Jury Service

[MeteorPunch]

I had jury duty summer 08 and thought it was pretty fun, but the pay stinks - $8/day, which just covers food really.

The case was about an elderly woman dying while in the care of a nursing home do to neglect. The whole thing was pretty entertaining to me...the defendant's lawyer was like a high quality southern politician and the plaintiff's was a bumbling buffoon from Texas who the jurors made fun of often.

The trial lasted 2 weeks. I learned the expert witnesses made $400-500 an hour, which was pretty absurd. We ended up with a guilty verdict and deliberating over the value of the compensation was the most time-intensive and annoying part of the whole thing.

I thought $1 million was pretty much the maximum value I could see as punishment, with $50,000 the lowest. My feeling was that the nursing home screwed up and should be punished, but that this woman's health was on the decline for almost a year and she had only a few months of bad health left anyway. Additionally they didn't cause the death, but were negligent by not reacting as fast to things as they should have.

Some people wanted as high as $25 million in punishment, they wanted to, "make the nursing homes pay!" and all that. It didn't really fit in with the instructions the judge gave us. Here's the hard part, what's the motivation to really argue for hours/days with some strangers in a small room over every little detail for no compensation. Yeah I know, "justice," which is ironic because it's unjust to have people work for no pay.

It was mostly the older (40-55 age) who wanted the higher values, while the 25-30 yr olds wanted lower values. I saw this as them wanting to assure good service for themselves, by scaring the nursing homes nationwide to get in line, but eventually we gave into their demands, hoping their life experience taught them something, and went with a $10 million verdict. This is something in life I regret...you always think, "If I were on a jury I'd be the person that stands up for my beliefs." and all that, but didn't in the end.

The case got thrown out a month or so later because the verdict was too high.

(I left out tons of details, but that's the gist)

 

[illram]

Theres two seperate issues really,
1. is the jury biased
2. is the juror biased

I don't think it is arguable that when doing Voir Dire they have a particular juror in mind when picking and therefore the type of person they want, this person is probably the same each time for the same crime for obvious reasons; you want someone who will win the case. Therefore how else would they be picking them? to take what you were saying previously, everyone wants to win so it is only human nature to want to win and therefore pick who they can.

OK, you are making way too many unfounded assumptions. As to the "cookie cutter" element: voire dire is not about thinking of your perfect juror and just kicking out everyone that doesn't match your cutout. You don't have the time or ability to do that. Voire dire is about doing the best you can with what you've got, which usually isn't very much. Also remember that each side is getting to pick the jury. Usually this means that each side is mainly removing the jurors that are good for the other guy and leaving the ones that don't exhibit any clear bias in any direction. And on top of that each side has a limited number of "peremptory challenges," or opportunities to kick a juror out of the panel for any reason (other than an unconstitutional one, such as the juror is the wrong race). The number you get is limited and is never enough to cherry pick your perfect jury. Also, everyone is always so different and you get such a limited number of questions that you never get to just mold your perfect jury, especially when there is another guy on the other side of the room kicking all your good jurors out.

Very often the best you can do is weed out the people that don't want to be there, have no idea what is going on, or really are totally biased. You've also got to consider the very basic things like hardship (e.g. can't speak English). The Judge takes care of those.

So this:

So you have 12 people in the jury box who mainly think the same, who follow the same though patterns deemed to be 'ok' by those running the case which generally equate to a middle class (quite often white) conservative nature of the world and therefore the jury itself is biased towards those beliefs.

...just doesn't work out that way. Again, this assumption is founded on what? Ideally, the only similar thing amongst those 12 is that they are a figurative "blank slate," in that they all have promised to not bring in any of their past biases or experiences against either side and have promised to follow the judge's instructions and only consider the evidence introduced to them at trial. (Which, even with voire dire, rarely happens. There are always people in the panel who you're not sure about or didn't want there. Conversely, the lawyers are also always wrong about some or even all of the jurors, because this is such a haphazard and inexact process.)

I also don't think you're quite understanding what we're going for in voire dire. If the lawyers have a say in the jury, the kind of jury they want is totally dependent on the type of case they have. You're saying voire dire gives you a cookie cutter jury, and then you're saying this cookie cutter jury is a white middle class conservative group? If I am defending a Venezuelan who can't speak English in a DUI trial am I going for an all-white conservative jury? No. It depends on the case. And again, you have to remember that the other side has their idea of what are good and bad jurors for them, and they're doing the same thing I am. And we both have a Judge up in his mahogany tower overseeing the whole process and making sure none of us abuse voire dire.

Now when looking at the UK system, the jury as a whole is entirely random, there is no option on voir dire and therefore you get 12 nobodys walking into the jury box. If you assume that one person is automatically biased in favour of one angle then presumably you have to assume that another juror is equally biased in the opposite direction. Therefore, going back to my 1 & 2, you can perhaps assume that an individual juror is biased but that the jury as a whole is unbiased (due to the individual members cancelling out).

Why would I make that assumption? It's just as likely they're both biased, or neither of them are biased. So no, I can't assume that a random selection is equally comprised of biased and unbiased people.

Secondly, biased/not biased is a terrible half and half mix, if that's what you were to assume a set of randoms would be. (Although it wouldn't--you wouldn't have any idea, that's the point). Not biased doesn't mean they'll vote for you. Biased means they're more likely to swing one way. So really what you're looking at in a panel of 6 biased/6 non-biased is a panel of 6, since the other guys are going to swing the other way. Therefore even if I were to agree with your assumption it would wind up being a terrible panel.

 

[Quackers]

Juries are ********, ujurors are ********,and most people wrth their salt will refuse the summons or give shoddy excuses.

As onje of the UK's bes legal minds commented a few years back:

"jury service is seen as a burden only those too stupid or incapable are unable to avoid"

For a proclaimed champion of the working class this is the most misanthropic stuff i've ever read.

 

[BCLG100]

OK, you are making way too many unfounded assumptions. As to the "cookie cutter" element: voire dire is not about thinking of your perfect juror and just kicking out everyone that doesn't match your cutout. You don't have the time or ability to do that. Voire dire is about doing the best you can with what you've got, which usually isn't very much. Also remember that each side is getting to pick the jury. Usually this means that each side is mainly removing the jurors that are good for the other guy and leaving the ones that don't exhibit any clear bias in any direction. And on top of that each side has a limited number of "peremptory challenges," or opportunities to kick a juror out of the panel for any reason (other than an unconstitutional one, such as the juror is the wrong race). The number you get is limited and is never enough to cherry pick your perfect jury. Also, everyone is always so different and you get such a limited number of questions that you never get to just mold your perfect jury, especially when there is another guy on the other side of the room kicking all your good jurors out.

You do have the time, it is effectively a 'trial within a trial' and I've read about jury selection taking weeks to go through in America. Why should you kick someone out who is 'the wrong race' how can you have an impartial jury where someone is the wrong race?

Very often the best you can do is weed out the people that don't want to be there, have no idea what is going on, or really are totally biased. You've also got to consider the very basic things like hardship (e.g. can't speak English). The Judge takes care of those.

We have a similar thing, for instance if you're illiterate you obviously cannot serve on a complex fraud trial and this is also taken care of by the judge.

...just doesn't work out that way. Again, this assumption is founded on what? Ideally, the only similar thing amongst those 12 is that they are a figurative "blank slate," in that they all have promised to not bring in any of their past biases or experiences against either side and have promised to follow the judge's instructions and only consider the evidence introduced to them at trial. (Which, even with voire dire, rarely happens. There are always people in the panel who you're not sure about or didn't want there. Conversely, the lawyers are also always wrong about some or even all of the jurors, because this is such a haphazard and inexact process.)

I also don't think you're quite understanding what we're going for in voire dire. If the lawyers have a say in the jury, the kind of jury they want is totally dependent on the type of case they have. You're saying voire dire gives you a cookie cutter jury, and then you're saying this cookie cutter jury is a white middle class conservative group? If I am defending a Venezuelan who can't speak English in a DUI trial am I going for an all-white conservative jury? No. It depends on the case. And again, you have to remember that the other side has their idea of what are good and bad jurors for them, and they're doing the same thing I am. And we both have a Judge up in his mahogany tower overseeing the whole process and making sure none of us abuse voire dire.

With reference to the first part, so our juries are told the same so why is it that it is required to arrange a jury to your liking? If you are accepting that they are a blank slate then presumably there is no need to pick them?

I'm afraid I am unsure what the term 'cookie cutter' means, I got this from wiki 'lack of originality or distinction' so that's what I'm going with, correct me if i'm wrong.

I appreciate that both sides have their options but don't you see how it is so much more open to abuse? both sides in your criminal trials are government bodies aren't they? (or am i wrong?) so just look at how open to abuse on picking this jury can be.

Perhaps also it is the difference in systems, so in your system you tell me it is about win ratio's so everyone is about trying to gain an advantage, here it is more about justice so the main effort is to allow a jury that is fair and random.

Why would I make that assumption? It's just as likely they're both biased, or neither of them are biased. So no, I can't assume that a random selection is equally comprised of biased and unbiased people.

Secondly, biased/not biased is a terrible half and half mix, if that's what you were to assume a set of randoms would be. (Although it wouldn't--you wouldn't have any idea, that's the point). Not biased doesn't mean they'll vote for you. Biased means they're more likely to swing one way. So really what you're looking at in a panel of 6 biased/6 non-biased is a panel of 6, since the other guys are going to swing the other way. Therefore even if I were to agree with your assumption it would wind up being a terrible panel.

Well you've already assumed they are biased without evidence to suggest this, I would argue that at most you get 1 person with prior thoughts on a subject but this is curtailed by the other members of the jury. There has also been evidence agreeing with me on the subject, if anything juries favour defendants in England; *wripped from my bibliography, hence the formality!* C. Thomas, Are Juries Fair? Ministry of Justice Research [February 2010]

(Downloaded from http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/are-juries-fair.htm [12/04/10])

It is quite lengthy so you don't have to read it but here is a summary
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1002/10011701

Now I believe that this fairness is because of the randomness of jury selection rather than being allowed to pick a jury.

 

[illram]

You do have the time, it is effectively a 'trial within a trial' and I've read about jury selection taking weeks to go through in America. Why should you kick someone out who is 'the wrong race' how can you have an impartial jury where someone is the wrong race?

You can't kick out a juror merely for being black or white or hispanic. As for time, per juror you have limited time and I have never heard of jury selection taking weeks, even a high profile jury selection takes max one week from what I have seen.

With reference to the first part, so our juries are told the same so why is it that it is required to arrange a jury to your liking? If you are accepting that they are a blank slate then presumably there is no need to pick them?

I am not saying they're all a blank slate, I am saying you need to pick out the ones that are clearly biased to get to a blanks slate. And just because you tell juries to be fair doesn't mean they are. For instance (true story) lets say I am representing someone on trial for hitting a plainclothes cop. The only evidence is a cops word that he was trying to restrain my client for being unruly in the hospital, and that the cop identified himself as a cop before he did anything. My client says the cop didn't have a badge, and my client didn't know he was a cop and was just defending himself from what he thought was a random assailant. A potential juror is asked if she trusts the police, and she says she would believe the police over anyone else. The judge then asks her if she can be fair and she says yes. Should I then be perfectly content that this woman is going to be fair? Nope. She's gone. We use voire dire, ideally, to try and get a blank slate by weeding out the biased people, and we judge bias (unscientifically and often incorrectly, I might add) based on questions that are often not as direct as "are you biased."

I appreciate that both sides have their options but don't you see how it is so much more open to abuse? both sides in your criminal trials are government bodies aren't they? (or am i wrong?) so just look at how open to abuse on picking this jury can be.

Prosecutors and defense not both government. The prosecution is the government. Public defenders checks might get paid by the government but that is where the relationship ends. Public defenders have their own office and they deal exclusively with defendants. They are often staffed with people who are zealously anti-government. There is no love lost between DAs and PDs over here. (And a lot of defendants have private attorneys anyway.)

Of course, if one side has carte blanche authority to just boot jurors it didn't like then yeah, that's bad. But the other side gets a crack at kicking jurors out too. So ideally you've got two sides fighting over the panel and in the end you arrive at a something resembling a compromise.

Also practically speaking I'd be terrified of performing a trial before a panel of 12 people that I know absolutely nothing about. I can see the merit but from the perspective of actually getting up there and doing it I'd feel much more comfortable establishing a rapport with the jury prior to beginning the trial.

Well you've already assumed they are biased without evidence to suggest this, I would argue that at most you get 1 person with prior thoughts on a subject but this is curtailed by the other members of the jury.

You made the assumption. I was arguing against your assumption. My point was you can't assume anyone is biased or not biased, ever, if you don't get a chance to ask them any questions. It's a shot in the dark otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the merits of your system and it's intriguing. I just think that, from the perspective of sitting there in court with someone next to me whose liberty is in my hands, I am much more in control of his or her fate if I can at least talk to the jury and have a shot at ensuring the people on the panel will give him or her a fair shake.

There has also been evidence agreeing with me on the subject, if anything juries favour defendants in England; *wripped from my bibliography, hence the formality!* C. Thomas, Are Juries Fair? Ministry of Justice Research [February 2010]

(Downloaded from http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/are-juries-fair.htm [12/04/10])

It is quite lengthy so you don't have to read it but here is a summary
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1002/10011701

Now I believe that this fairness is because of the randomness of jury selection rather than being allowed to pick a jury.

The summary suggests that you guys adopt alot of the things we do, such as providing written instructions to jurors on conduct and on the law. (You guys don't do that???) Also it says juries convict more often than acquit... not what you said.

As far as the studies suggesting that all white juries are not prejudiced against black defendants, our constitutional jurisprudence on the issue did not really develop based on empirical studies showing that black jurors were more fair than white jurors to black defendants, but instead on the concept that removing people from a panel solely based on race was unconstitutional. To be honest I am not aware of much scientific evidence on this issue so I may have to take a look at your study when I have some more time.

However as far as effectiveness is concerned, I don't doubt that England has an effective functional trial system, but I do doubt that allowing voire dire is going to produce a "less fair" system than yours. It might prolong it but I think that if anything, it simply a matter of focusing more on the rights of the parties to control the litigation as opposed to the court.

 

[BCLG100]

You can't kick out a juror merely for being black or white or hispanic. As for time, per juror you have limited time and I have never heard of jury selection taking weeks, even a high profile jury selection takes max one week from what I have seen.

Yes you can, that is the 'joy' of peremptory challenges, that you can just get rid of them for any reason without disclosing it. My notes are quite extensive and it's 1.20am so I can't really be bothered searching through articles to find the points but i do recall a couple of commentators mentioning it.

I am not saying they're all a blank slate, I am saying you need to pick out the ones that are clearly biased to get to a blanks slate. And just because you tell juries to be fair doesn't mean they are. For instance (true story) lets say I am representing someone on trial for hitting a plainclothes cop. The only evidence is a cops word that he was trying to restrain my client for being unruly in the hospital, and that the cop identified himself as a cop before he did anything. My client says the cop didn't have a badge, and my client didn't know he was a cop and was just defending himself from what he thought was a random assailant. A potential juror is asked if she trusts the police, and she says she would believe the police over anyone else. The judge then asks her if she can be fair and she says yes. Should I then be perfectly content that this woman is going to be fair? Nope. She's gone. We use voire dire, ideally, to try and get a blank slate by weeding out the biased people, and we judge bias (unscientifically and often incorrectly, I might add) based on questions that are often not as direct as "are you biased."

But that is what I mean, there is no basis for these questions much of the time, you are getting the same people to sit in the same chairs. Why wouldn't this lady be anymore or less fair than anyone else in the jury box? She has as much likelihood as being biased as any other.

Prosecutors and defense not both government. The prosecution is the government. Public defenders checks might get paid by the government but that is where the relationship ends. Public defenders have their own office and they deal exclusively with defendants. They are often staffed with people who are zealously anti-government. There is no love lost between DAs and PDs over here. (And a lot of defendants have private attorneys anyway.)

Of course, if one side has carte blanche authority to just boot jurors it didn't like then yeah, that's bad. But the other side gets a crack at kicking jurors out too. So ideally you've got two sides fighting over the panel and in the end you arrive at a something resembling a compromise.

Similar here I guess then but your guys are still performance driven? i.e. certain number of victories, it is unlikely here to meet a barrister who has won more cases than he has lost.

I do understand what you mean about both sides getting a crack but in the end you just end up back to where you start (i.e. if both side have got rid of the extremists the mean of the jury is equal to a jury over here which may have extremists here) so in essence quite a bit of time has been wasted accomplishing nothing.

Also practically speaking I'd be terrified of performing a trial before a panel of 12 people that I know absolutely nothing about. I can see the merit but from the perspective of actually getting up there and doing it I'd feel much more comfortable establishing a rapport with the jury prior to beginning the trial.

Hmmm, again perhaps a cultural difference. As a barrister you are simply the mouthpiece of the defendant/prosecution if they had the same number of years legal/educational training, there is no need to grow a rapport, indeed it is frowned upon as it gets in the way of justice if a jury likes a counsel more than another. Just got done reading a case which had to have the conviction overturned because one jury member sent a bottle of champagne to lead counsel for the prosecution!

You made the assumption. I was arguing against your assumption. My point was you can't assume anyone is biased or not biased, ever, if you don't get a chance to ask them any questions. It's a shot in the dark otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the merits of your system and it's intriguing. I just think that, from the perspective of sitting there in court with someone next to me whose liberty is in my hands, I am much more in control of his or her fate if I can at least talk to the jury and have a shot at ensuring the people on the panel will give him or her a fair shake.

Ah ok, I see what you mean, well i don't assume anyone is biased either, regardless of the questioning. Innocent until proven guilty can be used as an equally apt analogy, the jury members are encouraged to report any problems to the judge anyway so there shouldn't be an issue. Whilst jury members can be dismissed and the trial continuing if there is an issue discovered.

The summary suggests that you guys adopt alot of the things we do, such as providing written instructions to jurors on conduct and on the law. (You guys don't do that???) Also it says juries convict more often than acquit... not what you said.

I don't believe I did, if i did say juries acquit more often then I was meaning in comparison to magistrates courts (the rung below)

As far as the studies suggesting that all white juries are not prejudiced against black defendants, our constitutional jurisprudence on the issue did not really develop based on empirical studies showing that black jurors were more fair than white jurors to black defendants, but instead on the concept that removing people from a panel solely based on race was unconstitutional. To be honest I am not aware of much scientific evidence on this issue so I may have to take a look at your study when I have some more time.

However as far as effectiveness is concerned, I don't doubt that England has an effective functional trial system, but I do doubt that allowing voire dire is going to produce a "less fair" system than yours. It might prolong it but I think that if anything, it simply a matter of focusing more on the rights of the parties to control the litigation as opposed to the court.

Perhaps so, perhaps it is just that voir dire has been caught up too much with peremptory challenges- or at least the view of it has been which is colouring my view on the subject. I can perhaps see the use in questioing someone but I cannot see the use in peremptory challenges where you could use challenge for cause instead (i.e. have to give a reason).

 

[illram]

Yes you can, that is the 'joy' of peremptory challenges, that you can just get rid of them for any reason without disclosing it. My notes are quite extensive and it's 1.20am so I can't really be bothered searching through articles to find the points but i do recall a couple of commentators mentioning it.

Your "notes"? I may only have been practicing for 2 years now but come on. Re-do your notes to include the following case: Batson v. Kentucky. You cannot kick a juror out solely based on race. You're right that technically you don't need to initially disclose your reason, but that doesn't mean you always get away with it.

But that is what I mean, there is no basis for these questions much of the time, you are getting the same people to sit in the same chairs. Why wouldn't this lady be anymore or less fair than anyone else in the jury box? She has as much likelihood as being biased as any other.

You think that a lady who admits to believing the police over anyone else is likely to be fair in a criminal trial where the evidence is entirely a cops word vs. the defendants/another witnesses word? If that's your opinion, OK, I guess I can't change it but I do not share that belief and if I let that person stick around I am arguably committing malpractice.

I do understand what you mean about both sides getting a crack but in the end you just end up back to where you start (i.e. if both side have got rid of the extremists the mean of the jury is equal to a jury over here which may have extremists here) so in essence quite a bit of time has been wasted accomplishing nothing.

Again, I just don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Hmmm, again perhaps a cultural difference. As a barrister you are simply the mouthpiece of the defendant/prosecution if they had the same number of years legal/educational training, there is no need to grow a rapport, indeed it is frowned upon as it gets in the way of justice if a jury likes a counsel more than another. Just got done reading a case which had to have the conviction overturned because one jury member sent a bottle of champagne to lead counsel for the prosecution!

What do you mean by mouthpiece? Over here we represent our clients and although we are in formalistic legal terms their "agent" or whatever, the client is relying on the attorney to advocate for him to the best of his or her ability. (I think it's the same there). In my opinion voir dire helps me do that.

And getting free swag is not what I mean by rapport. It's equally likely to result in a mistrial or overturning on appeal if any counselor even talks to a juror sitting in the current trial, or receives gifts. By rapport I mean get to know how the jury thinks, what people are saying initially about the case in general prior to trial, that sort of thing.

I don't believe I did, if i did say juries acquit more often then I was meaning in comparison to magistrates courts (the rung below)

You said

if anything juries favour defendants in England;

Perhaps so, perhaps it is just that voir dire has been caught up too much with peremptory challenges- or at least the view of it has been which is colouring my view on the subject. I can perhaps see the use in questioing someone but I cannot see the use in peremptory challenges where you could use challenge for cause instead (i.e. have to give a reason).

Peremptory challenges are not without their detractors over here (including Judges) but I am glad you do at least see the merit in questioning jurors. Only asking one question: "can you be fair" is useless, in my opinion. There needs to be more questions.

 

[BCLG100]

Your "notes"? I may only have been practicing for 2 years now but come on. Re-do your notes to include the following case: Batson v. Kentucky. You cannot kick a juror out solely based on race. You're right that technically you don't need to initially disclose your reason, but that doesn't mean you always get away with it.

Yeah, my dissertation notes but again, it is a similar time and I've had enough at staring at them today. I think you are mixing what I was saying there, my notes were referring to the length of time taken. Peremptory challenge is referring to the ability to kick for any reason without havign to disclose it.

edit- My notes are predominantly strictly with regards to English jury service so i've no real need to read about the case but i did take a look at the wiki link, the case itself seems a little contradictory in my view, you don't have to give reasons for peremptory challenges and there very idea is that they can be used for anything but here it is saying you cannot use them for some things, thereby curtailing the use of them and also bringing to play the idea on just what is the point in having them as i assume you guys also have 'challenge for cause'?

You think that a lady who admits to believing the police over anyone else is likely to be fair in a criminal trial where the evidence is entirely a cops word vs. the defendants/another witnesses word? If that's your opinion, OK, I guess I can't change it but I do not share that belief and if I let that person stick around I am arguably committing malpractice.

But that is not the point of the jury, each juror agrees an oath to judge the trial entirely on its own facts so in many regards it doesn't matter what the jurors belief is as long as they stick to the oath.

Again, I just don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.

You don't see how ages of questioning leading to the exact same end result is a waste of time? ok I think we'll just have to agree to disagree if that is the case.

What do you mean by mouthpiece? Over here we represent our clients and although we are in formalistic legal terms their "agent" or whatever, the client is relying on the attorney to advocate for him to the best of his or her ability. (I think it's the same there). In my opinion voir dire helps me do that.

Mouthpiece as in; barristers in England & Wales are supposedly vessels to carry a case, they should have no interest in the case and instead merely act on behalf of the defendant or prosecution if they had the same academic and legal training. I think the difference is that you're aiming to win the case whereas perhaps here there is more of a desire to see justice so it is not necessarily the desire to 'win'.

What are you by the way? Defence or Prosecution? (i notice you said 'practice' previously)

And getting free swag is not what I mean by rapport. It's equally likely to result in a mistrial or overturning on appeal if any counselor even talks to a juror sitting in the current trial, or receives gifts. By rapport I mean get to know how the jury thinks, what people are saying initially about the case in general prior to trial, that sort of thing.

I understand, that was an example but again there is an interest in justice from both sides rather than winning. Voir dire ensures that perhaps one side may have an advantage but not necessarily justice may be done.

You said

Hmm the actual quote didn't go through... odd. Anyways, my apologies, that was an off hand statement. Juries do tend to acquit more than magistrates and they do generally toe the line of innocent until proven guilty but they do still convict more often than not.

Peremptory challenges are not without their detractors over here (including Judges) but I am glad you do at least see the merit in questioning jurors. Only asking one question: "can you be fair" is useless, in my opinion. There needs to be more questions.

I see the merit indeed, i just also see the downside of it which, in my opinion, does not counter the 'merit' enough for it to be worthwhile but that is just my opinion.

Peremptory challenges on the other hand are by far an antiquated system and should be discontinued asap but that is a different argument i guess!

 

[Camikaze]

Should've applied for an exemption for financial hardship.

Apparently they didn't accept that excuse. Something about the government trying to cut down on the amount of people who could get themselves exempt. Probably too many juries populated by students and the unemployed.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

I've only gotten called when I was living thousands of miles away, so I had an out. I'd like to, though.

I had a law school professor who used to get called all the time. He said he'd show up and this would happen:

Attorney: What do you do?
Professor: I'm a professor.
Attorney: What do you teach?
Professor: Torts and Civil Procedure.

Then one of the attorneys would dismiss him.

Cleo

 

[Formaldehyde]

One of the prospective jurors in my case was a clerk of the same court! There was no way she was going to be selected!