It’s mainly because of my job, I think. I’m a lawyer and a lot of lawyers (including myself) aren’t too keen on picking lawyer jurors. For understandable reasons imo.
Conversely, in some cases attorneys will look for reasons NOT to dismiss you, even against your wishes. I learned this the hard way. Was called for jury duty for a civil case in oil and gas. I'm a physician. I said, I can't do this because of my work schedule, and requested that I be excused. They wouldn't excuse me and I ended up being called to sit on the jury. I found out later that the attorneys in the case had asked the judge not to accept my excuse. Presumably they wanted me on the jury. I had to scramble to find backup coverage and I'll never get those three useless weeks of my life back.
Why was it useless? I get the argument that your time may have been better spent treating people, but jury duty is still a civic service - so why useless?
I would agree with you. However if the physician is saying it was a useless three weeks. I have a feeling it wasnt that. Im not making assumptions off of anything other then what the physician said. Im sure if it was some important environmental case that could effect ppl health or other things Im sure he wouldnt find it as useless
You are correct. I would not have considered it a useless three weeks if I thought the case was about a truly important matter. Unfortunately, I do not believe it was.
No one should be forced to be on a jury if it's against their wishes. What's the point of having someone there who doesn't want to be there? It might put them in a negative mood, and they don't see the process through appropriately.
It would be impossible to represent a community, fairly if jury duty wasn't mandatory. The pool of jurors would become very small, and those people who did their civic duty would be end up doing it over and over again. That would skew results wildly around the personalities that had both the time and desire to be jurors... whatever those views might be. Ultimately, this would result in a violation of an accused's right to a fair trial.
Basically: If it was you in the dock, and you were innocent, you'd want as fair a jury as your community and voir dire could give you, not some pool of semi-pro, power jurors who all happen to have different views than you do on something.
I mean, sure, I guess you could find some deeper satisfaction in doing your civic duty. I'm not opposed to the idea of jury duty in theory, not at all. It's important. But this particular case had no business going to a jury trial, it involved a couple of wealthy people in oil and gas over a rather small amount of money. It should have gone to some type of arbitration, except that the people involved couldn't set their egos aside. That's why I consider it a waste of time. Also, several people on the jury were minimum wage workers and it just angered me thinking that these people were losing out on three weeks of desperately needed income, all so that a couple of wealthy people could argue over a small amount of money.
I'm a professional musician and was called for a case where I think someone was killed by a vehicle. They gave us paper questionnaires first and one of the questions was about how loud you normally listen to music while driving. I put quietly because that's true. They dismissed me anyway. I've always wondered if it was a case where the driver was distracted by their loud music and they thought as a musician I would find offense to that or something lol
They probably just thought you were lying and that you’d be bias to judge someone for an action you commit everyday under the assumption that you lied on the form. Now of course they can’t really know if you’re telling the truth or not or those things so it’s mostly just a vague judgement of who they think you are
Not sure why they would think that is a lie but maybe. Super weird thing to lie about tbh and it would not benefit me in any way to lie. Also pretty sure they told us we could get jail time if we lied, essentially lying under oath sort of thing.
NAL but my personal experience was this. I showed up in the morning and moved us into a waiting room that was not a courtroom and they had us fill out a form for information about myself (employment, housing, etc) then we turned that in and waited a while. Then they came back in and gave different forms to different people by name and this form was questions that I guess were specific to a particular case. Turned that in and waited even longer. Then I was called into the actual courtroom and each lawyer asked very few questions of specific people then they both spoke with the judge and the judge said these people go back to the waiting room, these people stay. Then I waited in the waiting room until they told me I could leave.
Again NAL but I think the process is each lawyer gets to ask questions then each lawyer picks some juries they want and some juries they do not want then the judge puts it all together. I think the paper questionnaire just speeds up the process of asking every jury the exact same question and I guess always makes it so that other people's answer to the same question doesn't influence your own
The jury selection process is called voir dire. The prosecution and defense can dismiss jurors they believe may be biased to their side, which in theory, leads to a balanced jury for both sides.
The goal is to actually eliminate bias. The idea is both sides get to find out information about the jurors so they can identify things that might bias them. Both sides can ask the judge to exclude a juror on the basis that's something in their background would prejudice them. For example if somebody is a cop or has copped family, you might fairly convince a judge that they won't be impartial in a case where police conduct is specifically an issue. But each side also gets a number of challenges where they can basically just exclude anybody for almost any reason and they don't even have to name the reason typically. Both sides get it so the ideal circumstance is that the judge gets to eliminate people that pretty directly have a risk of bias. And then each side gets to further eliminate outliers that might not technically be unqualified but who they are concerned might have a bias against their case. At least in theory, if the initial pool that you start with is a good average representation of people, letting both sides trim the outliers should leave you with a group that is in the middle and relatively neutral.
So jury duty is not random and someone decides who will actually be part of the jury? Is there an additional mechanism which helps to prevent abusing this system?
A lot of people are called, they try to keep it diverse, so they wouldn't call all people from the same area, then they are asked a series of questions to see if they're truly impartial.
So if they say something crazy or not impartial, they're not picked.
So if say a real state developer is being accused of something and they ask: "have you heard of the person being accused before this?", say you're one of the people affected by his crime, maybe indirectly, you answer: "I know who he is, he kicked my sister's family out of their home by raising rent by 400% last year, he's a bully", you're already more likely to say he's guilty without even considering any evidence. not impartial.
So they might ask you: "what is your job", or some other personal question and if you answer some crazy shit like "I AM GOD'S ANGEL" or "I WANNA SEND SOMEONE TO JAIL PLEASE, PLEASE LET ME" they might not pick you.
Another question might be "do you believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty?" which is fairly standard.
But it IS illegal to skip on jury duty by not showing up, pretending you never got the letter summoning you or pretending to be crazy, if proven false might lead to fines and your own jail time. cool huh.
Unless they explicitly told you, there's literally no reason to try to read into it because it could literally be anything. It could because I said believe you. It could be because they did believe you and they thought that it might affect your judgment of somebody who was accused of being distracted or something. It can literally be because of something completely unrelated.
Though they would be the few people actually qualified for that job^^. It will never not baffle me how in the USA, they just let random people decide on someone's fate, even if they know nothing about the justice system.
Juries do not decide the sentencing, just the verdict. Sentencing is decided by the judge at a later date. Jurors just decide whether based on available evidence if the individual is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes being presented. You don’t really need to understand the justice system to make a judgement on the evidence provided
The jurors are also there to provide a "not guilty" verdict in the event that while the crime 100% committed, the situation deserved it. It's called jury nullification. It's especially useful in cases involving healthcare CEOs
Also you don't have to choose a jury trial. You can just take a bench trial where the judge just decides the verdict. You only go jury if your lawyer recommends it because they think the judge is gonna say guilty but a jury might not
Some juries do get to decide sentencing. It's most common in death penalty cases, the jury decides guilty/not guilty in the Guilt Phase, then, if Guilty, in the Sentencing/Penalty Phase there's generally a 'mini trial' where mitigating or aggravating circumstances/evidence is put on, witnesses representing the defendant/the victim(s) testify, and the jury then decides on death or a life sentence.
Jury Sentencing for other crimes exists in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia, and they've all got different rules about their penalty phases and how much information juries are allowed, if they're told about/allowed to sentence someone to alternative punishments (drug diversion programs, suspended sentences, etc), or are even given the sentencing guidelines, etc, etc. Generally defendants have to request jury sentencing, and while theoretically a judge can intervene and reduce a harsh sentence, they don't tend to, so choosing jury sentencing can be very risky and I'd guess that's why you don't hear about it very often.
Because it's supposed to be people that are like you, trying to put themselves in your shoes. Sure she stole his money and ran , but I would have done the same if he was beating me every night.
But isn't that exactly the dangerous part, and the reason why lawyers over there hold those long, emotion-driven speeches? What I mean, this has to result in people basing their decisions on sympathy rather than facts.
Just common law countries (Anglosphere). So USA, UK, Australia, and Canada, with possibly a couple more countries added in. Most other countries don't use juries, or do so only exceptionally.
People charged with a Indictable offence are tried in crown court with a judge and a jury of 12, the jury decides if they are guilty or not and the judge decides the sentence
People charged with a summary offence are tried in magistrate court. a Magistrate court has a a panel of 3 magistrates they decide whether or not the person is guilty and they decide the sentence. A magistrate is not a judge, they have no legal training and are members of the public like members of a jury would be
I think people may equate the magistrates to be a panel of judges but they are not. Its just members of the public and only for what aew effectivily misdeaminours
Essentially its a jury of 3 or a jury of 12
The jury of 3 for the low level crimes also decide the sentence whereas the jury of 12 for high level crimes do not
Ok it is possible in some occasions for low level crimes instead of it being 3 magistrates it is a single district judge
I'm British. They're still done. I live in constant fear of being called up for jury duty and a trial drags on for long enough that I miss my clinical placements and have to remediate
The UK has Magistrates' Court with a panel of 3 volunteers + a trained legal advisor (or sometimes 1 paid judge), which might be what you're thinking of? That's used for (generally) less serious crimes as magistrates can't sentence someone to more than 12 months in prison (though there's talk about changing that atm), so serious crimes are tried in the Crown Court which does have juries.
It’s a little more complicated than just letting them decide. Jurors are supposed to decide whose version of events they believe based on the testimony & other evidence. Before they go to deliberations, they get jury instructions. The substantive ones are mostly along the lines of “if you believe X, you should return a verdict of Y.”
Also, a judges usually have the authority to enter what’s called a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (the name is different in some states I think)—basically, if the jury goes completely off the rails, the judge can overrule them. It’s not supposed to happen a lot, but it works as a failsafe. In criminal cases, they can’t throw out a not guilty verdict (though in certain circumstances they can declare a mistrial), but they usually can throw out a guilty verdict if the situation warrants it. One of the reasons for the strong history of the use of juries in the US was the perception that in the old English system, elite, out of touch judges would enter oppressive ruling against ordinary people.
A judge is supposed to be the one who instructs the jurors on the law. A lawyer on a jury may have a differing perspective on the law that might affect the views of the other jurors.
It can also make other jurors inherently believe them even if they’re dead wrong. You could have a lawyer who normally works on divorce cases be a juror on a murder case and despite them knowing just as much as the other jurors they’ll likely be believed no matter what.
Different lawyers do different things. A divorce lawyer isn’t going to be any help on a murder case. At best he’ll know the proper places to look for information but otherwise it’s an entirely different area of expertise. To the common man tho a lawyer is a lawyer. So even if their opinions have just as much weight as anyone else’s they’ll instantly have an unfair advantage when it comes to swaying other jurors to their side.
Think about it like this. You wouldn’t trust a dentist to comment on your heart surgery but despite that they’re both doctors and most people would believe a doctor no matter what
My law school professor taught at a top law school and was a nationally recognized expert on Criminal Law. He was selected as a juror for a criminal trial.
He was shocked, as was everyone at the school. At least he wasn't the jury foreman. I assumed the danger of having a lawyer on the jury is that the other jurors might defer to them.
I remember hearing of a case where the crime was very technical so they did want a lawyer in the box to be able to explain it to the other jurors... I think it was the Orange Menace's felony case?
Also a lawyer, but young enough to remember one of my trial and jury selection professors telling me to buy a lotto ticket if I somehow got picked to be on one.
To be fair, I also wouldn’t want one of me on the jury. They have enough to deal with in the courtroom as it is; the last thing they need is someone who knows how the sausage is made pulling a 12 angry men during the deliberation process.
When I was an intern, my supervising attorney got picked to be in jury. In a criminal case and he is a criminal defense attorney. And he knew the prosecution, personally.
He did declare that but there was no actual conflict of interest. He wasn’t involved in the case and he and his office didn’t represent the defendant. I guess the best way to explain it is the appearance of impropriety, it looks wrong but it isn’t wrong.
The prosecutor could have dismissed him. But he wasn’t dismissed. He was asked “can you be impartial” and he said yes. Everyone clearly believed the he can and he was impartial.
Yea, I remember hearing that its a problem if the jury knows you're a lawyer, since they will immediately just follow what you say because you're a lawyer and its easy.
Same as you. I want to be on a jury but I've never gotten beyond providing some basic info. Lawyer as well and I think that has something to do with never being chosen.
From what I've seen, I've been in pools 5 times and been through voir dire 3 times, is that they want people who don't know how the sausage is made. They want people who are the least knowledgeable about both the legal process and the subject matter of the case. The easiest minds to mold. Like, if this is a patent case, they wouldn't want someone who has submitted a patent on the jury.
I know in Canada being a lawyer just straight up disqualifies you from being a juror. I know that one for a fact cuz I've heard it multiple times from a Canadian lawyer. I think there are some US states like that where it's either a disqualifier or a for cause reason so that neither party has to use any challenges. But I will admit I'm not as confident in the sourcing on that one
If you’re being asked screening questions, answer “Yes, daddy/mommy” or “No, daddy/mommy.” Otherwise pooping your pants might work.
Jokes aside, I don’t really want to recommend ways to avoid it. I’m sure others will lol, but I do think jury duty is something people ideally shouldn’t avoid.
I did get summoned three years ago and I think they disqualified me because I asked if we were going to be able to see the alleged perpetrator’s previous record of similar incidents lol
I know it's a trope to get out of jury duty, but assuming you can afford to do so (I know the economics don't always align), I suggest going through with the experience. It's about the only thing left a citizen can do to effect the outcome of the law. You ever see a traffic stop that enrages you on here? The chances of you sitting on a jury of something egregious is pretty low, but you never know and you may save someone's life (both by handing down a proper sentence to a properly guilty person or keeping an innocent person out of jail).
This. We Americans should not be complaining about what our juries do if we are not willing to serve in one when asked. In some countries your people have to serve in the military when they turn 18.
We Americans don’t have that requirement so a short jury trial is something we should do when asked if it does not create a problem financially.
I watched a woman hem and haw and do everything she could to get dismissed and it disgusted me.
I worked with another woman who said her mother told her not to register to vote because then she wouldn't be called for jury duty.
No wonder this country has gone to shit.
The problem is that you don't really get paid. All the time you could be spending at home, or making money, you're spending at the court-house. And if the case is high profile enough they might even be sequestered, and they aren't allowed to discuss the case at all outside of that room.
You still get to go home. Unless you live hours away (which could be a valid reason to dismiss you) you’ll be able to leave to tend to your home every night.
Well in that case you kinda just have to hope they sympathize with you or think it’ll distract you too much. Otherwise they’d probably just tell you to give them a large breakfast or find someone to house sit.
If you're registered to vote, you can be summoned for jury duty. Honestly, nobody at the courthouse is trying to jam anybody up over jury duty. When you get the summons, there's instructions for what to do if there's a conflict. I've done jury duty twice. The only way you're going to piss anybody off is just 1) not showing up 2) not following instructions and showing up the day of with an excuse that you can't be there because your pets need fed 3 times a day. Then they might waste your time just for funsies. My wife got a jury summons 8-10 years ago. She had a medical thing she didn't want to reschedule, she followed the directions and she got a letter saying her duty would be postponed for 1 year, just saying expect to be summoned again since you go to the front of the line. She's never been called again.
I'm Australian, so I get paid regardless and would be quite interested to be on a Jury, I'm almost 40 and have never been called on, I know one colleague who was called on but not selected.
They'll ask you if you have any biases they should know before you're actually picked. Make something up that makes them not want you.
Throw out a "I think police are liars and more likely to manufacturer evidence than put effort into actually solving a crime" and you won't be on the jury.
This happens! My cousin was sexually assaulted as a child. It was was a case about this same thing. He told them he had a bias. They asked him to share his story, he reluctantly did, and they picked him.
Literally just tell the room you don't recognize the authority of the court and will engage in jury nullification if your moral code objects to the charges despite evidence and you'll be out within 5 minutes.
Both sides get a chance to judge the jurors and have say on who gets in our not. One side likely saw your cousin as favorable for them and the other didn’t object so they were allowed
Maybe you could tell them that you don't trust the police or the legitimacy of any evidence they bring forward. The prosecutor wouldn't want someone like that on a jury.
I was literally the only mf wearing a suit the first case I was in the pool for so I think they just assumed I was a lot smarter/more important than just a well dressed community college grad lol.
•
u/Reesewithoutaspoon2 Jul 16 '26
I’d like to be on a jury, but I never get picked when I’m called for jury duty :(