifics of the case.

---

He admitted he killed the boy, but he was trying to say the drugs made him do it which, like you said, is no defense to murder. As for the details, he went out of his way to kill this boy, who was watching cartoons in a room by himself and he searched him out and killed him in a horrible way. It was very, very sad.

Oh, I understand, he stipulated to the killing. That's actually a valid strategy in some cases.

And those facts are highly disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jentleness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jentleness

We weren't actually deciding whether or not he was guilty, but rather determining his degree of guilt.

---

That... makes no sense to me. Didn't the jury have the option to find him not guilty on all charges? The manslaughter charge was just a lesser-included offense (meaning that every element of manslaughter is also in murder, though not vice-versa, and he could only be found guilty of one).

I would've been skeptical that a stoned eighteen-year-old could form the requisite intent and premeditation typically required in state laws for first degree murder. However, voluntary intoxication generally is no defense to murder, so second degree murder might have been more fair. It should be noted that I have no idea about the specifics of the case.

---

He admitted he killed the boy, but he was trying to say the drugs made him do it which, like you said, is no defense to murder. As for the details, he went out of his way to kill this boy, who was watching cartoons in a room by himself and he searched him out and killed him in a horrible way. It was very, very sad.

---

The choice of words seems to me that he actively had to 'find' the person, rather than (i unno) being high off his gourd and stumbling around with a dangerous object and killing a person.

can you tell us what defense he put forth?

I was called in once. I was part of the group being selected for a murder trial. It was similar to Jentle's where the man admitted to the killing but the jury had to decide the actual charge. I was never actually put on the jury since they settled on the 15 before my name was called.

For the most part I noticed anyone with strong opinions or who seemed intelligent would get cut by the lawyers. People who looked like they were trying to get out of it would be talked into staying by the judge, who obviously had heard all these excuses before. So if you want to get out of jury duty, just act like you're intelligent and have strong opinions.

Next time I hope I get put on a jury. After my experience I realized that I wouldn't want the most gullible, slack jawed people deciding my fate if I was innocent or the fate of someone who committed a horrible crime against me. I would take my civic duty seriously and decide the outcome based on the facts of the case, and not how much I liked the lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peegee

I noticed this is GC but I will be uncharacteristically coherent for once.

If I were in your position and I had to make a jury decision on a case, I would absolutely vote to acquit the accused regardless of evidence.

---

Basically this, unless it were something like a violent crime for which the accused was clearly guilty. On the other hand if it were something stupid like drugs or prostitution I'd definitely vote to acquit regardless of how clear the case of transgression was, since the fact that the laws exist is a clear violation of human liberty to begin with.

---

Good thing you nutjobs weren't on Al Capone's jury. :p

wevs as if I would be selected. apparently there is a intelligence threshold

what questions get asked and what sort of responses are sought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jentleness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jentleness

We weren't actually deciding whether or not he was guilty, but rather determining his degree of guilt.

---

That... makes no sense to me. Didn't the jury have the option to find him not guilty on all charges? The manslaughter charge was just a lesser-included offense (meaning that every element of manslaughter is also in murder, though not vice-versa, and he could only be found guilty of one).

I would've been skeptical that a stoned eighteen-year-old could form the requisite intent and premeditation typically required in state laws for first degree murder. However, voluntary intoxication generally is no defense to murder, so second degree murder might have been more fair. It should be noted that I have no idea about the specifics of the case.

---

He admitted he killed the boy, but he was trying to say the drugs made him do it which, like you said, is no defense to murder. As for the details, he went out of his way to kill this boy, who was watching cartoons in a room by himself and he searched him out and killed him in a horrible way. It was very, very sad.

---

That's so awful. :(

I've ignored like... 3 summons so far. I got another summons in the mail and I don't think I should push my luck by ignoring this one too. But, I don't wanna do jury duty. :(

I clicked into the latest posts of this thread at the same time as the 'Favourite Summons' thread in General Final Fantasy and then went away from my desk. Upon return, I saw Miriel's post on my screen and for a moment was very confused.

I laughed when Miriel got her summons. Then yesterday I got one. :(

Karma, Del. Karma.

We should try to reschedule it on the same day so we could get on the same trial and then SELL THE VERDICT FOR MILLIONS. We can be very persuasive as a team. Just ask the staff. Our reign of terror was one of the most beautiful things this place had ever seen.

Charlie should be promoted to admin. :bigsmile: