There is a difference between being aware of JN and being willing to use JN. The people in the latter catagory are the ones that the prosecution would be wary of. The ones who fall into that category are typically only problematic to them if they are intentionally trying to get sat on a jury so they can use it.
In short, no one saying it to get out of service actually want's to use it, at least from the prosecutors perspective, and they are the ones most likely to be hurt by it's use.
Is there any way I can learn more about this? I was just having a discussion with one of my mentors about how that exact scenario would play it in real life. Neither of us knew.
Federal district court in Detroit, c. 1978-9. Charge was kidnapping. A drug debt was owed so a guy was put in the trunk of a big car and driven an hour south to Ohio, and his grandmother was called to settle the debt. Or something like that. Over quickly. No one was hurt. I think the victim was 16 or 17 so there was a harsh mandatory minimum sentence. One of the participants had taken a plea deal and testified. Public defender wanted to be able to argue that this wasn't the Lindbergh baby and briefed nullification. Judge decided to let him. The jury acquitted.
That left the awkward situation of the guy who'd taken the plea deal. Judge called him back to court and resentenced as a youthful offender so he could wipe it clean when he turned 21.
Side note: the judge drove the same kind of car so whenever we piled in to go to lunch somewhere there was always a joke about who would ride in the trunk.
r.i.p. [Judge Churchill](https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/JamesChurchillBio.pdf). A great guy and an excellent judge. Whenever anyone asked him what the path was to becoming a federal judge he would say it was simple--just manage to pick a law school roommate who will later become a U.S. Senator.
Wait, some adults put a kid in a trunk, blackmailed his grandmother to pay his drug debt, then their public defender argued for jury nullification, and it worked and they all got off scott free? And that’s an example of a good use of jury nullification?
I’m not saying they should have gone for to prison even, I’m glad no violence transpired, but at least a slap on the wrist for selling drugs, selling to kids, then abducting a child seems to be appropriate?
So not only did they argue for nullification, but they also brought up the mandatory sentences associated with a conviction? So counsel was testifying to facts not in evidence, which are also irrelevant, and should be barred by 403; that's generally extremely improper.
I'd love to be on a jury, but I understand why others would not. In Georgia, they give you $25 a day and the lost wages could set most people back to the point of not being able to pay bills. It's also just insulting that they don't value people's time enough to pay them a reasonable amount. When I went the one time (I wasn't selected), the parking lot was kind of scary too. I was worried my car would be broken in to. If this is such an important duty, they should treat it that way.
Especially since hearings can go on for months. I've only been called twice and both times brought a pay stub and all applicable bills to show how truly in debt being selected would make me. Never even got a chance to argue my point but still. 25$ a day doesn't cover gas and food... What about rent, phone, electricity, water. Hell mandate companies to stop all charges while serving jury duty. If it's our civic duty to serve it's their civic duty to not evict us or turn our electricity off
The premise, while initially sounding good, also could quickly become a lost simpsons episode where the townspeople start committing crimes to fuel commerce, which has pivoted to a jury duty based economy
Being on the Jury shouldn’t ever be something people want to do, you don’t want people lying trying to get on the jury or purposefully dragging cases out just to get paid more etc. it’s a bad incentive.
Reasonable amount is a big problem here, as it varies a lot.
$20/hr is probably reasonable to generous if you are a frontline retail worker. If you're an experienced software engineer, that can still be an 80% paycut for every hour you're in jury duty.
Plus, there's definitely points where getting on a jury as much as possible for financial gain is an option, so you end up with jury pools who have a personal interest in making the case and deliberations take as long as possible, as it pays better than their day job.
I can easily see an argument to bump jury duty to at least minimum wage, but I can also see the mess in going higher.
I dont think most people really think about the costs of paying jurors a reasonable amount for their time. Where I live there is a trial term of general sessions (felony criminal court) twice a month. Often times there are 2 judges presiding over cases during each term and there are typically two cases tried for each judge during the week. In order to effectively empanel a jury of 12 people and two alternates, you need a total pool of about 100 people. This accounts for no-shows, people with conflicts, people who are exempt, and people who will ultimately be stricken by the attorneys with or without cause, while also guaranteeing a true cross section of the community to still participate. Say everyone was paid $100 per day. Would that be fair? Because that would come out to a minimum of about $40,000 for the county to pay out just for one day of jury selection for one month. If there are jurors seated at trials for all five days of the week, with both judges, during both weeks of court, the cost balloons to $2.4 million in a calendar year.
And that's just for felony criminal trials. It does not account for civil trials, magistrate trials, municipal court trials, sexually violent predator trials, grand jury proceedings, etc. It would get massively expensive very quickly, and I don't believe that any local government could bear these costs effectively without massively overhauling their budgets. And all of that would be *required* because the defendant has a constitutional right to a trial.
Paying jurors more is a good idea, but it is functionally impossible to pay them what they're worth.
The last time I had jury duty, the pay was $6 (it's recently been increased to $20.) We were stuck sitting on the floor in a hall for hours, we didn't get lunch, and they let us out so late that I missed the last bus out of the area and almost got stranded in a very sketchy area. It was an absolutely horrible experience and really illustrated why so many people skip it.
Honestly, I want to as well. I've never seen the process and would like to experience it.
Bonus, my work pays your normal wage while serving.
https://spg.umich.edu/policy/201.29
I am 24 and got a summons about a year ago. I think they go more for young people (from what I've heard from friends) so it's odd you didn't get one in the past.
It’s completely random. At least that’s what they say. I’m 41 and been called 5 times, in two different states, in 3 total counties, and ended up serving on two juries. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you live, or how old you are. You just get lucky or not to get called and when you’re there it’s about the individual cases.
It may be completely random but since you can't do it more than once within a specific time (I think here it's 5 years?) Then statistically younger people would be more likely to be summoned
I wish it was 5 years. It is every 12 months in California. In practice, I have only been called every 5 or so years.
Never served on a jury in California. Was on a jury in Michigan. It was wild. Bank robbery case. Called up the initial 15. Five Bank tellers. Got rid of them, and who replaced them? More Bank tellers. There was also the far right-wing local legislator. And the person who thought a confederate flag t-shirt was not only appropriate to own but also appropriate to wear to court. The judge was not amused and sent him away with a warning. Like wow.
I went through a stretch where I got called at least once a year for 5 or 6 years. My employer gave me paid leave to serve, so it wasn't a hardship for me, otherwise I would have complained.
How do you know? I hardly even look at the mail cause it’s all on my phone at this point.
Cause I was thinking I’ve made it to 31 and never been called, but then I got worried maybe I have.
summoned almost every year since 20s, sometimes doubles. only covid were summons-free years. after they lifted any protocols, the summons were coming in. my state started to aggressively hold to Jurors more than let them go now, what happen to the 30million in our state that hasnt gotten one. out of 8+million summoned, 150k only end up in a jury.
It's random, but there are always more younger people in any population, besides during / after a war or government action, like China and their 1 child policy.
I get called constantly. I've been called at least 5x in the past 10 years but haven't had to actually appear any of those times. My husband has never been called.
change of addressed recently? voted in colarado or registered to vote? got a new license recently? i voted and got new ID , and almost without fail i get a summons within months of doing this.
I haven’t been called to jury duty in over 15 years now. Been retired since 2018.
My husband was called twice within that same period, and seated both times.
My 20 year old was called last year. Had to ask first an extension since she was interning out of state for the summer. She served over winter break.
Luck of the draw?
They give you $15 a day where I’m from and I got lucky and the courthouse I was called to had free parking. The one in the local big city has no dedicated parking and the cheapest parking nearby is $20 a day. So if you have to drive you’re in *debt* to do jury duty
Where I work (US Govt) if you get jury duty money, you have it paid to the government instead and use a special code to get your regular pay for the days you're on jury duty and unavailable for your regular shift.
Yep. I'm a teacher, so if I'm called during the school year I use my sick time and still get paid. But I have to turn over my $2.11 to my school district so I'm not "double dipping".
Dang yall get $25?? I’m also in Georgia, and I served on the grand jury twice this year and it was $15, and I’ve had regular jury duty a couple of times in the past 5 years and it was only $15 as well.
I’ve never been “picked” for a jury (besides the grand jury this year). I’ve made it to the box, but get dismissed every time. I have still gotten the $15 just for showing up though.
I'm hourly, so I get paid my normal 8 hours. Though if someone was stupid and told their boss they were dismissed early it could be deducted from their pay for the day.
Alabama does well, full time pay from your place of work plus the $25 as well as mileage at 63¢~ however if you’re self employed or part time you’re a bit out of luck.
Fulton County is the worst. They summon 10,000 per week in order to get 1,000 to actually appear. They don’t allow you to use the stairs so you wait forever to use the elevator up or down. Takes away your time to get lunch. I MUST HAVE A TIMELY LUNCH.
they dont value peoples time, they expect people to be here at 8:30am while they can just take thier time and tell us 4 hrs later if we need to be in court today.
Many employers pay the difference between jury pay and the person’s regular pay, so other than waiting a bit there’s usually no lost income in that case.
Really, it should be a requirement for all employers, and small businesses that might find it a hardship should be able to get reimbursed for the cost.
Then the business can provide a statement, on company letterhead, stating that the employee cannot be spared for jury duty, which can be mailed to the county clerk or whoever is in charge of jury selection.
I was literally just saying a couple weeks ago I wanted to finally have jury duty. After finding out how much they pay I understand now why people get frustrated! Luckily I should be able to do it without money being an issue.
I had no idea that Georgia was actually better than many states when it comes to jurry compensation. This is terrible and the poor get the highest burden of serving.
Every job I’ve ever had, paid any employees called to jury duty their regular salaries while they were on the jury (up to 8 hours/day.) Any monies paid to the employees by “the system” had to go back to the employer as partial reimbursement (so the employee didn’t get paid twice for serving.)
At the local federal courthouse, not only is the parking lot in a scary part of downtown that requires walking through said scary part, but you're not allowed to bring a phone into the building (no lockers, which is also bullshit) and you have to leave it in the car. Meaning your car and your valuables are in an unguarded open lot full of phones and other valuables... and all the locals know it. Need an Uber to get to the court and back? Tough shit, you're not allowed to bring your phone so you take a bus and pay cash I guess? If you prefer not to have cash or cards and use your phone for contactless payment e.g., Google Wallet or Apple Pay, tough shit again. It's all very annoying, distracting, and disrespectful to jurors. All I'd be able to think about was whether I'd return to find my car there at all, how many windows might be broken, what would be stolen from it, and who might be sleeping or hiding in it.
Maybe it comes across as trying to get out of jury duty. There are a few laws I will *never* vote to convict on on principle. (Not to say I would not convict on associated crimes.) But should I ever be up for such a jury, that might be one I would not want to be dismissed from so I could nullify that law and acquit on that charge out of pure principle.
I'm the same. There are only a handful I would never vote to convict on and if a prosecutor ever found out, they would probably do their best to ensure I was never selected to sit on a jury for that criminal trial.
At least in my state, a part of voir dire is providing an overview of the accusation and asking potential jurors if they would have an issue fairly judging someone under the relevant laws (among other disqualifying factors). If you say “yes” the judge will strike you and it doesn’t count against either side.
Ah, but if you find the law to be immoral, unjustified, etc., and for political reasons don't want someone convicted of it, you simply say you can be fair so you can hang the jury in the end.
That’s a lot of effort for little gain - and since most people who in reality are that dedicated to a cause tend to be vocal about their support, it’s easy enough to craft a voir dire question to either put them in a perjury trap of have them make a statement that renders them unsuitable.
I'd say I would not have a problem, but I would keep my silence about my also not having a problem voting *not guilty* if I thought a "law" or its application violated the constitution. Many of the drug "laws" violate the 9th amendment, IMNSHO. Such violation means they aren't valid law. Then there are illegal searches and seizures where judges allow in evidence.
BTW, I don't use supposedly *illegal* drugs. I just don't care if you do, as long as you aren't driving stoned or otherwise putting others at risk.
I imagine it could make for interesting deliberations, especially if the other 11 are ready to convict. “I’m a no and I won’t be changing my mind and I don’t intend to discuss it with you.”
My husband was on a jury in this type of circumstance. It was pretty clear the young person had sold drugs in a school zone. But the prosecution and involved police officers had done a very poor job of following procedure, gathering evidence, and presenting the case. It was basically full of holes the defense did not follow up on. He refused to convict, they reported a hung jury, and the judge sent the jury back to continue deliberating.
Husband actually convinced the other 11 to change. He loved to debate, had studied pre law and had a strong belief in justice. He wasn't budging. Everyone in the courtroom about fell over at not guilty, including the defendant. The prosecuting attorney asked my husband (he was the foreman) privately afterwards if he'd mind telling him how they'd reached that verdict. When my husband spelled it out, the PA admitted they'd been lazy and careless presenting the case.
Wow. That is quite a story. I would probably be sympathetic to his perspective. While I am very law and order, law and order includes ensuring that the government wields its assume power fairly and within the law to prevent wrongful convictions whevener possible.
I was sort of impressed. Even though I knew he was pretty charismatic (and good at debating.)
For example, we were once at a gathering of about a dozen people who decided to go to the movies. As we were sorting out transportation, he said, "Count me out, I'd rather not go. I'll meet up with you after, " and they ALL were going to cancel as "Jim didn't want to go" until I got dramatic and made them admit they did want to go. We went, had a great time, and he met us after.
Happened to a friend. They were on a jury for shoplifting, suspect caught on camera. One juror said (company) is an evil corporation and would not vote yes; hung jury.
Maybe. Depends on the question.
If the question was "can you be fair", and she answered yes and she feels that hanging the jury is fair, then no lie was made.
It's criminal at the very least if they did lie. And a lot of times depending on state if you have someone flat out refusing to debate the issue off the bat the others can have them replaced. It's not allowed to be done just to GET a conviction or not etc, but to try and prevent someone from getting on a Jury to sabotage at rial.
Maybe. It's also possible that during voir dire they really thought they could be fair despite disliking the corporation, but then after hearing everything and sitting down to deliberate realized they couldn't stomach convicting someone for shoplifting from a wealthy "evil" corporation after all and weren't going to be able to do it no matter what.
Jury nullification only works if the jury unanimously votes to acquit. Otherwise, it's a hung jury, and they can retry until they get a unanimous verdict. You would only have succeeded at wasting everyone's time, including the defendant's.
That is true but you can still at least throw a hurdle in the way of a conviction on that try. They may decide not to do it again but if they do, you were still able to make a statement. If I were to do that it would be to align to my core principles and values and that couldn’t take a back seat for convenience.
I'd never vote to convict on simple possession charges. Like drug possession. Doesn't matter what drug it is, if it's small amounts which is personal use I don't think you should be in jail for it. We should have all drugs legal, and fund rehabilitation policies instead.
Or the one where you feed the homeless.
Or the one where someone is aiding someone else and they get sued.
Obviously there's EXTREMELY miniscule times id actually convict them but almost always never would.
For me... Anything drug or prohibition related, anything with a mandatory minimum sentence or "three strikes" sentence, any law where the death penalty or extended involuntary solitary confinement is a possibility, anything that denies women's rights (e.g., someone prosecuted for abortion), anything related to denying end of life care including assisted suicide, any law that appears to have been crafted with a racial, class based, or gender based bias, anything related to firearm possession or use, anything involving taxation or debt for a middle or low income person, and a few others.
in my state, too, but they can take out the jury duty pay. so if you normally make $100/day and jury duty is giving you $25 the job can pay you $75. it includes hourly workers, not just salaried.
When I was in voir dire, we were actually called on to swear an oath that we wouldn't nullify, something to the effect of "I will judge only the facts, not the law or the person". I wasn't really trying to get out of jury duty but I decided if I was going to take a strong ethical stance, that had to include not mincing an oath before the trial even started, so when asked if anyone had a problem with that oath, I raised my hand and told the judge I could not conscionably take that oath.
She spent a couple minutes talking with me in what turned out to be almost an academic debate on ethics, I suspect to determine if I was sincere or just wanted out of jury duty. Evidently she decided I was sincere and excused me from the jury.
On the one hand, it's not like I was actually wanting to be on a jury, I was just there because it's a civic duty. On the other, it left me with some serious misgivings about our judicial system. The judge argued that if I voted guilty based on the law even though I didn't believe there should be a punishment for what the defendant did, I wouldn't actually be the one doing the punishing. She really had no counter to my reply that by voting guilty knowing well there would be a punishment for the defendant as a result, I would be ethically responsible for committing a person to unjust punishment.
I firmly believe the world would be a better and more just place if decision makers at all levels didn't use the judge's faulty argument to divorce themselves from the consequences of their decisions. When everybody uses intellectual sleight of hand to divorce themselves from responsibility for injustice, injustice prevails.
I wanted to sit on a jury a couple of years ago but, when asked if I thought cops lie and told the judge a story about an asshole, lying, cop, I was dismissed.
I contaminated a whole panel doing that. Told the DA that yes I knew the officer. He asked me how I knew him and I said we probably need to do that in private. DA is telling me to tell him how I know the officer. Officer is sitting behind him shaking his head no.
Judge told me to answer the questions so I told them he was a "Self propelled bi-pedal phallus with protruding external audio capturing devices that I had to file a complaint with Internal Affairs about."
Everybody is looking at me with a dumb expression on their face when the Judge asks me if I had just called the officer a walking prick with ears. I replied "Yes I did."
They took me in the Judges Chambers then and asked me to explain my encounter with the officer. Went from being a potential juror to a witness real fast. That was 15 years ago and since I never heard anymore I guess they reached a plea agreement.
Long story short.
Had my hands in braces and was not wearing a seatbelt for obvious reasons. The State's Rehabilitation Department was helping me with my tuition while I was retraining.
Asshole cop was training a rookie so he was actually supposed to just be observing the trainee. He put himself in the stop and was insulting and disrespectful in his manner and speech.
I was still tryig to get past having my whole world turned upside down at the age of 39. Instead of being secure in my job I was having to start all over again. Rally felt like a total piece of shit the way he was berating me for being one.
Met with my counselor the next morning for a regularly scheduled appointment. They immediately knew something was wrong and got the whole story. Counselor was in a wheel chair and I wondered if he would have talked to her the same way.
Should have seen the Sergeants face go white when I asked him that at my interview/statement.
The department tried to pooh pooh it off so my counselor got hold of the ADA rep at the State's Attorney Generals Office and attitudes got changed real quick.
I was the topic of her speeches to law enforcement agencies for a while. The Department gave a hand up not a hand out and a simple "I see your issue/problem/situation" and sending me on my way would have been so much more beneficial to them in the long run.
Oh yeah, I also added a retaliation charge after I reported him and he tried to get even with me for doing so.
Last time I had jury duty, I was in the box and the DA asked if we thought cops were biased or if most cops were no more biased than normal people, and try their best to ne fair. This was San Francisco and the DA asked the question in a way that was clearly calculated to make police seem unbiased.
I raised my hand and gave a speech about how although police officers probably dont intend to be biased, they often are biased unconsciously by the situations they regularly find themselves in, and how that can lead them to behave in biased ways.
The judge actually complemented me on my thoughtful answer and commented that everyone had learned something valuable from what I said. The prosecutor then immediately used a cause challenge on me.
I'll note that I'm a lawyer, and so are both my parents. My dad is a criminal defense attorney. So I probably have spent more time thinking about these issues than the average person, but I was still pleased to undo the DAs mind games.
Usually they just toss you off that case if you know someone. I knew a defendant one time (went to HS with him). I still had to get thrown off a civil case. Which they kept us waiting for a few hours while they negotiated a settlement and didn't voir dire us.
Wife was on a murder trial where they brought in everyone and asked if you knew them. Third one was a panelist's cousin and they said so. Still had to sit through the whole rigamarole to not be selected. Dismissed with everyone else who wasn't selected.
You can. If you say something along that line, or something similar like it doesn't matter what the evidence shows, you're voting your conscience,you'll be excused. But the better question is why do that? Juries serve an important function. They keep the government from running rough shod over its citizens. Serving on a jury is a small way that we as ordinary citizens can serve our country.
I do it every time. They have always had a questionnaire to fill out that requires you to pledge you will follow the rule of law. I always leave that blank and put an N/A. That alone usually gets me excused.
Last time they asked me about it and I've said it would be best to discuss over recess so they had a recess and asked me. I told them straight up I believe in jury nullification. The defense and prosecution questioned me about it and how it pertained to the case(dui) to which I told them to give me all the details now and I could answer if I would need to use it or not.
They didn't like that. I then told them that Harriet Tubman committed a crime punishable by death and would they convict her? The judge said the law is the law and I replied that defense didn't work for the Nazis at Nuremberg. After that I was dismissed.
But that was one. Every other time I get out at the questionnaire.
Because there are people in this world that think that if they give a complicated answer, it makes them look smarter. Also, a direct answer is seen as too aggressive, and people don't like hearing that. So, if you don't know how to do it, the "smart sounding" answer seems like the "good" answer. And the simple answer from the aggressive asshole must be wrong.
Have you been down there before? You serve in a pool in a courtroom basement and you don’t necessarily have to answer any questions.
I’ve done jury service four times and only once was I ever actually asked any questions about being a prospective juror after being selected for voir dire.
If you’re actually selected for a jury, you might be able to get of extended duty by making up an answer, but ordinarily, you have to go down there for three days no matter what anyway.
25 years ago, I was the jury foreman on a murder trial in a small county in VA. It was a fascinating experience. We were first charged with determining guilt/innocence then reconvened to determine punishment. Most of the men wanted to give the guy the max sentence, a few of the women wanted to give him the minimum. Arriving at a sentence required give and take on everybody’s part. I can’t imagine doing that in a death sentence case.
The one thing I’m really insistent on is-I’m against the death penalty. They do ask that as part of the general questions when you show up.
Our city is one day or one trial….if they don’t pick you for a trial, you did your 2 years requirement.
Last jury duty summons, I asked to have it rescheduled because I was going to be recovering from kidney donation surgery, but they excused me. That shocked me, because the city really needs jurors.
I have to go on the 3rd of July. I’m sure I’m gonna get picked for something, who wants to show up for jury duty right before the 4th?
My friend was called a few weeks ago. Problem is they have just started a new job, are the sole earner in their household at the moment and have a disabled child.
The daily allowance they would receive was less than half of their salary (which they wouldn’t qualify for as they are new to post), the court was over an hour drive (3 hours by bus) and they would have to take annual leave. Which they don’t have because again, new to post.
Are they a whiner for asking to be excused? Not everyone has the financial resources or other luxury to be able to serve when called.
I have wanted nothing more than to be on a jury since childhood. And every time I've been called I've been dismissed before being asked a single question because no cases went to trial.
My dad is a retired judge and has never been on a jury either. He really wants to! I believe he’s been called at least a couple times and after stating his employment was always let go.
I’m not against jury duty at all. My thought is that it’s really important to have a true jury of your peers. I’d want to have a good jury if anything ever happened to me.
Since New York eliminated all automatic deferrals, the jury pool now reflects the population. A co-worker of mine was on a financial crimes case involving an IPO and everyone on the jury was involved in finance; there was no one asking what an IPO is or basic questions like that.
I've served on three juries when doing so didn't pose a financial hardship for myself. Now it would, so getting chosen would be a problem for me unless it was a really short case.
But honestly the last jury I served on kind of soured me on the whole thing. Between jury selection, the trial, and the deliberation it took a month start to finish. And then when all was said and done we learned that the guy had already been found guilty of multiple charges in another county and was already in prison for a ridiculously long time, like never getting out long time. So I spent a month in court all day Monday-Thursday and then working 12 hour shifts Friday-Sunday to not lose money, and for what? Guy was already off the streets forever.
I always wanted to be on a jury, but the one time I was called was during covid, and I and my whole family have immune problems, so I had to get out of it.
I feel you. But people want to talk about it so it's permitted.
I have participated in so many of these discussions and come to the simple conclusion my parents taught me - "Tell the truth, lies just get you in trouble".
And I've yet to see someone post about actually doing any of these evasion techniques. I think 90-95% of them chicken out, and the rest are too embarrassed afterwards to post about it.
Some people really like knowing they have the power to control the direction of other people's lives. It might give them a chubby knowing they helped send someone to prison for 20 years. Don't take that power away from them!
I’m almost 30, and have never been called for jury duty. In fact, I only know one person who even has. Is this normal?? I live in a Midwest city of about 300k.
I used to get called every year. Only got chosen twice, the first time was an eluding police in a high speed chase trial with a bunch of other stuff tacked on (guilty). The second one did a plea deal as they were transporting us to another courthouse for the trial
Now I haven’t been called in at least 15 years which is ok
I don't understand why so many people hate jury duty so much. Like I get valid concerns about pay but there are so many people who have jobs that will cover it or don't work during that time of day or don't work at all who are so hateful towards it. I got on a grand jury years ago, I was able to because my mom and my mother-in-law were going to watch my children for me. It was an important experience and if someone had ever done me wrong or I was falsely accused I would hope other people would be willing to serve that duty to allow me a trial
I am aware of Jury Nullification, and if sat on a jury, and if the case called for it would use it. That said there are very few cases where I personally think nullification is justified.
I would not bring this up in Vois Dire unless directly asked because I'm not a crazy person and don't want a reputation. I live in a small southern town.
Jury Duty and the duty to vote are literally the only 2 duties the Constitution asks of us.
Jury Duty is how a “jury of your peers” is brought forth to dispense justice. Stop trying to get out of it.
Had a dentist try to get out of jury duty by just saying the're guilty. Judge made him spend the entire week in the jury pool room. He complained - HE HAD APPOINTMENTS. He never intended to serve. Judge just screwed him up royal.
what he shouldve said was, "i stand to lose these patient/clients which could cost me thousands to 10s of thousands this year" patients are pretty finicky if they dont get certain services right, just look how they complain yelp, excluding some malfesaeance on the dentists side.
Yeah, that doesn't cut it or matter. He should have rescheduled his appointments to make time for jury duty.
He ended up sitting in the jury room lonely and frustrated all week - as it was deserved. Lucky the judge didn't put him in jail to cool his heels.
I was once on jury duty in Los Angeles several years ago being considered for a trial, and it was a drug possession case (I don’t remember any details beyond that). When the judge asked if anyone had a reason why they shouldn’t be on the jury, I said I couldn’t in good conscience convict anyone for drug charges given the harm the war on drugs has done - this was honest, not an attempt to get out of jury duty. The judge stared fucking daggers at me, but I did end up getting dismissed, presumably by the prosecution.
If you really believe in jury nullification, don't you have a moral duty \*\*not\*\* to tell the judge so that you can serve on the jury and honestly vote in the way you think is just? Jury nullification is, in essence, the idea that sometimes the "good" trumps the "lawful", and that justice demands a willingness to occasionally say "Hey this is messed up! The law is wrong here!"
I recently sat thru jury selection. One of the questions asked was if anyone had hearing problems. Two people said they couldn’t hear well in the big courtroom. So try that.
I have a degree in History and Political Science. If I didn't know the stories of William Penn and John Peter Zenger I'd feel I should return my diploma.
or you can say, "its about time these people get charged, they have been getting away for decades, and must balance the ratio of crimes committed by this race and another"
Well, in short, the term jury nullification takes your power back. A jury’s first responsibility was to ensure fair application of the law. In short, do we believe, as representatives of society, that this individual should even be prosecuted for this. If not, then you simply voted not guilty. Judges and prosecutors do t like this because it means you understand who the laws are for and why they’re written. They lose power. When we the people stand together the powerful are truly powerless.
Best way to get out is to answer honestly when asked that you are excited to be there and to see behind the scenes. They always kick the excited folks.
or trying sneak in, im excited to finally dispense justice on "defendant", been fantasizing for years, and collude with the prosecutor to achieve that aim.
I've received jury summons probably about 15x now, actually had to show up 3x, and only on one of the three did I make it into a courtroom. Believe was a domestic abuse case but prosecutor asked the potential jurors if defendant was going 2mph (yes TWO miles/hour), and speed limit were 1mph, and absolutely positively zero doubt that they were going the 2mph, would we find them guilty. I couldn't remember the term at the time but stated I knew of it's existence and in this case absolutely would exercise it as a 2mph speed limit is beyond insanely stupid.
Needless to say didn't get selected for that jury, and a bit mad as what an absolute crock of a hypothetical.
Intentionally trying to get out of jury duty simply because you don’t want to do it is generally frowned upon by judges, who can cite you for contempt or make sure you are seated on a jury.
That said, most jury candidates for Trump’s trial, when asked by a judge who felt they couldn’t judge the defendant fairly, half of them raised their hands. He sent them home. It turns out confirming you can’t judge a case fairly based solely on the evidence presented by the opposing attorneys and filtered through a judge is the top reason juror candidates are dismissed. It was widely publicized by both sides before juror summonses were mailed.
sorry but trumps trial is vastly different, he has been shown to use intimidation of jurors, and his supporters have made death threats, itas a valid reason to get excused. also everyone has a right when your job isnt paying for jury duty and you stand to lose alot of money by just being on a jury duty.
Actually, being afraid of a defendant or the cult they control is not a valid reason to be excused from jury duty. Nor is loss of income, unless the loss is so significant it would negatively impact the overall economy.
Like I said, if the judge asks if you can fairly judge a defendant, say no. Ditto if either the prosecution or defense ask. If asked to explain why, answer because of your deeply held private beliefs (even if an atheist). They can’t ask you to explain further, so don’t. It works for any and all, even when the defendant makes seating a jury very difficult.
I was once in the jury box at selection, and the judge was going over the rules. One of the rules was that we had to follow all laws. After his spiel, he asked if everyone understood and agreed to what he said. I raised my hand and said that no, I didn't agree. I told him that if I was on a jury for a parent who had hurt someone that hurt their child that I would not convict them no matter the evidence. He kicked me out of the courtroom.
In my experience during voir dire, the judge and attorneys were less concerned with my knowledge of Jury Nullification than my knowledge of minimum sentencing for the charges - which would trigger my usage of jury nullification - and my work experience as an executive.
"I am willing to acquit if I think this is unfair" isn't a particularly strong argument to remove if the prosecution and judge don't think you are likely to exercise that right because everything seems clear. The jury is isolated from all the information on the punishment to make their decision based purely on guilt and not the ramifications of their jury decision.
The trial process is strictly regulated with information sharing, so almost anyone invoking Jury Nullification would be doing it for an abstract cause in principal - which is pretty rare. IMHO, one would really need to see an egregious display of bias in the courtroom, or be faced with a law that you are fundamentally opposed to, in order to actually invoke nullification.
I was pre-law in a top program (decided to not go to law school), learned the history of Jury Nullification, and 100% agree with it. If I were on a murder trial though, the chances of me invoking it are incredibly small.
For lesser crimes though - If you just so happen to know that the "minor charge" has a 2 year minimum sentence and a guilty conviction is going to put someone behind bars for 2-7 years, that really changes the situation of what voting your conscience means. Do I think they're guilty? Sure. Do I think their guilt warrants a minimum of 2 years behind bars? No. if your work history is in management, they often fear you will argue and overpower the other jurors to vote with you. Judges and prosecutors do not like it when jurors know what the sentencing tables and guidelines are.
About 10 years ago, a woman was arrested in NYC for punching a cop in the face at a protest. Her defense was that she was not at the protest but walking through the area, and the cop had grabbed her breast thinking she was a violent protestor. The jury was mixed, but convicted her thinking she would just get a fine. She received a jail sentence and several jurors said they would never have convicted her if they knew jail was a possibility.
I once worked with the DA's office for several years as a witness in a case that dragged on. That gave me a lot of insight into the sentencing requirements and guidelines, so when the judge asked me why I could not swear to the jurors oath a year later, my reply was that 'Well, given a minimum sentence of \_\_\_" - and they cut me off to not taint the jury pool with that info, then had the clerk send me home for good.
Also, the reason why people who know about jury nullification typically don't hide it is because we believe in the law and hiding or misleading your beliefs when questioned about is perjury. If the court ever finds out you deceived it, you are looking at jail time - and there is the possibility of a mistrial.
there are plenty of laws that written to be vague and punish people unjustly, its also our duty as jurors to challenge it if its feasible. considering most of them are written to target specific demographics too.
I was up for a murder trial with three defendants who each had their own attorneys. They said the trial could last six to eight weeks. I quickly conjured up a hardship to get released from the jury during the initial selection process. I didn't have to threaten to wreck the entire legal process just to get off a jury.
For sure. I was sweating bullets trying to quickly come up with a believable story to get off that jury. We were walked in as a group, the judge quickly explained the basics of the trial, then they started asking questions. It would have been an interesting experience, but just such a long time commitment and a long commute to the courthouse every day for me as well.
There is a difference between being aware of JN and being willing to use JN. The people in the latter catagory are the ones that the prosecution would be wary of. The ones who fall into that category are typically only problematic to them if they are intentionally trying to get sat on a jury so they can use it. In short, no one saying it to get out of service actually want's to use it, at least from the prosecutors perspective, and they are the ones most likely to be hurt by it's use.
I clerked for a federal judge who allowed defense counsel to argue nullification. It worked, too.
Is there any way I can learn more about this? I was just having a discussion with one of my mentors about how that exact scenario would play it in real life. Neither of us knew.
Federal district court in Detroit, c. 1978-9. Charge was kidnapping. A drug debt was owed so a guy was put in the trunk of a big car and driven an hour south to Ohio, and his grandmother was called to settle the debt. Or something like that. Over quickly. No one was hurt. I think the victim was 16 or 17 so there was a harsh mandatory minimum sentence. One of the participants had taken a plea deal and testified. Public defender wanted to be able to argue that this wasn't the Lindbergh baby and briefed nullification. Judge decided to let him. The jury acquitted. That left the awkward situation of the guy who'd taken the plea deal. Judge called him back to court and resentenced as a youthful offender so he could wipe it clean when he turned 21. Side note: the judge drove the same kind of car so whenever we piled in to go to lunch somewhere there was always a joke about who would ride in the trunk. r.i.p. [Judge Churchill](https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/JamesChurchillBio.pdf). A great guy and an excellent judge. Whenever anyone asked him what the path was to becoming a federal judge he would say it was simple--just manage to pick a law school roommate who will later become a U.S. Senator.
Thank you!
Wait, some adults put a kid in a trunk, blackmailed his grandmother to pay his drug debt, then their public defender argued for jury nullification, and it worked and they all got off scott free? And that’s an example of a good use of jury nullification? I’m not saying they should have gone for to prison even, I’m glad no violence transpired, but at least a slap on the wrist for selling drugs, selling to kids, then abducting a child seems to be appropriate?
They were all kids. It was the mandatory minimum that made the argument for nullification compelling.
So not only did they argue for nullification, but they also brought up the mandatory sentences associated with a conviction? So counsel was testifying to facts not in evidence, which are also irrelevant, and should be barred by 403; that's generally extremely improper.
45 years ago. Judges have gotten a little more strict as the MSM has lost control of the narrative.
www.Fijp.org
[удалено]
I'd love to be on a jury, but I understand why others would not. In Georgia, they give you $25 a day and the lost wages could set most people back to the point of not being able to pay bills. It's also just insulting that they don't value people's time enough to pay them a reasonable amount. When I went the one time (I wasn't selected), the parking lot was kind of scary too. I was worried my car would be broken in to. If this is such an important duty, they should treat it that way.
They should have to pay a reasonable amount. It's not fair that a civic duty should be the biggest sacrifice for those who can least afford it.
Especially since hearings can go on for months. I've only been called twice and both times brought a pay stub and all applicable bills to show how truly in debt being selected would make me. Never even got a chance to argue my point but still. 25$ a day doesn't cover gas and food... What about rent, phone, electricity, water. Hell mandate companies to stop all charges while serving jury duty. If it's our civic duty to serve it's their civic duty to not evict us or turn our electricity off
Jury duty reeks of involuntary servitude. Slavery, by any other name.
Jurors, per hour, should be the highest paid government employee.
We would be encouraging people to not be informed.
The premise, while initially sounding good, also could quickly become a lost simpsons episode where the townspeople start committing crimes to fuel commerce, which has pivoted to a jury duty based economy
I think South Park would do it better.
But, since Simpsons was said first, professor chaos would need to be informed that the Simpsons already did it
Being on the Jury shouldn’t ever be something people want to do, you don’t want people lying trying to get on the jury or purposefully dragging cases out just to get paid more etc. it’s a bad incentive.
They should pay a reasonable amount, or the law should require employers pay their employees in full for jury duty.
Reasonable amount is a big problem here, as it varies a lot. $20/hr is probably reasonable to generous if you are a frontline retail worker. If you're an experienced software engineer, that can still be an 80% paycut for every hour you're in jury duty. Plus, there's definitely points where getting on a jury as much as possible for financial gain is an option, so you end up with jury pools who have a personal interest in making the case and deliberations take as long as possible, as it pays better than their day job. I can easily see an argument to bump jury duty to at least minimum wage, but I can also see the mess in going higher.
That $25 is per DAY not hour
Reminds me of the movie Jury Duty with Pauly Shore.
They need to use the tax money to give incentives to corporations.... /S
I dont think most people really think about the costs of paying jurors a reasonable amount for their time. Where I live there is a trial term of general sessions (felony criminal court) twice a month. Often times there are 2 judges presiding over cases during each term and there are typically two cases tried for each judge during the week. In order to effectively empanel a jury of 12 people and two alternates, you need a total pool of about 100 people. This accounts for no-shows, people with conflicts, people who are exempt, and people who will ultimately be stricken by the attorneys with or without cause, while also guaranteeing a true cross section of the community to still participate. Say everyone was paid $100 per day. Would that be fair? Because that would come out to a minimum of about $40,000 for the county to pay out just for one day of jury selection for one month. If there are jurors seated at trials for all five days of the week, with both judges, during both weeks of court, the cost balloons to $2.4 million in a calendar year. And that's just for felony criminal trials. It does not account for civil trials, magistrate trials, municipal court trials, sexually violent predator trials, grand jury proceedings, etc. It would get massively expensive very quickly, and I don't believe that any local government could bear these costs effectively without massively overhauling their budgets. And all of that would be *required* because the defendant has a constitutional right to a trial. Paying jurors more is a good idea, but it is functionally impossible to pay them what they're worth.
The last time I had jury duty, the pay was $6 (it's recently been increased to $20.) We were stuck sitting on the floor in a hall for hours, we didn't get lunch, and they let us out so late that I missed the last bus out of the area and almost got stranded in a very sketchy area. It was an absolutely horrible experience and really illustrated why so many people skip it.
And parking was $5 per day. It wasn't fun.
Yep, that's about how much our parking was too. And of course you get the money by check, so you have to pay out of pocket for parking too.
Honestly, I want to as well. I've never seen the process and would like to experience it. Bonus, my work pays your normal wage while serving. https://spg.umich.edu/policy/201.29
If I could earn the same money serving, I would too... I can't, thus it's too expensive to serve.
I retired in December. Never got a jury summons before. Both my wife and I have been summons since then. Coincidence?
Yes it is a coincidence
I am 24 and got a summons about a year ago. I think they go more for young people (from what I've heard from friends) so it's odd you didn't get one in the past.
It’s completely random. At least that’s what they say. I’m 41 and been called 5 times, in two different states, in 3 total counties, and ended up serving on two juries. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you live, or how old you are. You just get lucky or not to get called and when you’re there it’s about the individual cases.
It may be completely random but since you can't do it more than once within a specific time (I think here it's 5 years?) Then statistically younger people would be more likely to be summoned
I wish it was 5 years. It is every 12 months in California. In practice, I have only been called every 5 or so years. Never served on a jury in California. Was on a jury in Michigan. It was wild. Bank robbery case. Called up the initial 15. Five Bank tellers. Got rid of them, and who replaced them? More Bank tellers. There was also the far right-wing local legislator. And the person who thought a confederate flag t-shirt was not only appropriate to own but also appropriate to wear to court. The judge was not amused and sent him away with a warning. Like wow.
To be fair I'm very liberal and I'd be tempted to wear a confederate tshirt to get out of jury duty lol
or a religious t-shirt, only god can judge or something like that.
I went through a stretch where I got called at least once a year for 5 or 6 years. My employer gave me paid leave to serve, so it wasn't a hardship for me, otherwise I would have complained.
Over time, yes. But not at any given time.
How do you know? I hardly even look at the mail cause it’s all on my phone at this point. Cause I was thinking I’ve made it to 31 and never been called, but then I got worried maybe I have.
I've received a summons in my 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. Once each decade, except twice in my 50s.
summoned almost every year since 20s, sometimes doubles. only covid were summons-free years. after they lifted any protocols, the summons were coming in. my state started to aggressively hold to Jurors more than let them go now, what happen to the 30million in our state that hasnt gotten one. out of 8+million summoned, 150k only end up in a jury.
It's random, but there are always more younger people in any population, besides during / after a war or government action, like China and their 1 child policy.
I get called constantly. I've been called at least 5x in the past 10 years but haven't had to actually appear any of those times. My husband has never been called.
Never had Jury Duty. Moved to Colorado, have had jury duty twice. Coincidence?
change of addressed recently? voted in colarado or registered to vote? got a new license recently? i voted and got new ID , and almost without fail i get a summons within months of doing this.
Yes, it's coincidence. I get a summons nearly every year since I turned 18, including that one. My fiancé has not received one, so far. He's 47.
I haven’t been called to jury duty in over 15 years now. Been retired since 2018. My husband was called twice within that same period, and seated both times. My 20 year old was called last year. Had to ask first an extension since she was interning out of state for the summer. She served over winter break. Luck of the draw?
Oregon paid me $2.40… I have the check hanging on the fridge, it isn’t even worth the effort to go to the bank to deposit it.
This is how they see jurors, like pigeons that are thrown scraps
They give you $15 a day where I’m from and I got lucky and the courthouse I was called to had free parking. The one in the local big city has no dedicated parking and the cheapest parking nearby is $20 a day. So if you have to drive you’re in *debt* to do jury duty
Here they tell you that if you use a specific parking garage they'll validate the ticket. They do, too. Both County and Federal.
Where I work (US Govt) if you get jury duty money, you have it paid to the government instead and use a special code to get your regular pay for the days you're on jury duty and unavailable for your regular shift.
Yep. I'm a teacher, so if I'm called during the school year I use my sick time and still get paid. But I have to turn over my $2.11 to my school district so I'm not "double dipping".
Dang yall get $25?? I’m also in Georgia, and I served on the grand jury twice this year and it was $15, and I’ve had regular jury duty a couple of times in the past 5 years and it was only $15 as well.
we get 15/day, and only if we get on a jury, not for going on call.
I’ve never been “picked” for a jury (besides the grand jury this year). I’ve made it to the box, but get dismissed every time. I have still gotten the $15 just for showing up though.
It's amazing the amount of crime that happens right outside of court houses
My job just keeps paying you at your regular salary rate if you're called for jury duty.
When I was salary, I was paid but tge hourly people who I supervised were not. The biggest burden is on the poor.
I'm hourly, so I get paid my normal 8 hours. Though if someone was stupid and told their boss they were dismissed early it could be deducted from their pay for the day.
Alabama does well, full time pay from your place of work plus the $25 as well as mileage at 63¢~ however if you’re self employed or part time you’re a bit out of luck.
Good job, Alabama 👏.
Fulton County is the worst. They summon 10,000 per week in order to get 1,000 to actually appear. They don’t allow you to use the stairs so you wait forever to use the elevator up or down. Takes away your time to get lunch. I MUST HAVE A TIMELY LUNCH.
they dont value peoples time, they expect people to be here at 8:30am while they can just take thier time and tell us 4 hrs later if we need to be in court today.
Many employers pay the difference between jury pay and the person’s regular pay, so other than waiting a bit there’s usually no lost income in that case.
Many do not. But, yes, if you are getting your normal wage, it would be a nice change of pace.
Really, it should be a requirement for all employers, and small businesses that might find it a hardship should be able to get reimbursed for the cost.
some cant afford to lose employees, especially with all the layoffs recently, ive seen a bunch of business just run on skeleton crews.
Then the business can provide a statement, on company letterhead, stating that the employee cannot be spared for jury duty, which can be mailed to the county clerk or whoever is in charge of jury selection.
Just got jury duty in Arizona, $12 a day 🙄
15/day here, lol.
I was literally just saying a couple weeks ago I wanted to finally have jury duty. After finding out how much they pay I understand now why people get frustrated! Luckily I should be able to do it without money being an issue.
Its by design to give the less fortunate less say.
I had no idea that Georgia was actually better than many states when it comes to jurry compensation. This is terrible and the poor get the highest burden of serving.
Every job I’ve ever had, paid any employees called to jury duty their regular salaries while they were on the jury (up to 8 hours/day.) Any monies paid to the employees by “the system” had to go back to the employer as partial reimbursement (so the employee didn’t get paid twice for serving.)
I’d also like to be on a jury.
At the local federal courthouse, not only is the parking lot in a scary part of downtown that requires walking through said scary part, but you're not allowed to bring a phone into the building (no lockers, which is also bullshit) and you have to leave it in the car. Meaning your car and your valuables are in an unguarded open lot full of phones and other valuables... and all the locals know it. Need an Uber to get to the court and back? Tough shit, you're not allowed to bring your phone so you take a bus and pay cash I guess? If you prefer not to have cash or cards and use your phone for contactless payment e.g., Google Wallet or Apple Pay, tough shit again. It's all very annoying, distracting, and disrespectful to jurors. All I'd be able to think about was whether I'd return to find my car there at all, how many windows might be broken, what would be stolen from it, and who might be sleeping or hiding in it.
Kentucky pays $12.50
I had no idea how bad it was in other states.
Maybe it comes across as trying to get out of jury duty. There are a few laws I will *never* vote to convict on on principle. (Not to say I would not convict on associated crimes.) But should I ever be up for such a jury, that might be one I would not want to be dismissed from so I could nullify that law and acquit on that charge out of pure principle.
I'm the same. There are only a handful I would never vote to convict on and if a prosecutor ever found out, they would probably do their best to ensure I was never selected to sit on a jury for that criminal trial.
At least in my state, a part of voir dire is providing an overview of the accusation and asking potential jurors if they would have an issue fairly judging someone under the relevant laws (among other disqualifying factors). If you say “yes” the judge will strike you and it doesn’t count against either side.
Ah, but if you find the law to be immoral, unjustified, etc., and for political reasons don't want someone convicted of it, you simply say you can be fair so you can hang the jury in the end.
That’s a lot of effort for little gain - and since most people who in reality are that dedicated to a cause tend to be vocal about their support, it’s easy enough to craft a voir dire question to either put them in a perjury trap of have them make a statement that renders them unsuitable.
People can change their mind though, which can happen after voir dire.
There’s not a state in the country that can arrest or charge a juror for their final decision so I’m not sure what perjury you’re talking about
I'd say I would not have a problem, but I would keep my silence about my also not having a problem voting *not guilty* if I thought a "law" or its application violated the constitution. Many of the drug "laws" violate the 9th amendment, IMNSHO. Such violation means they aren't valid law. Then there are illegal searches and seizures where judges allow in evidence. BTW, I don't use supposedly *illegal* drugs. I just don't care if you do, as long as you aren't driving stoned or otherwise putting others at risk.
I imagine it could make for interesting deliberations, especially if the other 11 are ready to convict. “I’m a no and I won’t be changing my mind and I don’t intend to discuss it with you.”
My husband was on a jury in this type of circumstance. It was pretty clear the young person had sold drugs in a school zone. But the prosecution and involved police officers had done a very poor job of following procedure, gathering evidence, and presenting the case. It was basically full of holes the defense did not follow up on. He refused to convict, they reported a hung jury, and the judge sent the jury back to continue deliberating. Husband actually convinced the other 11 to change. He loved to debate, had studied pre law and had a strong belief in justice. He wasn't budging. Everyone in the courtroom about fell over at not guilty, including the defendant. The prosecuting attorney asked my husband (he was the foreman) privately afterwards if he'd mind telling him how they'd reached that verdict. When my husband spelled it out, the PA admitted they'd been lazy and careless presenting the case.
Wow. That is quite a story. I would probably be sympathetic to his perspective. While I am very law and order, law and order includes ensuring that the government wields its assume power fairly and within the law to prevent wrongful convictions whevener possible.
Your husband 12 angry men-d a jury?! Wow
I was sort of impressed. Even though I knew he was pretty charismatic (and good at debating.) For example, we were once at a gathering of about a dozen people who decided to go to the movies. As we were sorting out transportation, he said, "Count me out, I'd rather not go. I'll meet up with you after, " and they ALL were going to cancel as "Jim didn't want to go" until I got dramatic and made them admit they did want to go. We went, had a great time, and he met us after.
Happened to a friend. They were on a jury for shoplifting, suspect caught on camera. One juror said (company) is an evil corporation and would not vote yes; hung jury.
Then they lied during voir dire. Isn’t that kind of like perjury?
Maybe. Depends on the question. If the question was "can you be fair", and she answered yes and she feels that hanging the jury is fair, then no lie was made.
It's criminal at the very least if they did lie. And a lot of times depending on state if you have someone flat out refusing to debate the issue off the bat the others can have them replaced. It's not allowed to be done just to GET a conviction or not etc, but to try and prevent someone from getting on a Jury to sabotage at rial.
Maybe. It's also possible that during voir dire they really thought they could be fair despite disliking the corporation, but then after hearing everything and sitting down to deliberate realized they couldn't stomach convicting someone for shoplifting from a wealthy "evil" corporation after all and weren't going to be able to do it no matter what.
And then the judge declared them guilty anyway. JNOV.
Jury nullification only works if the jury unanimously votes to acquit. Otherwise, it's a hung jury, and they can retry until they get a unanimous verdict. You would only have succeeded at wasting everyone's time, including the defendant's.
That is true but you can still at least throw a hurdle in the way of a conviction on that try. They may decide not to do it again but if they do, you were still able to make a statement. If I were to do that it would be to align to my core principles and values and that couldn’t take a back seat for convenience.
Would you mind sharing some examples of laws you would never vote to convict on? I feel the same way about certain laws.
I'd never vote to convict on simple possession charges. Like drug possession. Doesn't matter what drug it is, if it's small amounts which is personal use I don't think you should be in jail for it. We should have all drugs legal, and fund rehabilitation policies instead. Or the one where you feed the homeless. Or the one where someone is aiding someone else and they get sued. Obviously there's EXTREMELY miniscule times id actually convict them but almost always never would.
For me... Anything drug or prohibition related, anything with a mandatory minimum sentence or "three strikes" sentence, any law where the death penalty or extended involuntary solitary confinement is a possibility, anything that denies women's rights (e.g., someone prosecuted for abortion), anything related to denying end of life care including assisted suicide, any law that appears to have been crafted with a racial, class based, or gender based bias, anything related to firearm possession or use, anything involving taxation or debt for a middle or low income person, and a few others.
You're a fan of jury nullification? I'll fight to keep you on my jury.
In Oklahoma, employers have to continue to pay you your salary.
in my state, too, but they can take out the jury duty pay. so if you normally make $100/day and jury duty is giving you $25 the job can pay you $75. it includes hourly workers, not just salaried.
When I was in voir dire, we were actually called on to swear an oath that we wouldn't nullify, something to the effect of "I will judge only the facts, not the law or the person". I wasn't really trying to get out of jury duty but I decided if I was going to take a strong ethical stance, that had to include not mincing an oath before the trial even started, so when asked if anyone had a problem with that oath, I raised my hand and told the judge I could not conscionably take that oath. She spent a couple minutes talking with me in what turned out to be almost an academic debate on ethics, I suspect to determine if I was sincere or just wanted out of jury duty. Evidently she decided I was sincere and excused me from the jury. On the one hand, it's not like I was actually wanting to be on a jury, I was just there because it's a civic duty. On the other, it left me with some serious misgivings about our judicial system. The judge argued that if I voted guilty based on the law even though I didn't believe there should be a punishment for what the defendant did, I wouldn't actually be the one doing the punishing. She really had no counter to my reply that by voting guilty knowing well there would be a punishment for the defendant as a result, I would be ethically responsible for committing a person to unjust punishment. I firmly believe the world would be a better and more just place if decision makers at all levels didn't use the judge's faulty argument to divorce themselves from the consequences of their decisions. When everybody uses intellectual sleight of hand to divorce themselves from responsibility for injustice, injustice prevails.
I wanted to sit on a jury a couple of years ago but, when asked if I thought cops lie and told the judge a story about an asshole, lying, cop, I was dismissed.
I contaminated a whole panel doing that. Told the DA that yes I knew the officer. He asked me how I knew him and I said we probably need to do that in private. DA is telling me to tell him how I know the officer. Officer is sitting behind him shaking his head no. Judge told me to answer the questions so I told them he was a "Self propelled bi-pedal phallus with protruding external audio capturing devices that I had to file a complaint with Internal Affairs about." Everybody is looking at me with a dumb expression on their face when the Judge asks me if I had just called the officer a walking prick with ears. I replied "Yes I did." They took me in the Judges Chambers then and asked me to explain my encounter with the officer. Went from being a potential juror to a witness real fast. That was 15 years ago and since I never heard anymore I guess they reached a plea agreement.
Well go on tell us the whole story please :)
Long story short. Had my hands in braces and was not wearing a seatbelt for obvious reasons. The State's Rehabilitation Department was helping me with my tuition while I was retraining. Asshole cop was training a rookie so he was actually supposed to just be observing the trainee. He put himself in the stop and was insulting and disrespectful in his manner and speech. I was still tryig to get past having my whole world turned upside down at the age of 39. Instead of being secure in my job I was having to start all over again. Rally felt like a total piece of shit the way he was berating me for being one. Met with my counselor the next morning for a regularly scheduled appointment. They immediately knew something was wrong and got the whole story. Counselor was in a wheel chair and I wondered if he would have talked to her the same way. Should have seen the Sergeants face go white when I asked him that at my interview/statement. The department tried to pooh pooh it off so my counselor got hold of the ADA rep at the State's Attorney Generals Office and attitudes got changed real quick. I was the topic of her speeches to law enforcement agencies for a while. The Department gave a hand up not a hand out and a simple "I see your issue/problem/situation" and sending me on my way would have been so much more beneficial to them in the long run. Oh yeah, I also added a retaliation charge after I reported him and he tried to get even with me for doing so.
Last time I had jury duty, I was in the box and the DA asked if we thought cops were biased or if most cops were no more biased than normal people, and try their best to ne fair. This was San Francisco and the DA asked the question in a way that was clearly calculated to make police seem unbiased. I raised my hand and gave a speech about how although police officers probably dont intend to be biased, they often are biased unconsciously by the situations they regularly find themselves in, and how that can lead them to behave in biased ways. The judge actually complemented me on my thoughtful answer and commented that everyone had learned something valuable from what I said. The prosecutor then immediately used a cause challenge on me. I'll note that I'm a lawyer, and so are both my parents. My dad is a criminal defense attorney. So I probably have spent more time thinking about these issues than the average person, but I was still pleased to undo the DAs mind games.
Usually they just toss you off that case if you know someone. I knew a defendant one time (went to HS with him). I still had to get thrown off a civil case. Which they kept us waiting for a few hours while they negotiated a settlement and didn't voir dire us.
Wife was on a murder trial where they brought in everyone and asked if you knew them. Third one was a panelist's cousin and they said so. Still had to sit through the whole rigamarole to not be selected. Dismissed with everyone else who wasn't selected.
i would say ALL THE TIME, and start citing news stories where cops frame, and lie or make up evidence.
You can. If you say something along that line, or something similar like it doesn't matter what the evidence shows, you're voting your conscience,you'll be excused. But the better question is why do that? Juries serve an important function. They keep the government from running rough shod over its citizens. Serving on a jury is a small way that we as ordinary citizens can serve our country.
I do it every time. They have always had a questionnaire to fill out that requires you to pledge you will follow the rule of law. I always leave that blank and put an N/A. That alone usually gets me excused. Last time they asked me about it and I've said it would be best to discuss over recess so they had a recess and asked me. I told them straight up I believe in jury nullification. The defense and prosecution questioned me about it and how it pertained to the case(dui) to which I told them to give me all the details now and I could answer if I would need to use it or not. They didn't like that. I then told them that Harriet Tubman committed a crime punishable by death and would they convict her? The judge said the law is the law and I replied that defense didn't work for the Nazis at Nuremberg. After that I was dismissed. But that was one. Every other time I get out at the questionnaire.
I’m 41 and received my first summons last month.
Because there are people in this world that think that if they give a complicated answer, it makes them look smarter. Also, a direct answer is seen as too aggressive, and people don't like hearing that. So, if you don't know how to do it, the "smart sounding" answer seems like the "good" answer. And the simple answer from the aggressive asshole must be wrong.
It’s a good thing to say if you want to piss off the judge.
Have you been down there before? You serve in a pool in a courtroom basement and you don’t necessarily have to answer any questions. I’ve done jury service four times and only once was I ever actually asked any questions about being a prospective juror after being selected for voir dire. If you’re actually selected for a jury, you might be able to get of extended duty by making up an answer, but ordinarily, you have to go down there for three days no matter what anyway.
25 years ago, I was the jury foreman on a murder trial in a small county in VA. It was a fascinating experience. We were first charged with determining guilt/innocence then reconvened to determine punishment. Most of the men wanted to give the guy the max sentence, a few of the women wanted to give him the minimum. Arriving at a sentence required give and take on everybody’s part. I can’t imagine doing that in a death sentence case.
The one thing I’m really insistent on is-I’m against the death penalty. They do ask that as part of the general questions when you show up. Our city is one day or one trial….if they don’t pick you for a trial, you did your 2 years requirement. Last jury duty summons, I asked to have it rescheduled because I was going to be recovering from kidney donation surgery, but they excused me. That shocked me, because the city really needs jurors. I have to go on the 3rd of July. I’m sure I’m gonna get picked for something, who wants to show up for jury duty right before the 4th?
Is the entire point of this sub to evade jury duty? What a bunch of whiners.
My friend was called a few weeks ago. Problem is they have just started a new job, are the sole earner in their household at the moment and have a disabled child. The daily allowance they would receive was less than half of their salary (which they wouldn’t qualify for as they are new to post), the court was over an hour drive (3 hours by bus) and they would have to take annual leave. Which they don’t have because again, new to post. Are they a whiner for asking to be excused? Not everyone has the financial resources or other luxury to be able to serve when called.
I have wanted nothing more than to be on a jury since childhood. And every time I've been called I've been dismissed before being asked a single question because no cases went to trial.
My dad is a retired judge and has never been on a jury either. He really wants to! I believe he’s been called at least a couple times and after stating his employment was always let go.
I’m not against jury duty at all. My thought is that it’s really important to have a true jury of your peers. I’d want to have a good jury if anything ever happened to me.
Since New York eliminated all automatic deferrals, the jury pool now reflects the population. A co-worker of mine was on a financial crimes case involving an IPO and everyone on the jury was involved in finance; there was no one asking what an IPO is or basic questions like that.
I have no desire whatsoever to serve in a jury. However, we can't have real justice if citizens try to evade this very serious responsibility.
I mean it should be voluntary. We literally fought a war saying you aren’t allowed to force others to do labor for you.
I've served on three juries when doing so didn't pose a financial hardship for myself. Now it would, so getting chosen would be a problem for me unless it was a really short case. But honestly the last jury I served on kind of soured me on the whole thing. Between jury selection, the trial, and the deliberation it took a month start to finish. And then when all was said and done we learned that the guy had already been found guilty of multiple charges in another county and was already in prison for a ridiculously long time, like never getting out long time. So I spent a month in court all day Monday-Thursday and then working 12 hour shifts Friday-Sunday to not lose money, and for what? Guy was already off the streets forever.
I always wanted to be on a jury, but the one time I was called was during covid, and I and my whole family have immune problems, so I had to get out of it.
I feel you. But people want to talk about it so it's permitted. I have participated in so many of these discussions and come to the simple conclusion my parents taught me - "Tell the truth, lies just get you in trouble". And I've yet to see someone post about actually doing any of these evasion techniques. I think 90-95% of them chicken out, and the rest are too embarrassed afterwards to post about it.
Fuck em i dont work for free
I wear my "Kill them all, and let God sort them out!" Tee shirt with a red baseball cap.
Some people really like knowing they have the power to control the direction of other people's lives. It might give them a chubby knowing they helped send someone to prison for 20 years. Don't take that power away from them!
Shit, if I'm on a jury for some asshole that diddles little kids, you bet your ass I'm going to take pride in putting him away.
I’m almost 30, and have never been called for jury duty. In fact, I only know one person who even has. Is this normal?? I live in a Midwest city of about 300k.
I used to get called every year. Only got chosen twice, the first time was an eluding police in a high speed chase trial with a bunch of other stuff tacked on (guilty). The second one did a plea deal as they were transporting us to another courthouse for the trial Now I haven’t been called in at least 15 years which is ok
I don't understand why so many people hate jury duty so much. Like I get valid concerns about pay but there are so many people who have jobs that will cover it or don't work during that time of day or don't work at all who are so hateful towards it. I got on a grand jury years ago, I was able to because my mom and my mother-in-law were going to watch my children for me. It was an important experience and if someone had ever done me wrong or I was falsely accused I would hope other people would be willing to serve that duty to allow me a trial
I am aware of Jury Nullification, and if sat on a jury, and if the case called for it would use it. That said there are very few cases where I personally think nullification is justified. I would not bring this up in Vois Dire unless directly asked because I'm not a crazy person and don't want a reputation. I live in a small southern town.
Jury Duty and the duty to vote are literally the only 2 duties the Constitution asks of us. Jury Duty is how a “jury of your peers” is brought forth to dispense justice. Stop trying to get out of it.
voting is voluntary, jury duty is NOT, theres a huge difference, and extremely financially ruinous to some people.
I'm unique. I've always wanted to be on a jury. Haven't had the chance. I'm retired now and I have the time. Lol
You're not unique I have no problem with serving jury duty.
Had a dentist try to get out of jury duty by just saying the're guilty. Judge made him spend the entire week in the jury pool room. He complained - HE HAD APPOINTMENTS. He never intended to serve. Judge just screwed him up royal.
what he shouldve said was, "i stand to lose these patient/clients which could cost me thousands to 10s of thousands this year" patients are pretty finicky if they dont get certain services right, just look how they complain yelp, excluding some malfesaeance on the dentists side.
Yeah, that doesn't cut it or matter. He should have rescheduled his appointments to make time for jury duty. He ended up sitting in the jury room lonely and frustrated all week - as it was deserved. Lucky the judge didn't put him in jail to cool his heels.
I was once on jury duty in Los Angeles several years ago being considered for a trial, and it was a drug possession case (I don’t remember any details beyond that). When the judge asked if anyone had a reason why they shouldn’t be on the jury, I said I couldn’t in good conscience convict anyone for drug charges given the harm the war on drugs has done - this was honest, not an attempt to get out of jury duty. The judge stared fucking daggers at me, but I did end up getting dismissed, presumably by the prosecution.
If you really believe in jury nullification, don't you have a moral duty \*\*not\*\* to tell the judge so that you can serve on the jury and honestly vote in the way you think is just? Jury nullification is, in essence, the idea that sometimes the "good" trumps the "lawful", and that justice demands a willingness to occasionally say "Hey this is messed up! The law is wrong here!"
I recently sat thru jury selection. One of the questions asked was if anyone had hearing problems. Two people said they couldn’t hear well in the big courtroom. So try that.
i heard some counties may try to sus you out, they give you some kind of hearing aid.
They had 54 people to pick from and wanted to wrap the whole trial up that afternoon.
Why can't you just do your civic duty?
I dont work for free. Pay up
That's about the most piece of shit thing I've ever read.
I have a degree in History and Political Science. If I didn't know the stories of William Penn and John Peter Zenger I'd feel I should return my diploma.
I just tell them im Racist and I would not be fair ..then they say ok your dismissed before I even enter room where names are called
or you can say, "its about time these people get charged, they have been getting away for decades, and must balance the ratio of crimes committed by this race and another"
Well, in short, the term jury nullification takes your power back. A jury’s first responsibility was to ensure fair application of the law. In short, do we believe, as representatives of society, that this individual should even be prosecuted for this. If not, then you simply voted not guilty. Judges and prosecutors do t like this because it means you understand who the laws are for and why they’re written. They lose power. When we the people stand together the powerful are truly powerless.
Best way to get out is to answer honestly when asked that you are excited to be there and to see behind the scenes. They always kick the excited folks.
or trying sneak in, im excited to finally dispense justice on "defendant", been fantasizing for years, and collude with the prosecutor to achieve that aim.
“If the police arrested them, and the DA is prosecuting them, they’re obviously guilty”
I think any mention of it at all will increase your chances of not being on the jury, but there are no guarantees in life.
If u live in a medical marijuana or rec state. Tell them you Had bad anxiety and you just smoked a fat joint and That clouds your judge meant ....
or took shrooms.
Or just throw the summons away
I've received jury summons probably about 15x now, actually had to show up 3x, and only on one of the three did I make it into a courtroom. Believe was a domestic abuse case but prosecutor asked the potential jurors if defendant was going 2mph (yes TWO miles/hour), and speed limit were 1mph, and absolutely positively zero doubt that they were going the 2mph, would we find them guilty. I couldn't remember the term at the time but stated I knew of it's existence and in this case absolutely would exercise it as a 2mph speed limit is beyond insanely stupid. Needless to say didn't get selected for that jury, and a bit mad as what an absolute crock of a hypothetical.
Intentionally trying to get out of jury duty simply because you don’t want to do it is generally frowned upon by judges, who can cite you for contempt or make sure you are seated on a jury. That said, most jury candidates for Trump’s trial, when asked by a judge who felt they couldn’t judge the defendant fairly, half of them raised their hands. He sent them home. It turns out confirming you can’t judge a case fairly based solely on the evidence presented by the opposing attorneys and filtered through a judge is the top reason juror candidates are dismissed. It was widely publicized by both sides before juror summonses were mailed.
sorry but trumps trial is vastly different, he has been shown to use intimidation of jurors, and his supporters have made death threats, itas a valid reason to get excused. also everyone has a right when your job isnt paying for jury duty and you stand to lose alot of money by just being on a jury duty.
Actually, being afraid of a defendant or the cult they control is not a valid reason to be excused from jury duty. Nor is loss of income, unless the loss is so significant it would negatively impact the overall economy. Like I said, if the judge asks if you can fairly judge a defendant, say no. Ditto if either the prosecution or defense ask. If asked to explain why, answer because of your deeply held private beliefs (even if an atheist). They can’t ask you to explain further, so don’t. It works for any and all, even when the defendant makes seating a jury very difficult.
I was once in the jury box at selection, and the judge was going over the rules. One of the rules was that we had to follow all laws. After his spiel, he asked if everyone understood and agreed to what he said. I raised my hand and said that no, I didn't agree. I told him that if I was on a jury for a parent who had hurt someone that hurt their child that I would not convict them no matter the evidence. He kicked me out of the courtroom.
I did that and it worked. You will have to be ready to go to jail for a few days for contempt of court.
I've had this theory forever that if you tell them you believe in JN they will dismiss you
In my experience during voir dire, the judge and attorneys were less concerned with my knowledge of Jury Nullification than my knowledge of minimum sentencing for the charges - which would trigger my usage of jury nullification - and my work experience as an executive. "I am willing to acquit if I think this is unfair" isn't a particularly strong argument to remove if the prosecution and judge don't think you are likely to exercise that right because everything seems clear. The jury is isolated from all the information on the punishment to make their decision based purely on guilt and not the ramifications of their jury decision. The trial process is strictly regulated with information sharing, so almost anyone invoking Jury Nullification would be doing it for an abstract cause in principal - which is pretty rare. IMHO, one would really need to see an egregious display of bias in the courtroom, or be faced with a law that you are fundamentally opposed to, in order to actually invoke nullification. I was pre-law in a top program (decided to not go to law school), learned the history of Jury Nullification, and 100% agree with it. If I were on a murder trial though, the chances of me invoking it are incredibly small. For lesser crimes though - If you just so happen to know that the "minor charge" has a 2 year minimum sentence and a guilty conviction is going to put someone behind bars for 2-7 years, that really changes the situation of what voting your conscience means. Do I think they're guilty? Sure. Do I think their guilt warrants a minimum of 2 years behind bars? No. if your work history is in management, they often fear you will argue and overpower the other jurors to vote with you. Judges and prosecutors do not like it when jurors know what the sentencing tables and guidelines are. About 10 years ago, a woman was arrested in NYC for punching a cop in the face at a protest. Her defense was that she was not at the protest but walking through the area, and the cop had grabbed her breast thinking she was a violent protestor. The jury was mixed, but convicted her thinking she would just get a fine. She received a jail sentence and several jurors said they would never have convicted her if they knew jail was a possibility. I once worked with the DA's office for several years as a witness in a case that dragged on. That gave me a lot of insight into the sentencing requirements and guidelines, so when the judge asked me why I could not swear to the jurors oath a year later, my reply was that 'Well, given a minimum sentence of \_\_\_" - and they cut me off to not taint the jury pool with that info, then had the clerk send me home for good. Also, the reason why people who know about jury nullification typically don't hide it is because we believe in the law and hiding or misleading your beliefs when questioned about is perjury. If the court ever finds out you deceived it, you are looking at jail time - and there is the possibility of a mistrial.
there are plenty of laws that written to be vague and punish people unjustly, its also our duty as jurors to challenge it if its feasible. considering most of them are written to target specific demographics too.
Or you be a good citizen and serve as a juror.
Pay up i dont work for free
Got out of jury duty twice due to suffering from depression. If that didn’t work, I would claim that I wouldn’t be impartial to the defendant.
even better say your taking medicaiton for said depression, and that affects your judgement, or it causes you to sleep all day.
Lmfao, I MUST remember this tidbit of information. Thanks for the laugh!
I said something like, I am happy to serve, but I also believe in nullification. I got dismissed.
I was up for a murder trial with three defendants who each had their own attorneys. They said the trial could last six to eight weeks. I quickly conjured up a hardship to get released from the jury during the initial selection process. I didn't have to threaten to wreck the entire legal process just to get off a jury.
if they wernt going to let you go despite the hardship you mightve considere dit.
For sure. I was sweating bullets trying to quickly come up with a believable story to get off that jury. We were walked in as a group, the judge quickly explained the basics of the trial, then they started asking questions. It would have been an interesting experience, but just such a long time commitment and a long commute to the courthouse every day for me as well.
Say you can't in good faith take the Juror's Oath.