Have you ever served on a jury?

[Political Tiger]

Poll question: Have you ever served on a jury?

I've served on two juries and found the experience to be fascinating and very enlightening, so I'm curious as to how many others have served on a jury. :)

[Javaman]

1. I have been called but never have served. Incidentally, I have been called yet again.

I go in on the 23rd to see if I get picked.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. No.

"What do you do for a living?"
"I'm a psychologist for the Department of Corrections."
"You're dismissed."

[Ohio Joe]

3. No

I've been called in five times now and never gotten to serve :(

[Wildewolfe]

4. Called many times

... never have been selected out of the pool.

[SmileyRose]

56. I'm called at least once a year and never picked.

I've notice the one's they tend to pick in my county are people who barely made it through high school or never made it through high school. Any time I've attempted to speculate why that might be they only answers I can come up with are not flattering to the quality of the judicial system in my county.

[eridani]

98. Probably not just your county

Washington Monthly had an article about ten years ago with data showing that people with science and/or engineering backgrounds were less likely to get selected everywhere.

[suzie]

126. I served on a jury with people who probably just made it through high school.

And one person who had a graduate degree. When we entered the jury room, he said, "Well, I think I know what this case is about, does anyone else?" before we heard any testimony.

Most of the rest of the jurors had served previously on a jury. They all looked at the ceiling and said nothing. He was kicked off the jury.

The rest of the people were sensible folks who would actually listen to the judge, listen to the testimony and then render a decision. I thought they did a pretty good job of making a decision.

I think a lot of lawyers don't want that kind of guy on their jury. You're gonna hear two theories of the case, but they don't want people who will make up their own theory based on whatever weird ideas they have.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Nope.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

6. No.

I've never been called on either. Meanwhile, my 93 year-old grandmother gets called on every couple of years and my long-deceased grandfather (her husband) was called on to serve in 2005. He died in 1995.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Yes. I liked it. Interesting AND it got me off work. But, those lousy chairs....

I can only believe they were designed to make comfort, hence sleep, impossible.

But, more recent calls have been responded to with, "I'm an Anarchist and believe the justice system is irreparably corrupt." Works every time.

[Political Tiger]

14. I remember the chairs in the jury booth were comfortable

but not in the deliberation room. It was small with a table and hard chairs....in fact, on the second jury I served, one of the other jurors was claustrophobic so the judge let us deliberate in the courtroom instead, and that in itself was interesting.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Yes, and I enjoyed it.

[Maru Kitteh]

9. Very little happens in my county. I guess that's a good thing.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. I've served twice...

Both times on civil cases. I've gotten onto the panel for several criminal cases, but have always been dismissed...

Lawyers do NOT like anyone with the ability to think and analyze on their juries!

And I was told this by a defense lawyer...

:shrug:

[Shakespeare]

17. As someone who's worked several trials, I assure you that's a myth.

The defense attorney was pulling your leg.

Attorneys (on both sides) want jurors who are intelligent and capable of analytical thought, especially for civil cases that concern matters like contracts (state court) and copyright (federal court). The issues at trial can get rather complicated, and you need jurors who can make sense of what they're presented during trial.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

23. Let me give you the details, and then you tell me he was kidding...

Three young black males were accused of assaulting a young white woman in Los Angeles. They each had a lawyer, of course.

I was a working RN at the time. I actually made it into the second day of voir dire. I saw the lawyers all talking to each other, and then they turned as a group and looked right at me. Then I was told that the court thanks and excuses Juror #1 (me.)

I saw one of the lawyers in the hall, and I said "Why did you let me go? I would have been good for you." He replied "You're a nurse. You know how to look."

Seems to me that they did not want me for just that reason. I think he was serious...


:shrug:

[Shakespeare]

24. "know how to look" at what, specifically?

Attorneys can have many, many reasons for dismissing a juror--sometimes for good reason, sometimes on a whim.

And yes, I stand by what I said. Having worked on jury selection many times, I've NEVER seen a juror eliminated simply for being smart.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

25. He was saying that I knew what to look for...

That I knew how to assess injuries.

My experience runs counter to yours. I've seen jurors dismissed for being smart many times. And not just me.

[Shakespeare]

27. Really? You've been privy to the private conferences of attorneys on both sides...

...during jury selection?

Well, I bow to your omniscience, then.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

30. Now you know better than that...

I am far from omniscient. I'm just telling you what I've seen over and over ...

Just my take on things.

[Two Americas]

49. what you "see"

If you are "seeing" this - "jurors dismissed for being smart many times" - then I could see why someone might not want you on a jury since you may be unable to separate what you think you "see" from what is actually objectively true.

Perhaps your notion of "assessing injuries" - and your emphasis on that - is the very reason that you would not make a good juror since you go into the trial with a rigid mindset as to what is important and what the case was about. How would the nature of the injuries necessarily impact on the guilt of the suspects? It may or it may not. What prosecutor would fail to present relevant information as to the assessment of the injuries - by experts - that any juror could understand? A juror who thinks that their expertise is special, and trumps whatever expert witnesses the attorneys may call, or that being a juror has anything to do with their own expertise ir being smart, is a juror who is prejudiced. I would toss you from the jury if I heard you talking the way you are here.

As a person who served on a major murder trial with racial overtones, I watched dozens and dozens of white jurors tossed, and I was the only white on the jury, in a trial of a young black man who had murdered dozens of white people and that had gotten a lot of media attention. It was quite clear watching that process that most whites were being accurately assessed as being unable to reliably look beyond race in judging the merits of the case, by little comments they made, comments that I am sure they thought were completely benign and innocent. It was an education. On the other side, the prosecution routinely tossed young Black males from the jury. Both were doing their jobs - eliminating jurors who might not look sympathetically on the case they were about to present.

I asked the attorney for the accused after the trial about this and he said that most whites betray prejudice without realizing they are - body language, tone of voice and little seemingly innocent comments. He wanted at least one white juror, and he watched who mingled with whom, how whites interacted with the people of color in the jury pool, and their body language and tone of voice when talking to people. "It is my job, and I have to look at what is actually there, not what people want me to think is there" he said.


...

[bluedawg12]

63. So true, they are looking for a jury of peers, not a jury of experts.

[tonysam]

81. Yep.

Sometimes it is just a matter of wanting more women or men or minorities on a jury. Or young people or whoever the attorneys think will be advantageous for their side of a case.

It's never personal.

[Lionel Mandrake]

35. What do you mean, "having worked on jury selection"?

Are you a lawyer? A jury selection consultant? or what?

[Shakespeare]

37. I meant exactly what I said.

I'm a litigation assistant for both state and federal cases (more federal than state these days--heavy on copyright matters in multiple jurisdictions). I write juror questionnaires, and assist with selection.

Are you an attorney?

[bluedawg12]

64. Cool! That sounds like fascinating work.

I always wondered who and how they decide the details of jury selection.

Good for you!

[AlCzervik]

74. spiffy! That must be really interesting.

i love law stuff.

[Lionel Mandrake]

91. Nope.

I am not an attorney. My only experience in and around courtrooms is having been called for jury duty several times. I was a juror on one criminal case and an alternate on another criminal case. In the former case, a man was accused of burglary. We, the jury, deliberated carefully and found him guilty. Afterward, the judge invited us into his chambers and said: "It was an open and shut case. What took you so long?" The answer was, we wanted to be very sure we weren't sending an innocent man to prison.

In the "Perry Mason" TV shows, the murderer would usually confess after being cross-examined by Perry Mason. That aspect of the show was not realistic. But a lawyer once told me that the courtroom procedure in "Perry Mason" was realistic. Maybe that's because Erle Stanley Gardner was a lawyer. But I digress.

Here's a scenario for you: a defense attorney knows that his client is guilty as hell and that the prosecution has a strong case. Naturally, he wants a jury trial. He will use peremptory challenges to remove jurors he doesn't like. What kind of jurors would those be? (Hint: CaliforniaPeggy knows what she's talking about.)

Once when I was on jury duty in downtown LA and had a couple of hours to kill, I wandered into the Law library, which is conveniently located near the courthouses. I noticed that there were a great many books on the jury selection process, also known as "voir dire". Many of these books were about strategies and techniques for selecting a favorable jury.

I concluded that "voir dire" is a huge industry fueled by peremptory challenges. It is not clear that justice is served by this industry. Maybe we would have fairer trials if we got rid of peremptory challenges, as the UK has done.

[Shakespeare]

92. Voir dire isn't an "industry," it's a legal process.

And it's a process that, for all its headaches, gives us much fairer juries. Counsel on both sides are given a limited number of peremptory challenges (Hint: no, CaliforniaPeggy does not know what she's talking about).

I'll take our court system over the UK's any day--the way they deal with libel/slander cases is just one example why I feel that way.

[Lionel Mandrake]

94. Of course peremptory challenges are limited.

If they weren't, an obstinate lawyer could prevent the jury from ever being selected.

The question is: why should there be ANY peremptory challenges? They cause delays and encourage lawyers to play games. I haven't yet heard a good argument for having even one peremptory challenge.

I agree that the Brits are weird on libel and slander - they put too much of a burden on the defendant. But isn't it possible that they are better in some areas, while we are better in others? You don't have to choose between their whole system and ours to debate the merits of peremptory challenges.

[Shakespeare]

95. Oh, for example, to keep the brother of the guy who was convicted of or a victim of a simlar crime..

...off the jury. It's to protect both sides against bias, and that seems rather straightforward. Why you need an argument to persuade you of that is a little baffling.

Attorneys have much more important things to do than "play games," and I assure you judges have no patience for that, either.

[Lionel Mandrake]

103. The brother of the guy ... would be challenged for cause.

If you are baffled, perhaps you should read about the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in the UK. As I mentioned before, the Brits got rid of peremptory challenges in order to make trials more fair, not less fair.

Or you might take a look at the this article from the University of NSW Law Journal:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2000/20.html

which states that

One advocate for the abolition of the peremptory challenge maintains that,

claims extolling the value of the peremptory challenge are predicated on nothing more than baseless speculation and courthouse apocrypha. The evils it propagates, however, are well documented. The peremptory challenge is habitually employed to discriminate against citizens on the basis of invidious and atavistic classifications. It is used to affix marks of inferiority on historically disenfranchised groups. Its exercise subverts the representativeness of the petit jury. . . . In short, it stands as an anti-democratic artifact that countermands a century of civil rights legislation and without substantial justification. In each of these ways, the peremptory challenge undermines not only the appearance of justice, but the cause and ends of justice itself.

[Shakespeare]

105. LOL

Please--don't condescend to attempt to quote journal articles or case law to me. There is nothing "evil" about a peremptory challenge.

See you in the jury pool someday.

[Lionel Mandrake]

110. Did I attempt to quote?

I thought I had succeeded in quoting. ;-)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

99. How do you know CaliforniaPeggy knows what she's talking about?

Not a slam on her, but we're all just people on the internet. It's not like you're her husband, and really know her or anything.

[Lionel Mandrake]

106. She speaks from personal experience.

She was there. The attorney spoke to her. She reported what was said. I believe her.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

117. Personal experience is often colored by our own perceptions and isn't accurate

That's why eyewitnesses are pretty useless in courts.

[Zomby Woof]

120. Bam!

:thumbsup:

[AlCzervik]

55. I've been called 3 times since i moved here and served once on a criminal case.

one of my fellow jurors was a surgeon, he seemed fairly intelligent.

[Two Americas]

44. oh nonsense

This generalization is without merit whatsoever. Lawyers do not want anyone on their juries who are potentially prejudiced. Of course they wouldn't tell you that. I can promise you that you were not tossed off of a jury for being too smart. I am not so sure that I would want a juror who has such an inflated opinion of themselves and their own abilities, however.

[SmileyRose]

61. You know what

I've read A LOT of Peggy's posts and she's hardly got an inflated opinion of herself. If she says a defense attorney in her locality told her that then I believe her.

I will also add that I have been called to serve at least once a year for the last 24 years in my county (sometimes twice in the same year) and once I did go 18 months but in consecutive calendar years. I am often picked for the pre-interview part of seating a jury but have never been chosen, and I don't mind at all. One thing I can say for sure is that those this did seat on the jury are almost always exclusively those of the crowd who either did not get through high school or barely made it. One can speculate till the cows come home about why that is.

[bluedawg12]

72. So you're selected so often because your one of "that crowd?"

"...the jury are almost always exclusively those of the crowd who either did not get through high school or barely made it."

Well, Ok. :shrug:

edit: The letter "S" in "So." :shrug:

[SmileyRose]

79. Did not say I was selected nor used "that crowd" - you clearly misread my post

or I didn't make myself clear enough. All I can ask is that you read it again and see if it makes more sense the second time. -- Granted I'm not the best person in the world to be able to put my actual thoughts into words sometimes.

[bluedawg12]

85. I got it. You weren't selected.

You're saying you weren't one of the crowd.

"One thing I can say for sure is that those this did seat on the jury are almost always exclusively those of the crowd who either did not get through high school or barely made it."

I understand. Thanks.

[SmileyRose]

86. Well, I am one of the crowd and then again I'm not.

I'm not the crowd that got picked for the jury but I am the crowd that struggled in school (did graduate and have some college but it's a battle royale). But the crowd who are professionals or college graduates have rarely ever been picked for the jury. Again, I have tried to speculate and what I can come up with does not paint a very flattering picture of my county's judicial system but since I don't know really how things work then we can speculate till the cows come home. I have no idea why it is.

From both your responses I'm assuming my using the phrase "the crowd" upset you. I don't know why - nothing particular was meant by it.

[bluedawg12]

89. Yeah, it's the crowd notion.

You nailed it. I just don't think of people who are not forutnate enough--for whatever reason--to have a H.S. education as "them," or "that crowd" or "the crowd."

I know some awfully bright folks who haven't finished high school, some run their own business, like tree and landscape business stuff.

Also, I know some highly educated people who can't find their bootocks with two hands. LOL!

Jury selection? I have no clue. :shrug:

[SmileyRose]

90. I think

you must have read a "them" or "that" into it that I didn't put there and absolutely did not mean to be there. You know we all filter what we read through our own views and experiences so......... anyways, believe me - nothing "us vs them" type thing was meant by it at all. Not in the least. That was just your filter.

And yeah, I know a couple of folks with advanced degrees who have no common sense at all. The one guy is an apparently brilliant engineer who, I kid you not, can't look at the head of a screw and know which screwdriver he needs. He's a genius and an idiot all at the same time.

[bluedawg12]

107. Filter

Your comments made me uncomfortable with what I sensed was elitism. It wasn’t my “filter,” at all. And “filter” is merely over used jargon for accusing someone else of having a preconceived notion, it’s dismissive and in this case disingenuous.

You were the one who noted in reply #56 that you were called to jury duty “at least once a year and never picked.”

You then offered your observations, “I've notice the one's they tend to pick in my county are people who barely made it through high school or never made it through high school.”

You could have simply said that they tended to pick people with a high school level of education or less. The word “barely” reveals your bias and your ultimate intent. Never mind how you claim to know their GPA or class ranking. Besides, so what if they picked people with a high school level of education or less? They get a voice in democracy and the judicial system too.

Then you went on to tell us what this type of jury selection, the one that excludes you, causes:

“Any time I've attempted to speculate why that might be they only answers I can come up with are not flattering to the quality of the judicial system in my county.”

You concluded that the answer is not flattering to the judicial system because they pick the less educated jurors over you.

That is an elitist “us vs. them,” mentality. “Us” being the ones who did finish high school, “us” being the ones, who, if we had been picked would not present an unflattering picture of the judicial system in the county and “them” being the “ones who barely made it through high school or not at all” and selecting “them” over “us,” means a negative consequence to the local judicial system.

What you are really saying is that picking people who are less well educated than you for jury duty creates some negative impact on your local judicial system. I reject that. There are right wing arguments that voting, for example, should be limited in the US to certain classes of people, because some are less well educated than others. If it can be postulated for voting, it can also be postulated for jury selection and it is abhorrent in both instances.

In reply #61 you again point out that you were called to, “ serve at least once a year for the last 24 years in my county...but have never been chosen...”

You make the same argument again about people who, “either did not get through high school or barely made it.” Only this time you make it with more vehemence. Previously you couched your argument with, “they tend to pick” certain types of people for jury duty. Now, you are (almost) certain, “One thing I can say for sure is that those (they) did seat on the jury are almost always...”

The second time around not only are you more certain that people, “who either did not get through high school or barely made it,” are selected for jury duty in preference to you, but you now refer to those people as, “those of the crowd who...”

“Those of the crowd who...” is elitist, divisive, and condescending. People with high school education or less, are not that “ crowd.”

“One thing I can say for sure is that those this did seat on the jury are almost always exclusively those of the crowd who either did not get through high school or barely made it. “

One thing I can say for sure, is that based on your answers, the only filter in use is yours, and it’s an elitist and biased filter against people whom you perceive to have less education than you, and that their participation in the judicial system means that somehow the system suffers. I see it as more democratic.

Anyone who thinks they are passed over for jury duty “because they are too smart” and others are selected because they are “less smart,” strike me as very arrogant. Of course it’s also handy as it can’t be proved or disproved, it’s a personal opinion about ones own self.

90. I think
you must have read a "them" or "that" into it that I didn't put there and absolutely did not mean to be there. You know we all filter what we read through our own views and experiences so......... anyways, believe me - nothing "us vs them" type thing was meant by it at all. Not in the least. That was just your filter.

In reply #90, you were on your way to clearing this up. I could accept that you meant nothing regarding us vs. them, or the elitism that your answers convey were unintentional, but the filter jargon was a little much, because you still didn't see how it sounded about people of a certain educational level. It wasn’t any filter other than the ones you used when you selected your words and thoughts.

Please understand, the reasons why you weren't picked for jury duty every year for the last 24 years is none of my business, nor is it my concern.

I am concerned that we not disparrage people with a high school education, or less, intentionally, or untinentionally.

It's your analysis of people whom you seem to think inferior as defined by their level of educational achievment that bothers me.

It's the kind of thing repugs say:

"Oh he's part of the crowd that barely made it out of high school." :eyes:

I'm not even sure you mean it the way it sounds, but, even after re--reading, it does come off as elitist.

Like I said, I have met some very smart people with many degrees after their name who were cold, miserable and uncaring, and I have met some wonderful people, who were smart, caring, well informed human beings with a high school education or less.

[SmileyRose]

111. Good heavens

I've said twice my post was in no way meant the way you've interpreted it. Obviously you've decided that not only am I no good at picking the perfecto word to suit you, but that I am a liar too. Makes it clear any discussion with you is just not possible so I won't waste any more of your time.

:-(

[Blue_In_AK]

71. Oh, I don't think that's true, CP.

I've been working in the legal biz for 34 years, civil (on both sides) and criminal, and we always wanted jurors who could think. The ones you didn't want were the dumb-asses or the ones with overly rigid opinions about things. But maybe things are different in California.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

73. My dear Blue!

I could certainly be wrong. But this is what I've seen, over and over again, as I said above. It got so I could tell who was going to be kicked off before it happened...

There's obviously a lot more to this than I thought...

:shrug:

:hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

76. Like I said,

maybe it's just California. :P

But I have been around the process of jury selection quite a bit, particularly when I worked for criminal defense lawyers, and there's a lot that goes into it. People are rejected for all kinds of reasons, and someone who may be unacceptable for one kind of case could be perfectly all right for another one. One lawyer I used to work for actually hired an expert to help with jury selection, and he used to have me do a quick little handwriting analysis (you didn't know I had that skill, did you?) of the juror questionnaires.

[AlCzervik]

102. Blue, California courts are like other ones, they want jurors who can think.

i was a jury with a surgeon, he's seemed an intelligent fellow. I agree with your comment up thread.

[LostinVA]

87. Not true -- both DAs and Defense (and judges) LOVE intelligent people on their juries

For example, they love jury pools in college towns, because they have a higher education level than "normal" jury pools. I know this for a fact, because when I lived in Charlottesville, I knew enough people in the profession to know that many people tried to ger a change of venue to Cbille for this very reason.

[sendero]

115. Exactly....

.... if you don't want to be empaneled, merely show that you have analytical thinking skills. Neither side wants that.

[polichick]

11. I was chosen for a jury on a drug case, but when I told the judge...

...that I didn't believe in America's "War on Drugs" he dismissed me.

[madmom]

12. Yes and I also found it very enlightening. I learned a lot about how our system works and

I think everyone should have to sit at least once.

[Political Tiger]

16. I have a friend who does everything possible to get out of it

and I always tell him he doesn't know what he is missing. It is extremely enlightening and you do learn a lot...not just about how our system of justice works but also about human nature.

[madmom]

45. My mom always said she didn't register to vote because she didn't want to sit

on a jury. Now the state she lives in uses drivers license registrations. I always laugh when she gets started asking if she's going to give up driving.

[hvn_nbr_2]

13. Called many times, sort of served once

I've been called many times but hardly ever even have to go in. Once I got on a jury in a civil suit, but the parties settled out of court before the trial finished. I think the defendents' witnesses made such asses of themselves, even when questioned by rookie incompetent counsel for the plaintiff, that they really didn't want to let it go to the jury.

[Brazenly Liberal]

15. Called many times - always rejected

I live in a quiet rural county. 90% of what little crime we have here is the local yahoos getting drunk and acting the fool. When the defense lawyers find out I have a cousin who sustained permanent brain damage when he was hit by a drunk driver, they pretty much lose interest in me as a juror. That is, unless the prosecutor finds out my BIL is a defense attorney and HE boots me first.

[Wickerman]

18. Yes, I served on a two day drug trial

It was, as you say very enlightening. The defense was horrid; I wonder if it wasn't set up for appeal? The prosecutor was good. I think, in retrospect, we made the wrong decision.

[Reader Rabbit]

19. It was a civil case, and I can't believe it ever got to court.

Some woman was suing her apartment complex because she tripped in the hallway—wearing 4-inch stiletto heels.

We, the jury, didn't even need to discuss it; we did hang out in the jury room and talked about it for an hour, so I guess you could say we deliberated over it. But many it was just to say things like, "Can you believe...!?!" Etc.

[TahitiNut]

20. 65 years old; registered voter and driver all my adult life; no criminal record. NEVER even called.

Not once ... not even a single jury notice. Ever. (I regard that more than a little strange when many have served multiple times.)

[LuckyLib]

33. Same story here. 60, never been even so much as sent a postcard.

And I've lived in three major cities and two towns of 60-100,000. My mother, 85, is called regularly every year.

[dana_b]

21. soooo boring - not a fascinating time

this woman was suing a market because she slipped and fell where their tile was cracked and wet. Her lawyer was one of the whiniest people I'd ever heard in my life!! I voted to give her something but most voted against it so she was s.o.l.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. Yes, twice in two years.

It was odd that I was picked for two juries in such a short span of time. However, I've not even had a summons in the past four years now.

[Papillon]

26. Served as juror on a federal drug case

It was interesting. It lasted a day and a half with lots of testimony by undercover agents. We found him guilty. I would like to serve on a grand jury.

[Stevenmarc]

28. car accident case, now I know 2 lawyers I would never hire.

Every time they opened their mouths they sunk deeper into a pool of ineptitude.

[Auggie]

29. Two civil trials

One fraud and one personal injury.

[frazzled]

31. Last time I was called, the jury got filled just inches from my voir dire questioning

And was I ever relieved: it was a murder one trial (earlier this year), seemingly with something to do with the police (people who had family or friends on police force were the only ones dismissed, except for one surgeon and one skinhead-looking kid the defense objected to). It was not a death penalty case, on which I would have had to refuse to serve. So I figured I would have to make a stab at it if called. But I really didn't want to be in the position of having to decide whether to send someone up for life. I got paid $17 for the day anyway, and it was interesting. A part of me wanted to go through the process. The other part knew I would have trouble.

I've been called for jury duty a number of times but have never had to serve (once, the judge cut a plea bargain before the trial began--first-time drug user to whom he did not want to have to apply mandatory sentencing: it was the potential jury's presence that allowed him to talk the guy into a plea bargain).

[backscatter712]

32. Been called, never actually seated on a jury.

I've spent a morning or two in the courthouse waiting, but my number never actually came up yet.

[unapatriciated]

34. Yes a wrongful death case...

It was very upsetting. they found for the doctor involved based of the plaintiff settling out of court with the primary care physician and receiving a monetary compensation. Not the facts.
My fellow jurors were worried more about hurting the doctors reputation than the facts.
They felt since the plaintiffs already received a monetary compensation from the primary physician they didn't need another one and didn't want to put a "black mark" on the defendants record.
After the trial the plaintiff's lawyer spoke with us regarding our verdict and many were upset to find out how small the previous settlement was and would have found differently if they knew.
It didn't even cover all of the deceased medical bills let alone provide for the minor children left behind.
I was the only one who found for the plaintiff, but in a civil case my vote wasn't needed.

The primary physician made the original mistake (ordering mammogram of wrong breast), but the specialist compounded it by not doing a physical examine which would have resulted in a mammogram of the correct breast and treatment.
The primary physician found a lump after a physical and sent the patient to a specialist with an order for a mammogram. The specialist only read the mammogram (of the wrong breast) saw no lump but did not examine the patient.
Leading National experts in the field testified that it is protocol for a specialist to examine the patient and failure to do so was negligent and in their opinion contributed to the patient's death.

[driver8]

36. I was on a murder trial last year -- it was fascinating.

I would gladly serve again!!

[sakabatou]

38. No and I have a medical excuse not be in one.

[ogneopasno]

39. I've never even been called.

[Beer Snob-50]

40. one trial

a three day attempted murder trial. the owner of a company supposedly tried to kill his secretary with whom he was having an affair and she ended up freaking out and was going to his wife. we found him not guilty.

[derby378]

41. Served in a Federal petit jury pool once

That was rough - I was on call for an entire month, which didn't sit well with my former boss. But if you're on a Federal grand jury, you're on call for an entire year, which really sucks.

Only served on one case, though. It was a charge of conspiracy to possess stolen property that involved a backhoe. The guy got a couple of years in Federal prison, I think.

[gratuitous]

42. No, and I probably never will

Lawyer: "So, Mr. gratuitous, what do you do for a living?"

I've been a legal secretary for 30 years, working in just about every type of civil litigation you care to name.

Lawyers for both sides, in unison: "Challenge for cause, your honor."

[RebelOne]

43. I was picked for a jury but didn't have to serve

because the defendant plea-bargained.

[Kaylee]

46. Murder trial. Vowed never to serve a murder trial again.

[Contrary1]

67. Same here.

Very stressful.

[damntexdem]

47. No, being an academic generally keeps one from being selected.

Neither side trusts a possible loose cannon.

[Iggo]

48. Nope. Convicted felon.

FUCK YEAH!!!1

ETA: I get called for jury duty every year.

[Jokerman]

50. Yes, a hung jury, and I found it quite frustrating.

Three counts related to a drive-by shooting.

1. Attempted murder
2. Illegal discharge of a weapon
3. Felony possession. (accused was on probation)

IMO the prosecution proved #3 beyond a reasonable doubt but dropped the ball on the first two.

Of the 12 people on the jury, two were determined to convict on all three counts and two were determined to acquit on all three counts, regardless of the facts. We even had the "soccer mom" who offered to vote which ever way would get her home in time for dinner.

Most of the jury members couldn't even wrap their minds around the idea that we could convict on some counts and not the others.

Overall, a very frustrating and discouraging experience.

[madokie]

51. Can't say as I have

I've wondered about that too.

[Rob H.]

52. Three times!

The first time in municipal court, a year later in federal court, and three years after that on a grand jury for six months.

IIRC, we only met once a month for one day for grand jury duty, but it might've been twice a month. We actually had to decide whether someone should be indicted for horse thieving--a man allegedly stole some horses and then tried to sell them at a livestock auction not far from where they were stolen. That was the lightest moment, unfortunately. Most of the cases revolved around drug trafficking and child molestation. :(

ETA:

Municipal court:
- Hung jury for a DUI case. One my fellow jurors lied during voi dire and said that she didn't know anyone who'd been arrested for DUI--turns out both her father and brother had been arrested for it and she was adamant that, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary, the defendant had been set up.
- Guilty verdict in a criminally-negligent homicide case; defendant shot and killed his roommate while they were both drunk and stoned.

Federal court:
- Not guilty on a drug-smuggling case; we felt the prosecution didn't make its case.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. I was called into voir dire once, but not picked....

...due to the nature of my profession.

I think I would have no problem serving in any case except a capital murder case. I could not condemn a person to the death penalty, period.

That being said, while I would be willing to serve on a non-capital criminal case, I don't know if I would enjoy it. On the other hand, I think serving on a civil lawsuit jury would be a fascinating experience and I would welcome that experience.

[Caliman73]

54. No

I was called for jury duty one time and made it to a panel. They presented parts of the case and asked what we would vote with the case as presented. Several people said, "guilty" or "I don't know". I said "not guilty". The judged asked "why" and the panel looked at me. I said, because it is up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man is guilty and the information presented did not meet the requirement. The judge said, "You are the only person that has answered the question correctly in several panels". The Prosecutor dismissed me with the thanks of the court. I am due for Jury duy in the summer. I look forward to serving one of these days.

[lpbk2713]

57. A few times up until about twenty years ago.

The last time I served I was chosen to be the foreman of the jury. The defendant was arrested for DUI and a couple of other lesser charges. He must have requested a trial by jury. Without having to go into a whole lot of boring detail ... the arresting officer waited outside a lounge until closing time and nailed one of the last people to leave. Every one of us in the jury said he was guilty because he was guilty under the law by virtue of a blood alcohol test and that was how we had to decide. The judge asked me to tell him our verdict and he must have sensed a sort of reluctance in my voice when I said "guilty". He then asked each one of us individually and everyone said guilty. So he wanted to pursue the matter with me and he asked if I had any reservations. I told him I thought it was like "shooting fish in a barrel", my exact words. I never knew what happened to the case after that. The case might have been appealed or even thrown out for all I know. But I do know I haven't received any more notices to appear for jury duty since then. I'm fairly sure the judge blackballed me. That's OK with me.

[Mugu]

58. Never.

I filled out my preliminary questionnaire with a jumbo marker.



Last time I ever heard from them.

[POAS]

59. Served on one jury and sent two to jail

for strong arm robbery.

[iamthebandfanman]

60. got called in, but wasnt picked to serve. n/t

[fizzgig]

62. i've only been called once, but was dismissed during voir dire

and that was seven or eight years ago. it was a sexual assault on a child case and i don't remember which side dismissed me, but i have a feeling it had something to do with the fact that my mom was a social work major and had done a lot of work with abused kids.

i've watched a number of trials and find them fascinating. i hope to be able to serve one day.

[flvegan]

65. Twice. One for drugs, one for assault w/deadly weapon.

What's sad, is that both trials were a couple years apart, but the same state attorney worked both (defense). He was absolutely horrible.

[iamthebandfanman]

66. my biggest fear is being selected for a drug case

because theres noway i could actually go through with it...

and i hate to have to admit my drug use to the court so i wouldnt serve...
but theres noway i could EVER convict someone for drug related charges(unless there were other crimes involved)

[Duer 157099]

68. "Many are called but few are chosen"

Who knew that the Bible was actually talking about jury duty??

:rofl:

[Blue_In_AK]

69. I've gotten close a few times,

but the one time I was picked, the case settled before we got started.

[closeupready]

70. Twice. Got out of doing it a third time.

First was civil - regarding a union member's dispute with a union's lack of support over his termination.
Second was criminal - regarding an alleged theft, menacing, harassment, gun violation. Guilty only of menacing.

[brooklynite]

75. Criminal and Grand Jury

even got sequestered during deliberations

[varkam]

83. What was being sequestered like? eom

[brooklynite]

96. Dinner together -- small shared hotel room with another juror -- buffet breakfast,,

and supposedly no TV (we cheated)

[varkam]

100. Sounds cozy.

[DemoTex]

77. Called many times. Served on three criminal case juries.

1. MD prescribing and selling anabolic steroids in Virginia .. guilty (slammer).

2. Young African-American male charged with possession of crack cocaine (in his car) by Dallas Constables who did a dangerous 180 on a busy street to stop him because they couldn't see a shoulder harness on him when they passed in the opposite direction. It took the jury 10 minutes to find him NOT GUILTY, but we hung around the jury room for a while so that the judge wouldn't get pissed. Every one of us on that Dallas jury felt that the kid was framed by a throw-down bag of crack from the LEOs. When we re-entered the courtroom, everyone - especially the judge - expected a guilty verdict. When the foreman read the not guilty verdict the judge became visibly angry at the jury. He then made an ass of himself lecturing us.

3. Illegal lane change case in Greenville, SC, criminal court. Guilty as sin. The case never should have gone to trial (meaning that the defendant, who had every right to go to trial, would have done better bargaining).

[ThomWV]

78. 3 times, was the Foreman on the last one

Just because when we got in the room some lady said "has anyone done this before?" and I said "yes, twice" so they all looked at me and said, "you're it".

[tonysam]

80. I've Had Jury Duty, But Never Served.

My younger brother, though, has served on a jury and is now doing grand jury duty.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

82. No.

I worked at the courthouse and took depositions for nearly twenty years.

I knew too much. I got called once and actually got to voir dire. I knew the judge and both attorneys, but I was not prejudiced against either one of them.

They got me when they asked me if I was prejudiced. I said, "I was sued by an insurance company for a declaratory judgment and I don't like insurance companies". So I was struck for cause.

Lawyers will not strike you if you are smart, if they have a GOOD case. If they have a bad case, they want to strike people who will think. This goes whether it's plaintiff or defense. One side or the other usually has a stronger case than the other. A few times, very few, I have seen cases that were absolutely even in evidence, and I would not have known how to rule.

[Ikonoklast]

84. Got called a couple of times, but never actually got seated.

But ever since an attorney I used a few years back became a common pleas court judge, no one in my family gets a call.

[Atman]

88. Yes, and two were very interesting cases. I'm not sure why people won't serve.

In Florida I sat on a case wherein a boy's parents were suing the state because he fell of his bike. They claimed the bike paths should have been cleaned better, and their lawyers said he wanted to drive a truck or play pro football when he got older, and his injuries would prevent that...so we should award him the salary he WOULD HAVE MADE IF he had achieved his goals. They couldn't even convince us that they were really the kid's goals and not the parent's. We even got a limo ride to the scene where he fell. It was absurd. In the end, he was awarded a small amount of money to cover certain medical expenses. Nothing more.

When I lived in Massachusetts I served on a Civil Rights case, which was fucking amazing. A young black woman in an inner-city neighborhood was using the pay phone at a 7-11, and had been on the phone for quite some time when an equally-young white male approached in a panic, needed to use the phone, it was an emergency. She wouldn't hang up. He stood by for a couple of minutes, and she was just talking about nothing -- just chatting with her friends because she had no phone at her home. After a couple of minutes, they guy pleaded with her to hang up, he really needed the phone. She told him "fuck off, Whitey," at which point he grabbed the phone from her hand and hung up.

That was it. I'm serious. Guess who filed FEDERAL "Civil Rights" charges? The woman, who it turned out was basically a coke whore. And an opportunist, apparently. She actually had the guy arrested and filed CIVIL RIGHTS charges. He right to use a public phone was violated. After three days on the jury we deliberated for about three hours and told her to pound sound. It wasn't until after the whole mess that we met the defendant on the way out of the courthouse...he was sobbing, thanking us. He had been in jail for three months, through Christmas, because he didn't have bail. For hanging up the phone on a person. I wanted to find that fucking coke whore and put her behind bars!

If there's a moral to the story, it's don't automatically assume jury duty is a bad thing. It can be fascinating and highly educational as to the ways of the world.

.

[Raine]

93. Yes, HATED it

no way in hell I'll ever serve again. One of the worst experiences in my life but everyone should do it once so they can see what a joke the whole system is.

[omega minimo]

124. proof that 10 out of 12 are selfish, self centered idiots who can't follow instructions

:thumbsdown:

[proud patriot]

97. Yes , I was the Alternate on a Federal Trial

It was quite interesting . I have not been a part of
deliberations.

[elleng]

101. Called and served in Federal court;

one of best experiences of my life!

[DesertRat]

104. Yes, and it was fascinating

It was about 15 years ago and I've been called for jury duty since. :shrug:

[LiberalPersona]

108. No

I was selected once but I got off because I have major problems communicating with others, that would seriously hinder my helpfulness during deliberation.

[csziggy]

109. My entire jury service involved sitting in the jury room waiting for the trial to start

Then the clerk came in and told us that the defendent copped a plea. I still got my check for $18 and a letter thanking me for serving and telling me that I will not be called again for two years. :eyes:

[KharmaTrain]

112. Served On A Federal Jury...An Incredible Experience

I was enpaneled in a high profile gun case. I thought for sure I'd never be picked as I was and am a very strong advocate of gun control (especially in populated areas) and figured that the defense would prefer 12 NRA members sitting on the jury and would wait to get 'em. Surprisingly, I was chosen and I don't regret it for a minute.

It was the most fascinating two weeks...being an active part of the judicial system. Our judge and his staff were incredibly accomodating and informative...explaining to us the importance of what we were doing and how the process worked. Above all, he strongly stressed judging the case on the letter of the law and that we were the finders of fact. In the end, based on the testimony (some of which was done by Patrick Fitzgerald) I voted to acquit the defendent based on the crazy quilt patchwork of laws and the many loopholes one could drive a truck through. Our panel was unanimous...the problem wasn't the defendent, it was the law and a poorly prepared prosecution.

Yep...we even got to be sequestored for a day. We went into the "cone of silence", had our cellphones taken and had to deal with hard donuts and stale sandwiches. Nothing gets a verdict wrapped up faster than those sandwiches and the thought of having to deliberate over the weekend.

Overall, it was a great experience. I can understand those who have contrary opinions having served on civil courts, but if you're called to serve in a Federal case, it's truly a great look inside on how the system works.

[JI7]

113. yes, i hate the jury selection process, but liked serving during trial

[Ganja Ninja]

114. I've been called twice but never served. n/t

[Berry Cool]

116. I have. Murder trial involving a teenager killing another teenager. Premeditated.

There wasn't a whole lot we could do after looking at the evidence but convict, knowing that even though as a juvie the defendant wouldn't get the death penalty, we were sending a kid away for good. The family of the victim was there during a lot of it, too, and I thought of what it must be like for them.

After it was over, we heard some things from the prosecutor and judge that led us to believe we'd definitely made the right decision, painful as it was. After our trial, the kid was going to trial again, for an entirely different murder in another situation.

It wasn't fun to do. I don't think a lot of the people who say "I wish they'd pick me" would have really wished to be on that kind of a trial.

[Thothmes]

118. Never served on a civilian jury

did serve on several courts martial boards when I was in the Navy.

[ejpoeta]

119. they tried calling me a couple of times before, but always from the wrong county.

but a few months ago i was called. I joked that I should bring my daughter with me. But my sis watched her for me and I went. Watched a video. Then we waited. and waited. We waited outside the courtroom for a good while. And then we were told that there was a plea deal and therefore no need for us. BUT.... I am now set with my jury duty for five years. and all those folks that were up at the front that got out of jury duty that day are not set for five years. hehe.

[4lbs]

121. I got impaneled on a civil trial, but they settled soon after opening arguments.

n/t

[ddeclue]

122. Served one time - on a big time cocaine dealer's trial...

they had the block of cocaine (about the size of a large book), video tape, audio tape, it was like a 60 Minutes episode.

I was one of only two jurors who voted to convict. The other ten (all middle class suburbanites) agreed with the defense that it was "entrapment" and so we ended in a hung jury.

Turns out we were the third hung jury.

I don't know if he got prosecuted again but probably so. They were after his ass.

My problem with entrapment was that it wasn't some girl asking him to go up to her hotel room and do a line or blow a joint on the theory that sex would ensue. It was about 2 keys of coke - this guy was obviously a dealer, not a simple user - and they were making a deal for it on tape.

His defense attorneys probably ran him about $2000 an hour back in 1990 - they were the best in the state and were famous for defending the doctor who had his wife contract murdered by two guys with shotguns in front of his kids (this is in Atlanta).

It was interesting at the time but God forbid I ever get called again unless I can write a best selling "O.J." type book afterwards because I can't afford to live on jury pay any more (except now while I'm already unemployed) and most employers will not make up the difference between jury pay and your regular pay anymore unless you are a direct employee with benefits.

(If my new job works out that I'm supposed to be getting in the next week or two, I suppose I could manage to do jury duty as long as I wasn't sequestered because I will work largely from home on a flexible schedule as a "telecommuter".)

Doug D.

[omega minimo]

123. you better hope Omega Minimo and one other (going by evidence, not assumptions) is on your jury

OR YOU IS SCREWN by the other 10 idiots who will sell out your civil rights and your story based on how much it challenges their assumptions (fuck the evidence) and the time they allotted to get out of there as fast they can.


































:hi:


Your chances for "justice" are improved when 2 of the idiot 10 realize that maybe they judged too quickly......................................................

[SeattleGirl]

125. No. I was called in for jury duty, and had to beg off on one trial,

which was expected to go two weeks. I had surgery scheduled in a week, so the judge excused me.

I was picked for another trial, expected to be a short one, but the defendant ended up taking a plea deal.

[BamaGirl]

127. They never want me

My mom was a criminal defense lawyer and then a malpractice lawyer and now works for a former governor. I was an Army MP. My husband is a city cop. When I go in for jury duty someone usually recognizes me and I get sent home before the good stuff even starts. Given my background, I wouldn't put me on a jury lol. Either side would be taking a big risk lol.

[mwooldri]

128. Called twice, excused twice.

Called for court in UK; excused since I don't live in UK.
Called for court in US; excused since I'm not a citizen.

I guess I'll never get to see jury duty at this rate.

Mark.