I got a notice today....

[Land Owner]

The old adage is Jury Duty is a civic duty but do not discount that if you shirk it for no good reason, YOU will be put in jail and may need a jury of your own.

I looked at it as an adventure. One that you will get no other way. Consider it an inside look at Justice in America. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is what juries, judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, court reporters, bailiffs, and defendants do all day, every day.

[abunaitoo]

Funny jury story
We were in in the box, being questioned by the lawyers.
Old guy sitting in the front.
LW- Do you know why you are here????
OG- My grand daughter say I get letter. I have to be here.
LW- But do you know why you are here????
OG- My grand daughter say i have to be here.
LW- But do you know what is going on????
OG- My grand daughter say I have to be here.
LW- How did you get here????
OG- My grand daughter drop me off.
LW- Where is she now????
OG- She go to work.
LW- How will you get home????
OG- My grand daughter say she pick me up after work.
It was funny, but kind of sad.
Poor guy had no idea what was going on.
He got excused, they led him in the back.
I think to see if they could get someone to pick him up.
Jury duty has been mostly interesting.
Some of them should NOT have been on the jury.
Once before they started the selection, the judge ask if there was anyone who felt the could not serve.
Many stood up.
As they each went up to the judge, one guy said, pointing at the defendants, "they are hawaiian, they cannot be tried in a non hawaiian court"
Judge told him to take a seat.
Funny thing is, selection went on for two days.
Guy had to come back everyday.
I'm sure he was not happy.

[Petrol & Powder]

Last time I checked, Hawaii is in the United States. If the native Hawaiians don't like that fact, they're welcome to leave - If they stay, they need to act like American citizens.

[abunaitoo]

We're the ones who will have to leave.
They want the island back, but they want to keep all the benefits.
Keep on telling them they can't have it both ways.
They don't listen.
They are to busy fighting among themselves.
They stab each other in the back all the time.
Always in court for corruption.
Just had the Asst Prosecutor, and her police chief husband convicted.
Both hawaiian.
Very sad.
I have lots of hawaiian friends.
They are sick of the selfish trouble makers.

[dangitgriff]

Glad someone brought up jury compensation...
How is it the state gets to lawfully sideline you for potentially a week or longer and pay you just a small percentage of your salary?
I go to work to pay my bills. They need to compensate me for my time—every hour I’m there, I lose money, and that affects my family. That pisses me off.
Someone please post settled law cases that give the state authority to hold you without making your salary whole.

[Petrol & Powder]

Glad someone brought up jury compensation...
How is it the state gets to lawfully sideline you for potentially a week or longer and pay you just a small percentage of your salary?
I go to work to pay my bills. They need to compensate me for my time—every hour I’m there, I lose money, and that affects my family. That pisses me off.
Someone please post settled law cases that give the state authority to hold you without making your salary whole.

".... Someone please post settled law cases that give the state authority to hold you without making your salary whole..."

The short answer is, "You're not special". All qualified citizens that do not fall under one of the exemptions for jury duty are subject to potential jury duty.

Because the individual right to a jury trial is strongly established in the Constitution, the state [government] clearly has the authority to summon people to serve as jurors. If the state is required to provide juries then the state has the authority to procure potential jurors.

The proper form of that question is: "If I'm forced to serve on a jury and I lose income as a result of that forced service, what can I do about it?" ; and the answer is very simple - you can do NOTHING !

The state not only has the authority to procure jurors, the state has an absolute need to provide jurors.
Because the state and federal government have sovereign immunity (you can't sue the king unless the king gives you permission to sue him), you have no recourse.

Now, both federal and state government recognize that hardships exist and there are laws to provide relief. The elderly are exempt from jury duty, nursing mothers are generally exempt, sole proprietors of farms and businesses are often exempt, persons with disabilities are often exempt and there are other exemptions. However, the government needs jurors, so they can't make everyone exempt.

Why are some sailors and soldiers forced to stand watch or pull guard duty while others get to sleep? The answer is someone must stand watch for the protection of all. It's not fun, it's not easy but sometimes it is just your turn and it needs to be done.
Why do we force people to serve on juries? Because it is necessary for the protection of all.

As a practical matter, federal employees are not eligible for compensation from the court when they serve as jurors but they get their regular pay while serving on a federal jury. Many private sector employers will voluntarily pay their employees while their employees are on jury duty.

If none of the above assuages your concerns about the loss of income while performing your civic duty, my final advice to you is to become a convicted felon - then you will never have to worry about serving on a jury for the rest of your life.

[dangitgriff]

This sounds like something you read about in communist China or Soviet-era Russia, not in a supposedly free society.

I wonder how many millionaires have ever been subjected to a trial by his peers—12 other millionaires who dutifully answer the call to serve on a jury? I can’t recollect any...do they have an excuse the rest of us don’t qualify for?

[Petrol & Powder]

dangitgriff wrote, "This sounds like something you read about in communist China or Soviet-era Russia, not in a supposedly free society. "

In China or Soviet-era Russia or current North Korea or many other places; you wouldn't get a JURY trial at ALL.

If you view the U.S.A. as a "supposedly free" country and wish to leave - this is NOT North Korea, or the former East Germany; you are FREE to leave.

Free society doesn't mean anarchy. Free society doesn't mean everything in life is fair. With citizenship comes responsibility. There have been times in our nation's history that we have drafted people for military service and paid them very little for their time during that service. That pay wasn't based on their income before they were drafted. In addition to that low pay they also received the very real potential of being killed in the service of their country. FREEDOM ISN'T FREE !

You're demanding that if you are "drafted" into jury service, that you be compensated for that civic duty, during the duration of that civic duty, at your prior pay rate.

Let's explore your theory that jurors should be compensated for their time during jury service at their normal hourly rate.

Assume you are charged with a crime that carries the potential of incarceration. You are entitled to a trial by jury and you exercise that right to have a jury trial. That's a Constitutional right that you have and Soviet-era Russians or current day North Korean subjects do not have.

After a lengthy process of seeking impartial jurors we end up with a jury comprised of 12 people that all normally earn a living in excess of $100/hour. The are crane operators, airline pilots, skilled technicians, etc.
The trial runs 8 hours a day for one week. That's $1200/hour for 40 hours or $48,000 in lost wages that you believe those jurors are entitled to.

NOW - let's say you are convicted, receive a suspended jail sentence, a fine of $1000 plus court costs. If the state charges the convicted defendant for the cost of the jury (my state does exactly that), you would owe $49,000 for that particular trial and that's before we bill you for your free public defender if you couldn't hire your own lawyer. Another defendant that was tried by jurors that made minimum wage would owe less at the end of a similar trial.

NOW - let's change the outcome of the trial and say you were found not guilty. You are not responsible for the cost of that jury because we don't assess court costs when people are found not guilty. Under your theory the taxpayers would then be responsible for compensating those jurors at their normal hourly rate and that trial would cost the taxpayers $48,000.

We don't have full time professional jurors in this country. Jury service is not an occupation. We don't pay jurors a hourly rate commensurate with their normal pay because jury service is a civic duty, not an occupation. It is something expected of you as a citizen.

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.

[Winger Ed.]

[QUOTE=We don't have full time professional jurors in this country. Jury service is not an occupation. We don't pay jurors a hourly rate commensurate with their normal pay because jury service is a civic duty, not an occupation. It is something expected of you as a citizen.
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.[/QUOTE]


Where's that 'like' button? I want to hit it a couple times.

[GL49]

[QUOTE=We don't have full time professional jurors in this country. Jury service is not an occupation. We don't pay jurors a hourly rate commensurate with their normal pay because jury service is a civic duty, not an occupation. It is something expected of you as a citizen.
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.[/QUOTE]

Where's that 'like' button? I want to hit it a couple times.

Last jury I was on I told the judge I wouldn't be able to sit for more than an hour or my legs would get numb, and I would need headphones because of my hearing loss. His reply was "you can move around as long as you didn't leave the jury box and the headphones are wireless"
My reply to him? "That'll work for me".

If you have a legitimate reason why you can't serve, I'm good with that. No problem.
However, if you're just figuring a way to "beat the system", well, we'll have to disagree about what should be expected from a responsible citizen.

[JBinMN]

Just so folks understand, I am not against one doing the civic duty serving their jurisdiction as a jury member. What I am against is tyranny, unfair laws(legislation) & abuse of laws as they were written by legislators who did not foresee, or overlooked the constitutionality whether purposefully or ignorantly, the unconstitutionality of such laws, and such laws being prosecuted by over eager prosecutors trying to stack up a record of convictions at the cost of the ones accused.

I will give you one possible example of what I mean.

If I lived in a state that had "Red Flag" laws, and I was part of a jury to determine if that person who had their firearms confiscated, & that person was to be criminally charged with some offense regarding the ownership of those firearms that resulted from a confiscation of the accused firearms,( which "I" consider to be unconstitutional) I would "most likely" find that the crime for which the person was charged with, was the result of an illegal law(red flag) that had violated the due process of that individual ( against the 5th & 14th Amendments) & any resulting charges were "fruit of the poisonous tree", and thus the one charged with the crime as a result of those infringements of the persons Rights would not likely have been pursued if the government & prosecutor had not pursued the criminal charges as a result of the illegal laws.

^ I am not sure I explained that very well, but it comes down to... If someone is charged with a crime that is the result of unconstitutional infringement of that persons rights(Civil), the crime/charge should be nullified by the jury(or a juror(s)) based on those unconstitutional infringements and the person accused should be freed from that prosecution & any possible conviction as a result of that prosecution.

Note - If I understand things correctly, as I am not an attorney... A person who declines a jury trial & instead takes a proceeding presided over only by a judge, will lose the chance of "jury nullification", as a judge will not entertain whether a law is unconstitutional or not, but will follow it until the unconstitutionality of the law(s) is/are decided by other courts, up to the USSC. "If" such laws ever get to the USSC, IOW, the USSC may decide not to to look into the case & decision of the highest court before reaching the USSC ( Usually a District court) will stand. Meaning a person found guilty by a judge will still go to prison while their appeal over the constitutionality of the law works its way up to the USSC & then still may not be addressed by the USSC at all.

I would not want to be a part of sending a person to prison( or whatever punishment) for an unconstitutional law, or the result of prosecutions based on what an unconstitutional law discovered.

So, either folks will understand why I bring up jury nullification or not.

It has nothing to do with shirking ones civic duty, but , IMO, on the contrary, should be a part of the juries instructions for any case before the trial even begins.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse", I have often heard said, and likewise, by not allowing jurors to know about the possibility of jury nullification, shows that whomsoever is not wanting that information to be shared with potential jurors(usually prosecutors) is promoting "ignorance of the law" & trying to basically "stack the cards" for conviction, rather than looking to find the TRUTH of the matter & how that Truth was uncovered.
IF the Truth was discovered by illegal or unconstitutional means, then the charges should not be pursued & the jury should not even have to hear the testimony or attend the trial which should not even happen.

OK, That is it from me. either folks will understand me or not. I don't know now, just how to say it any better for folks to understand...

[Petrol & Powder]

JBinMN, I don't think you need to worry about being on a jury in a criminal trial because no prosecutor worth their salt would allow you to stay in the jury pool after asking this standard voir dire question:

"Would you have any difficulty or reluctance in accepting the law as explained by the court and applying it to the facts regardless of your personal beliefs about what the law should be or is? "

If you answered that question truthfully (in accordance to what you just wrote in post #51) a prosecutor would strike you for cause and you would never make it onto the final jury panel.

[skeettx]

1. I have a letter from my VA audiologist and it says I can not understand words enough to
sit on a jury

2. In Texas, if you are 70 or over, you can ask to be excused

Mike

[Petrol & Powder]

This thread is about jury duty not jury nullification. Those two very separate issues both contain the word "jury" but that's the only thing those issues have in common.

I don't wish to drift this thread too far down this path, so I'll be brief. Jury Nullification is occasionally seen by some as a good thing but it is not always a good thing.

Let's say the state has charged someone with child molestation and puts that person on trial. The state has spent a lot of effort and money gathering evidence and they have gathered a LOT of evidence to support their allegation. The state puts on their evidence and it is all admissible evidence and it is overwhelmingly damning. There is no doubt the defendant is guilty.

But there's a guy on the jury that doesn't believe the laws concerning child molestation are Constitutional laws. He believes the state has met their burden in proving the guilt of the defendant but he doesn't personally agree with the law, so he votes not-guilty. The other 11 jurors vote to convict.

That will result in a hung jury and a mistrial. The prosecution then must decide if they want to do it all over again in a new trial or if they want to let the defendant go. True jury nullification only exists when all of the jurors vote to acquit and double jeopardy prevents the state from doing it all over again.

People tend to talk about jury nullification as if it is always the last protection against a tyrannical government but jury nullification isn't always a good thing or even the will of the general public.

It is important to remember that BOTH sides are entitled to a fair trial. The defense is entitled to a fair trial and the people (the community) are entitled to a fair trial. When individuals start thinking they can pick and choose which laws they like and will obey, they begin to wield the same tyrannical force they feared the government would possess.

[Char-Gar]

I consider jury service to be a civic duty. I have been called many times, but never chosen, due to my background. In Texas being 70 years of age is an automatic excuse, so I don't get jury summons anymore.

[LynC2]

I've been called several times including 1 murder trial. I don't mind serving, however it is a pita because of driving downtown and all the wasted time to in the selection process. Personally I'm more than happy to serve on a jury involving criminal charges as I believe in the maximum if it is warranted.

[woodbutcher]

In my home town in Fl,I was called for jury duty 3 times.I was always not selected for the jury.Why?Because all three times I was asked if I knew the defendant.I answered yes your honor,And I also have known you Sir since I was 6 years old.Have also known the defense and prosecuting attys all my life.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[dangitgriff]

Re: Jury nullification—

I understand completely.

This is false. Jury nullification is nothing more or less than judging the law behind the prosecution of the accused. There is no better or more immediately effective and nonviolent way to curb tyranny than by nullification of unjust laws at the state or federal level, and nullification has been used historically throughout American jurisprudence.
In a free society, jury nullification would be taught as part of civics class in our schools, not hidden and made into an unconstitutionally punishable offense in our courts.
In a free society, that is.

[trapper9260]

I had been call 3 times for duty first was for the state of MA when I live there and serve and the judge made me foreman We got the guy for assault on a EMT and off for disturbing the peace , the 2nd was fed here in Iowa and it was a civil case on Walmart, we found Walmart mainly at fault . Then the 3rd was county here and it was criminal they ask if I serve before and said yes 2 other time they ask about the cases and told them and then about the criminal one and then ask how would I be jury on this case I said I go by the facts they dis miss me and said you serve enough times. I got paid for all the lost pay from the places I work one made up the different and the other place paid me full pay and just had to sign the check I got for serve and turn it in .i did not get any lost of pay. I will serve again if call but they will see I am not new at it .

[Petrol & Powder]

dangitgriff, don't know why you feel compelled to use the largest typeface possible.

And who gets to decide if the law is "unjust" (to use your term)?

Jurors don't get to make their own laws or decide if they personally believe a law is "unjust".

Ask yourself how you would answer the voir dire question I posted earlier, "Would you have any difficulty or reluctance in accepting the law as explained by the court and applying it to the facts regardless of your personal beliefs about what the law should be or is?"

Jury Nullification does exist, but it isn't always a good thing. Ask yourself if your daughter was raped and the rapist was on trial, would you want someone on the jury that didn't believe the government had the authority to declare rape to be a criminal act? Does that juror get to personally decide if he/she thinks that law is "unjust"? Who is he to place himself above the law ?