Jury Duty

[pegwinn]

“too stupid to avoid jury duty.”

Ever hear that? Or something like that? I did. I got a jury summons. I’d been summoned before but never made it past the questionnaire stage. Most times I was excused simply for being in the service and not available.

(More at the blog link in my signature.)

So the question is, is there a better way?

 

[William Joyce]

“too stupid to avoid jury duty.”

Ever hear that? Or something like that? I did. I got a jury summons. I’d been summoned before but never made it past the questionnaire stage. Most times I was excused simply for being in the service and not available.

(More at the blog link in my signature.)

So the question is, is there a better way?

If you tell 'em you're a doctor, they won't want you.

 

[CSM]

“too stupid to avoid jury duty.”

Ever hear that? Or something like that? I did. I got a jury summons. I’d been summoned before but never made it past the questionnaire stage. Most times I was excused simply for being in the service and not available.

(More at the blog link in my signature.)

So the question is, is there a better way?

Better way than what? Avoiding it? or selecting a jury?

 

[jasendorf]

Just like people who don't vote have no claim to complain about the government... this would mean you should have no right to complain about the court system.

 

[boedicca]

The only people I know who enjoy serving on juries are retired. Instead of the enormously wasteful general pooling system we have now, I'd prefer to see people serve as fulltime jurors on a volunteer basis - rather like non-punitive public service. Jury of peers should mean fellow citizens - not some manipulative DNA/class warfare abomination.

 

[Annie]

Just like people who don't vote have no claim to complain about the government... this would mean you should have no right to complain about the court system.

Gee, from Pegwinn's post, I got that he's been dismissed for probably being over qualified? I think the lawyers are now taking the stance that if a potential juror has experiences, credentials that demonstrate competence they are dismissed.

 

[Emmett]

“too stupid to avoid jury duty.”

Ever hear that? Or something like that? I did. I got a jury summons. I’d been summoned before but never made it past the questionnaire stage. Most times I was excused simply for being in the service and not available.

(More at the blog link in my signature.)

So the question is, is there a better way?

Simply advise the questioning attorney you are an avid listener to the "Neal Boortz" radio program and you will be on your way in no time.

 

[Emmett]

Personally I believe that we should have professional jurors. Retired folks, housewives, unemployed, oh wait a minute! That IS who's serving on our juries.

It is such a burdonsome task anymore to actually serve. Folks have lives, being on jury duty does not go real well with everyday life. It seems that regular (professional) jurors could be easier, less time consuming choosing juries, eliminated for that matter.

Hell, go a step further, make all law students attend a minimum of a certain amount of time serving on a jury to gain accredidation. Jurors could just be randomly assigned the cases and wa-lah.

Mothers on welfare? Homeless people? The resources are endless!

 

[Emmett]

Shrink the jury to 9 individuals such as the supreme court. Eliminate 25% of the problem in the stroke of a pen. Damn! That is a good idea.

I mean, hey! If 9 folks say you ought to swing, you ought to swing. It certainly would be easier to find 9 qualified jurors than 12. Damn I R smart, ain't I.

 

[pegwinn]

Just like people who don't vote have no claim to complain about the government... this would mean you should have no right to complain about the court system.

I'm gonna take a risk and assume you didn't actually read the blog entry?

Here's a chance to demonstrate some honesty. All you have to do is read the entry and then come back to comment on it, and on your previous commentary.

[wondering what he will do with this opportunity to be honest]
[/wondering]

 

[jasendorf]

I'm gonna take a risk and assume you didn't actually read the blog entry?

Here's a chance to demonstrate some honesty. All you have to do is read the entry and then come back to comment on it, and on your previous commentary.

[wondering what he will do with this opportunity to be honest]
[/wondering]

Why would I lie about not reading your blog? Of course I didn't read your blog.
I rarely click links posted on message boards... never know what kind of crap you're going to run into... even on a blogspot site.

But my comment still holds. People who dodge jury duty should have nothing to complain about when it comes to the court system. Is that what your blog says? If so, I agree!

 

[pegwinn]

Why would I lie about not reading your blog? Of course I didn't read your blog.
I rarely click links posted on message boards... never know what kind of crap you're going to run into... even on a blogspot site.

But my comment still holds. People who dodge jury duty should have nothing to complain about when it comes to the court system. Is that what your blog says? If so, I agree!

Perhaps you need to write more clearly.

Your statement was: Just like people who don't vote have no claim to complain about the government... this would mean you should have no right to complain about the court system.

Seems to me you were implying that I personally dodged jury duty and thus had no right to complain about it (the court system).

If I have misunderstood you, then here is your opportunity to set it straight by clarifying your remarks. And, just in case you think I didn't notice the question you posed....... No, that isn't what it (my blog) says.

Since going to the blog is a scary thing for you, I reposted it here on USMB. I trust you can navigate to the blog section, find "The Realist", and read it. There are three links. One to a google search, one to my local papers coverage of the event, and a definition of a latin term. All easy, no sweat. The mountain will come to mohammed.

Tag, you're it.

 

[sitarro]

Why would I lie about not reading your blog? Of course I didn't read your blog.
I rarely click links posted on message boards... never know what kind of crap you're going to run into... even on a blogspot site.

But my comment still holds. People who dodge jury duty should have nothing to complain about when it comes to the court system. Is that what your blog says? If so, I agree!

Get a MAC j, it will alieviate some of your fears of opening links. I never worry about anything having to do with my computer....it always works and it doesn't matter what I open......all without ANY virus protection.

 

[William Joyce]

I think the lawyers are now taking the stance that if a potential juror has experiences, credentials that demonstrate competence they are dismissed.

Yes. The plaintiff lawyers need a person who doesn't know how many zeroes are in a billion, so they will gladly award that much to someone who spilled coffee on themselves.

 

[jasendorf]

Get a MAC j, it will alieviate some of your fears of opening links. I never worry about anything having to do with my computer....it always works and it doesn't matter what I open......all without ANY virus protection.

Thanks... I'm a systems admin by trade... at home I have a hardware firewall that protects my home network (some people have classic cars or woodworking or collect baseball cards, I have computers... shuddap!). I'm pretty sure I know how to protect my stuff.

I'm not so much afraid of what **dangers** may lurk at other sites... but, more importantly, I don't want other sites (particularly ones which I am likely to be ideologically opposed to) to garner any extra exposure for their ad numbers.

 

[jasendorf]

Perhaps you need to write more clearly.

Your statement was: Just like people who don't vote have no claim to complain about the government... this would mean you should have no right to complain about the court system.

Seems to me you were implying that I personally dodged jury duty and thus had no right to complain about it (the court system).

If I have misunderstood you, then here is your opportunity to set it straight by clarifying your remarks. And, just in case you think I didn't notice the question you posed....... No, that isn't what it (my blog) says.

Since going to the blog is a scary thing for you, I reposted it here on USMB. I trust you can navigate to the blog section, find "The Realist", and read it. There are three links. One to a google search, one to my local papers coverage of the event, and a definition of a latin term. All easy, no sweat. The mountain will come to mohammed.

Tag, you're it.

Not a bad article.

 

[pegwinn]

Not a bad article.

Thanks.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks.

To answer your original question, I have been twice since I retired. I make it right to the first screening and the defense takes one look at me and I'm gone.

Maybe there's something to my wife saying I just look like a train waiting for a pedestrian.

 

[Cynic-American]

I refuse to serve on a jury. Why? Because I dont believe in the justice system.
Look at OJ, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Paris Hilton, etc.

 

[jillian]

I refuse to serve on a jury. Why? Because I dont believe in the justice system.
Look at OJ, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Paris Hilton, etc.

Why are you resurrecting all the old and boring threads?

Just out of curiousity, why Paris Hilton? She got a worse sentence than anyone else similarly situated would have.

Celebrity cases aren't the norm and the justice system shouldn't be judged by them, IMO.