My sister was on a relatively simple (DNA, the accused was already incarcerated for a similar crime) murder trial and she still missed three weeks of work. Fortunately she worked for a very large company that both could schedule around her absence and who paid her while she was on jury duty. Most people don't have that option.

Jury compensation in my county is $10/day, a sandwich and a bus pass.

If you have a situation that prevents you from being able to serve on a long jury, that's one thing, but so many people just do not want to go at all.

Sitting around twidding your thumbs on the off chance somebody doesn't cop a plea is gigantic waste of time.

The system will get better jurors when they stop treating them like cattle and respect their time. You can't appeal to people's civic virtue when their only service to the community almost always consists of sitting in an uncomfortable room reading a trashy novel until somebody tells them they can go home.

Been through that drill three times.

...they have a call in system. Saves some time and trouble.

Let Judge Judy decide small cases.

Let juries be called only for criminal and very high dollar cases.

It wastes everybody's time otherwise.

--but it's not. Lawyers select juries for those they think they can easily persuade. The OP is right in calling attention to this problem but the solution is not for more "smart" people to agree to serve. Under the present system they will be eliminated immediately-- or if they somehow survive the cut, they will be unable to influence the majority.

If you sit on juries you can see a lot of injustice being done. It's a twisted antiquated system that has not much to do with the intent of the Bill of Rights. Waste of people's time and money as it stands. It could be improved but unless people object, it won't be. Nobody should be forced to sit on a jury. If you want to keep juries, then it should be a random selection of whoever is called. Use Judge Judy for cases where it makes no economic sense to go through the motions of a jury trial. Then you have a smaller pool of people who are willing to voluntarily commit their time to serving and they can be used for more important decisions.

I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is the idea that defendants in criminal trials should lose their right to have a trial by jury. I don't believe that putting the power of that decision into the hands and thoughts of a single person is a good idea.

(Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I believe you mean when you say use Judge Judy)

I have absolutely nothing against trying to improve the system. I am not claiming it is being well applied. I am simply stating that I believe judge and jury are roles which should remain separate in the case of criminal trials (unless the defendant chooses to waive that right)

I have said here several times that I think we should have Judge Judy for lesser cases, saving the expense and time sink of seating a jury for very serious offenses. But even if you do keep juries for more severe cases, the system needs a huge overhaul. It's not working, as decisions like these in question show.

So I would agree that juries should be limited to criminal and civil cases that evolve from a criminal cases.

And can you clarify the meaning of the term "judge Judy" that you keep using?

You are incorrect if you thought I meant to eliminate all juries. I am saying-- limit them to criminal cases. (The definition of what is criminal would extend to white collar crimes of a certain level of abuse).

Judge Judy--just my term for decision by judge, no jury. This is the way all lesser cases should be tried. Lawyers make their cases to the judge. Seating inexperienced (and after jury selection) the most lo-info and malleable jurors you can find, is the norm--what lawyers always shoot for. How is that fair to anybody?

Taxpayers are footing the bill for this colossal waste of money and human resources. It can take several days to seat a jury. People have to risk their jobs and income to serve. It would be better to limit juries to the cases that really require them. If I had a choice in a non-criminal case I'd choose not to have a jury. In case after case that I have seen, the present system is not working. It's antiquated, cumbersome, and justice is not served a good bit of the time. Like everything that needs fixing in this country, there's no political will to do it. So I do not participate any longer.

Thx for Q

then I would suggest a trip to the bookstore is in order!

Your post above made it sound as if the only reading choices a member of the Jury Pool will have are "Trashy Novels".

I think that's silly.

Take a tablet device with you. Watch cat videos, for crying out loud!

I couldn't take a computer, ipod, phone, kindle, nothing.

I'm surprised I got in with a watch.

Maybe I need a smarter watch.

Been there, put up with that.

hot and we couldn't get them to crack a window until the day was more than half over. In Hudson County, NJ, one gets FIVE dollars a day for jury duty (the amount goes up to $40/day if it goes longer than 3 days). Since parking in Jersey City SUCKS, I took the bus. My bus fare round trip was $4.70. So I was paid THIRTY CENTS to sit in a stifling hot room for 8 hours. I was called for a civil case. Fortunately for me, the judge excused people who wouldn't be paid by their employer while serving on a jury.

Reminds me of the opponents to healthcare for all because they might wait a little longer.

Most people CERTAINLY can't afford to lose their job, hire a lawyer while they're not working and fight a wrongful termination suit.

I get paid my normal hourly rate as if I was working my regular job, however, when we get our mileage and per diem checks, we have to surrender them to the treasurer's office. We are not allowed to cash them.

Civic duty are eliminated from the pool by both sides during voir dire.

The lawyers want doe-eyed nitwits on the jury.

I've been summoned for jury duty many times, but have never served on a jury. I'm always rejected because I'm just too bloody liberal and outspoken, I assume.

And was not selected.
Always seemed odd that only once in almost 40 years would I get called....

Called once, spent one day at the courthouse and the case was settled out of court. Here county is $9/day plus mileage (since the 80s I think) and no meal $$.
My dad was an intelligent, well spoken retiree and would have made an excellent juror. But when he was summoned for jury duty, apparently you can get out of serving simply by being older than 65, and he did.

who shouldn't go anywhere near a jury.

I register, vote, was in the military, and pay my taxes. I am not "off the grid" by any means. I really want to be a juror, but it has never happened...

I don't know why I've never been called.

Just another 'ist' to you?

Famous Deists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists

I've removed the word you objected to.

I have nothing against anyone, I was just trying to .....

Never mind. I removed the word you didn't like.

I let them know I am a long-time night worker......in my younger days it wasn't a problem but now.........people work a long time on these trials and they, and the person on trial, deserve better than someone on the jury who cannot stay awake

The gas to the court and back--about $20. Lost wages--$!20
Jury duty shouldn't be a financial burden for jurors.

And your job is to follow instructions. period.

May you get the first round of them.

I'd rather folks that will decide based on the letter of the law, defense and prosection counsels doing their best jobs and a judge with proper control of his/her court.

or other jurors with an agenda.

My bad. I thought this was in reference to the Dunn jury taking so long and possibly not "doing the right thing"

Too many heads being called for around here.

I think justice would be served more times than not if more "smart people" didn't try to avoid jury duty and the only ones on the jury were people so incompetent that they couldn't even get out of jury duty.

We need smarter, more impartial, juries. That would happen if more people didn't try to avoid their duty.

My personal experiences on juries have been what I would call rewarding.

They are tired of dealing with only law and order republicans types who show up.

I suspect they WANT law and order types. People that love cops. How else do you explain all the cops getting off when clearly they should have been convicted?

I've been on two juries in my life and, both times, it was clear that my fellow jurors, despite instructions to the contrary, had made up their minds very early on and were ready to end it so they could get out by lunchtime and have the afternoon off. I guess they were planning on lying to their employers or whatever. I tried to put the brakes on and ensure we deliberated for at least an hour.

I don't think the jury system, as currently constituted, works very well. Some people simply cannot afford to miss work, if they are stuck on a jury for days or weeks. This is not conducive to sober deliberation. Most people are not critical thinkers. They tend to believe one side or the other, whichever they find most persuasive, and appeals to logic fail.

you do have a choice. You cannot be forced to do jury duty.

What do you mean, you cannot be forced? I have never seen or heard of any way to get out of it without legal percussions.

excused. Ask around. You cannot be forced. You do have rights.

Or, if you don't want to deal with getting formally excused, just go to the jury selection and tell them you have college degrees. You get booted off fast, usually. Lawyers don't want the intelligentsia on juries. An honest lawyer will tell you that.
-------

If it's a criminal case, then it makes sense to go to the incredible time and expense to seat a jury. If non-criminal, Judge Judy should decide. This is my opinion after being involved with it. Calling and seating juries of twelve for lesser cases is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, and the way juries are selected, very often justice is not served. It's an antiquated system that does not fit modern times. Clogs the system and wastes everybody's time and money.

If you believe the above statement, and state it in a courtroom, you will not be selected.

I have been on a jury three of those times, once they pled out before we deliberated, one was a criminal case, and one was a civil case. The two where we deliberated were horrid experiences. Most of the people on the jury were swayed by smoke and mirrors and snake oil. It was impossible to deal with them and it made it impossible. But even if I had found a way to stay off of these juries, I would still have to show up every day for a week, losing work. And they do not case.

I agree with you. This is not the way to do it. The last one I was on was so difficult that I flat out told the judge exactly what you have said, and I told him I refuse to go through this again. He told me that if I were called again, and seated, my option was to go to jail myself if I were to refuse.

And stating all that you suggest works fine if they ask you anything.....but they never do. At least not here.

--for corroborating what I've said. If more people would object to this, I think something would have to be done about it. But people just keep on putting up out of fear of retribution.

I would get some advice from a sympathetic legal source. You've done your time. You can argue that it's a hardship to you, is causing emotional distress at this point, and you do not want to participate. What's more, you don't believe that the process leads to justice being served. Judges and officials don't want to hear that. But the bottom line is that nobody should be forced against their will to do jury service.

I read that participating in a protest rally can get you off jury duty, even if not arrested for civil disobedience. I throw this out because people reading this might have done that and it could be useful. But I think in your case, you have a good case for sheer emotional distress.
Seek further advice.
-----

I have made up my mind to be a conscientious objector. UNTIL the system is changed so that juries are not able to be so easily gamed, I will not serve. I have experienced what you did. It is depressing and disheartening to see the jury system in action. Like you said, they select for those who will be swayed by the slightest "smoke and mirrors and snake oil." This is a system with built-in leeway for huge abuse. That aspect of it needs to change, if you keep juries for criminal cases. In lesser cases, Judge Judy would do a much better job of meting out justice.

and with good reason. If more intelligent and informed people were on juries, it would be a benefit to all of us. But you are right, that is not the case.

I was just called (again) last month after several years reprieve. I had thought that my conversation with the last judge had made it clear that I was not a good choice to be called. I told him that the system sucked, and that I believed there would be no true fairness in the courts until they changed the system. In fact, I said that I believe there should be professional jurors instead of us dumbass citizens who have never seen the inside of a courtroom until we get put on a jury....making it really easy to sway us with the better attorney who throws everything against the wall hoping something will stick. I know that system would also have flaws, but this one we use now is a disaster. Think OJ. Think George Zimmerman. So many cases where a high priced attorney is able to buffalo the jurors.

Lucky for me, that last call for jury duty was to sit on a Grand Jury---one week a month for 16 months. When we were asked if there was anything that would keep us from servicing, I couldn't believe that I was the only person who stood up and said that there is no way I could survive on 3/4 of my pay for 16 months. The judge actually said that this was not an excuse. But in the end, I was one of the people dismissed. Don't get me wrong, if I were retired or independently wealthy, I would have loved to do this service. That just is not the case.

OMG--Sixteen months! --and take a 1/4 cut in pay (assuming you would not actually lose the job). That is ridiculous. A serious hardship. Glad you got off.

I couldn't agree more with everything you said here. Yes, haven't people seen enough miscarriages of justice to believe that it is going on every day, in every court in the land? And a lot of that is due to the serious deficiencies of the jury system itself.

and I have participated on juries a number of times. But now I am a conscientious objector.

I don't believe in and cannot validate this system from what I saw. There is so much abuse of the law in the courtroom where I am, it makes your head swim. I do not believe in enforced jury duty. I do not believe in the way juries are selected, with everyone who is not deemed to be in the pocket of the lawyers eliminated. At least make it random selection--then you might get some people with half a brain left on juries. (I got on because of my work being seen as let's just say, among the "easily persuadable" personality types). There is so much waste and corruption in this system. Not cost-effective and doesn't even result in justice a good bit of the time. System needs a total overhaul. Honest lawyers agree with me.

I no longer participate and I never spent any time in jail or have any black marks--I am just excused. Those who feel as I do--Get Advice.

If people keep putting up with this, it will never change.

First and foremost, I'm not in any way shape or form insulting anyone's intelligence with this post, just relating my personal experiences.

I've attempted to serve on every jury duty that I've been asked to from federal to local. Probably half a dozen times in all. Each and every time I've been excused because I have a Master of Science degree. Logical thinking, mathematics, and problem solving; that sort of shit.

Jury of your peers and all of that I suppose. But what happens if I ever get pulled into a trial where I'm the defendant? Can I instruct my lawyer to only accept people with advanced degrees?

and you will be kicked off first.

It is absolutely ridiculous what goes on in jury selection.

5 or 6 times but I've never even made it to the interview stage. My number just never comes up. And it's too bad because I would love to serve, I've never tried to get out of jury duty.

I have it in May. Neither of us tried to get out of it, although I'm disabled and he works full time during the "standard" week. Some folks MUST "get out of it" for various reasons. We are both fully capable of serving, and his employer pays his wage while he serves (if called). Lucky in that regard - many employers do not.

I served 2 years ago, as well, and hung a jury because I did NOT believe the case was proven, and I did believe a few jurors looked at the accused (Alaska Native), the reason for the arrest (DUI, although vehicle was parked in a private driveway) and immediately judged before even listening to the case.

I can be stubborn.

Maybe someone else will.

... I just gave him one of mine for you.

while she was asleep in the backseat of her car. The keys were in the ignition.

I remember my dad telling me about a jury he was on where there was a dispute with a mother and a son and some police officers. Everyone but my dad was ready to convict the mother and son except my dad who felt that the state hadn't proved the case and was able to get the other jurors to see his point of view and that there was reasonable doubt. Wish I could remember more of the details but lucky for them that my dad was on the jury or they would have gone to jail.

Both civil cases. The first was a wrongful death case the second was a dispute between neighboring businesses.

Interesting but time consuming. I don't try to get out of it because it's important in a free society.

It is your civic duty when called! I never ever try to get out of serving on the jury. It's a very rewarding service and I think everyone should experience it!

Ten years ago or so, I received a summons for jury duty, I reported on Monday Morning and was chosen for a DUI trial. During the trial it became very obvious to all jurors that the officers were lying, after viewing a police video of the accused going through the paces it was very obvious that she was not at all impaired. We found her not-guilty by unanimous decision, that only took 5 minutes of deliberation.
I was glad that I was there to right a wrong. I felt bad that, that defendant had been put through all of the expense and inconvenience of a bogus arrest by an arrogant unlawful arrest. If we could have issued charges against the obviously lying officers, we would have.

Everyone needs to do their civic duty, in order to make sure that our laws are instituted in a reasonable and justified manner!

I told her not much chance of that seeing as how I was #621 on the alternate list.

Turned out not to be regular jury duty, but Grand Jury. In our county at least, there are two grand juries seated at all times, one that meets on Wednesdays and one on Fridays. And selection doesn't work like jury trials like you see on TV. Grand jurors are chosen by the supervising judge and one of the senior State's Attorneys who review the questionnaires and then call the people they're interested in to be privately interviewed. Long story short, not only was I called, I was the first person interviewed and was chosen and named foreperson on the spot. Every Friday for 12 weeks, and the boss was plenty pissed. Then again, she was plenty pissed most of the time, so the difference was only minimally discernible. And anyway, they weren't letting people talk their way out of it easily that day so it wouldn't have done me any good to try, which I didn't because I wanted to serve. I was a crime victim once and feel as if I have a vested interest in seeing that the right person is punished.

In the end, it was a very interesting experience and I'm really glad that I did it. I also came out of it hating that tacky adage about "being able to get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich". There were 16 of us, we took it very seriously and yes, we did NTB some cases. That notion is just plain insulting to the people who do serve.

I served in Texas, and there were a few cases where we basically laughed the DA out of the room, or were hopping mad at a cop who obviously thought his shit didn't stink.

One of the fellas on the jury nicknamed her Miss Ham Sandwich because she apparently thought we'd indict on all of her cases just on the basis of her wonderfulness. As it turned out, one of the cases that we NTBed was one of hers and she was furious. Well gee, maybe if she'd paid us sufficient respect to actually show us enough evidence to indict that might not have happened.

A lot of it was kinda rote, but I recall one case where they brought in an Illinois State Trooper to testify dressed like Smokey the Bear and military crisp in garb, speech and carriage and taking it so seriously he was almost like a cartoon character. When he and the attorneys left the room for us to deliberate, the whole room burst into gales of hysterics the instant that the door closed behind them. A nice, and rare, bit of comic relief.

Once I was very close to being on a murder trial. They went through the jury selection process, but a deal was reached before the trial started. The second time I sat around for hours waiting to be called, then asked to go to the other courthouse (separate court houses for criminal and civil). Right after we got to the other courthouse we were told we were no longer needed and sent home.

all criminal cases. The first time I got the summons, however, was in the '70's when it was legal to excuse you from jury duty simply for being female. I had just started a new job and was young and didn't know what to do so I asked the boss. He pointed to the "being female" loophole and I had to use it to get out of serving. Really bugged me but I had no choice.

Mr. froggy has 5 times. Each time, he was let go because he was related to the defendant.

I have a car registered in my name, have a driver's license, registered to vote, pay taxes, all that happy horseshit. Never ever ever been called. My husband was called once but he was ineligible because it for the county that his car was registered in, which was different than where he lived at the time (hadn't changed his address)

meanwhile, one of my coworkers has no credit, isn't registered to vote, no property in her name, no nothing. Just a driver's license, and she just got called for her 8th jury duty. She's 27, I'm 38.

So fucking annoyed. I would LOVE to be called, just for the "civic duty" part of it. Meanwhile my co-worker doesn't give a shit, has no understanding of civic duty, and is just happy to get paid days off work. She has no interest or concept of "justice," and she freely admits this. She states she bases guilt vs innocence on her "feelings" about someone. She admits that she really doesn't pay attention to the case, and that she has already pre-determined guilt or innocence by her visual like or dislike of the defendant.

She gets called 8 times. I get called none.

mind
fucking
boggling.

you may never get called. I lived in NH for 20 years....never even got a survey questionnaire.

Have been a juror twice and a first-person once. I recommend it. Humbling.

I helped put away a crack dealer. No "ists" involved, which was a pleasant surprise, given that I live in the town that gave us Lee Atwater, if that tells you anything. Everyone thought things out and cared about the evidence. I guess it's not as bad here as that hellhole in Florida.

as well as intellectually (meaning lawyers and judges not talking down to jurors like they are complete idiots and boneheads), then maybe that would happen.

But jury duty is the more cumbersome, inconvenient thing out there (and a few states have laws that say that employers do not need to pay your salary [if you are salaried and not wage] when you are duty).

Enjoy jury duty for $7.75 USD an hour.

Juror stipends must have been set some time in the 1800s.

until i was picked to serve on a jury to determine whether or not a sexual predator should be released after a long term confinement. i was very dubious about letting him go but most if the jurors just wanted to go home and voted to let him go. he was set free and a few weeks later he raped and murdered someone.

jury was the opposite of yours. I had always wanted to sit on a jury but after this experience never again.

In the case I was involved in the guy had already served jail time and a month before he was due to be released he was civilly committed to a treatment center for sexually dangerous people. Our jury was there to re-commit him.

I thought the way this was handled was not justice at all. I will use any excuse not to serve on a jury again.

That was a question the lawyers had for choosing the jury when my turn came.

They didn't tell her the trial would be so long in either case. So far I have only had to go in and sit in the jury room.

When we are summoned we are allowed to postpone up to 6 months, and as a result of Patty's experiences we always request a postponement if we are going to be traveling within the next couple of months. The airlines and the rest of the travel industry do not issue refunds for cancellations due to jury duty, neither does trip cancellation insurance typically cover that contingency.

I have no aversion to doing my civic duty, but these things can drag out quite a bit longer than they lead us to believe.

and since the English system says no-one has to serve again within 2 years, I said I'd rather not. It's a minimum of a week and a half of your time in our system. I didn't think the other people on the 2 juries I served on were significantly less fair or competent than me, so I don't think it's a big problem to use the standard court rules to step aside.

always agreed to serve, but never have.

I've got no desire to risk any penalties. I answer all questions honestly, but never been put on a jury

jury nullification!

One time long ago, I worked for this insurance company. They didn't pay for days lost due to jury duty, so you could get out of it because of that. Hilarious. At the same time, they didn't like the verdicts for plaintiffs that came down. They were helping contribute to that (since their employees might have developed some defense mind).

The 7,000 mile commute might be a problem.

Remember as a juror you have the right to judge the law also...

I will make it very clear that I oppose the death penalty and cannot sentence someone to death.

I oppose drug possession laws, and in a non-violent drug case I will be a nullyfying juror. I will not even listen to the testimony. Automatic acquittal.

In a case of a homeless man arrested for stealing bread or basic necessities, I will also be a nullyfying juror.

I think jurors have every right to set a defendant free if the law is outrageous. It is basic democray that holds our lawmakers and prosecutors accountable.

If after all that, both sides still want me so be it.

My mother got summoned for jury duty. She was 76 years old and had dementia. She did not have to report.

Many years ago in my small hometown a woman was summoned to jury duty and made it into the courtroom questioning process. One of the attornies asked if she knew any of those involved in the criminal case. She replied that she did not. The attorney questioned her again saying he was sure she knew the arresting police officer. She happened to work for my father. The arresting officer was my brother. She did not know him, but she was dismissed anyway.

In Minnesota, the jury pool is made up of registered voters, those with valid driver's licenses, and those with state-issued IDs.

I would like to be on a jury sometime, just not a case that lasts for several weeks.