Why you should never say stupid stuff to get out of jury duty

[Point of Order]

Jury Duty in Perpetuity? Federal Judge Tells Woman She and Her Racist Answers Are an Outrage

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jury_duty_in_perpetuity_judge_calls_womans_racist_answers_an_outrage/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email


Asked to list the three people she least admired, the woman had written, "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians," the story says. When Garaufis questioned her about the statement, she said those people are always in the news for doing something. She also said police are lazy and they use their sirens to bypass traffic jams.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I once observed a criminal jury selection and I was pleasantly surprised at how much people actually seemed to want to be selected. There was only one guy that gave one of those answers that disqualifies someone, most likely (I didn't see their questionairres, though). When the judge said, "Is there anyone who believes that if a defendant is on trial, he had to have done something wrong?" one guy in the pool raised his hand and said, "That's what I think."

I think people like to joke about getting out of jury duty, but when push comes to shove, they: (1) Get into the courtroom and think it seems like it would be pretty cool to do this for a few days; (2) Get into the courtroom and are intimidated out of acting like an idiot. Kind of like how everyone says they would tell a meddling cop to **** off without a warrant, but the truth is that when a cop asks to search your ****, you say "yes" 99.9 percent of the time, even though intellectually you know you don't have to.

Keep in mind that I was watching a federal drug trafficking trial. So maybe people would be more likely to want to hit the exit if they had to sit for say, a civil contract dispute.

 

[Steak Snabler]

The Daily News' lede:

An incensed federal judge sentenced a racist Brooklyn woman to indefinite jury duty on Tuesday after she trashed the NYPD and minorities.

http://origin.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/04/enraged-brooklyn-federal-court-judge-gives-racist-woman-indefinite-jury-duty

 

[Point of Order]

I was genuinely thrilled when I got my summons for federal jury duty last year, and then devastated when they canceled and dismissed us the Friday before when all the cases for that period were continued or settled.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

If you're a journalist, I think you would almost have to try to be selected to a jury.

I was called once and dismissed the second they found out what my profession was.

A friend told me that the perfect thing to say to get out of jury duty is when they ask you if you believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty to say, "I think most people who are arrested are guilty."

 

[User 11148]

Once I was in that last pool -- don't know the term -- for a domestic abuse trial. They were drawing numbers and I was still eligible. I was terrified ... I absolutely did not want to be a juror there.

If you don't believe that most people who are arrested are guilty then you are living in fantasy-land, because most people who are arrested are guilty. That's not the same as believing, though, that just because someone's been arrested that's proof of that person's guilt.

 

[mjp1542]

I was on a murder trial two summers ago. It was enthralling going through the whole process for me, although I'd just as soon never have to do it again.

That said, the jury selection process took FOREVER. There were countless people who had pathetic excuses to get out of the jury pool. And even more who asked to approach the bench and managed to get sent home. I disagree wholeheartedly that most people "think it would be cool" to be on a jury.

Frankly, it's probably a burden on a lot of folks. For me, I still got my regular pay, and the days were shorter than a normal work day. But I know it wasn't the same way for the people I served alongside.

The trial took most of three weeks. We didn't serve on Fridays. But it was stressful, and the process of giving the verdict was hard to take for a lot of people, especially the two jurors who were deemed alternates and weren't part of the deliberation. We didn't find out who the alternates were until deliberation was to begin. They were both very emotional when they learned we found one of the defendants guilty.

 

[Point of Order]

To borrow and modify the great Churchill line, the jury system is the worst form of deciding trials ever invented... except for all the others.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Once I was in that last pool -- don't know the term -- for a domestic abuse trial. They were drawing numbers and I was still eligible. I was terrified ... I absolutely did not want to be a juror there.

Why not? I can't see myself ever being turned off by the intense subject matter of an incident or topic, whether it be a journalism story or a trial or, hell, a movie of the week. All you have to do is sit there and watch. It's not like you're the one asking the questions. I'm always surprised when journalists have retained, I guess, enough of their humanity through it all to have a visceral reaction like this against being involved in something along these lines. Same thing when someone posts on here that they don't want to do news because of the subject matter (death, crimes, etc.)

I was on a murder trial two summers ago. It was enthralling going through the whole process for me, although I'd just as soon never have to do it again.

I disagree wholeheartedly that most people "think it would be cool" to be on a jury.

Frankly, it's probably a burden on a lot of folks. For me, I still got my regular pay, and the days were shorter than a normal work day. But I know it wasn't the same way for the people I served alongside.

The trial took most of three weeks. We didn't serve on Fridays. But it was stressful, and the process of giving the verdict was hard to take for a lot of people, especially the two jurors who were deemed alternates and weren't part of the deliberation. We didn't find out who the alternates were until deliberation was to begin. They were both very emotional when they learned we found one of the defendants guilty.

This is why I made sure to note that mine was a federal drug trafficking trial, and that it might be different for other topics. The trial was only three days long and it was in a beautiful federal courtroom. Three days to send a bad guy to jail and get to watch some video surveillance, watch some low lifes get dragged out of bed and onto the witness stand ... not a bad tradeoff.

But, yeah, when you start talking weeks and even months in big trials like Blagojevich or O.J. Simpson, it's a completely different world.

 

[LongTimeListener]

If you're a journalist, I think you would almost have to try to be selected to a jury.

They don't do that anymore. Just another sign of the declining respect for the media, they no longer assume we know anything about the news.

 

[schiezainc]

I was on a jury once for two weeks as we tried this guy who didn't like who his sister was dating and got some of his buddies to beat him, her and the guy's car with baseball bats.

It's pathetic how little actually gets done in a trial like this. We spent two weeks from selection to exit and the whole thing could have gotten done in about six hours were it not for the constant breaks and the constant dismissing of the jury while the lawyers argued some crap in front of the judge.

It was cool, though, to finally get the chance to deliberate. I was easily the smartest person in that room (I know, I know) and when it came time to deliberate, I went all CSI with the bat and showed exactly why the guy did what he did and why the evidence pointed to him being guilty.

F**ker didn't show up on the day the verdict was read though. Shame because I wanted to see him get put away.

 

[Bamadog]

Once I got the call when I was in college, it was for a death penalty case. Figures that'd be my terrible luck. It was some awful double homicide.

But I had an ace up my sleeve. Since at the time I'm was once a believer in the Catholic Consistent Life doctrine (no abortion, no capital punishment, I've amended recently my beliefs on capital punishment), I was sent packing when asked if I supported the death penalty. I answered negative and I was ushered out.

Thankfully, I haven't gotten another jury summons since.

 

[BTExpress]

When they stop locking people up pending trial, I'll stop believing that arrested people are probably guilty.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

When they stop locking people up pending trial, I'll stop believing that arrested people are probably guilty.

That doesn't make a pile of sense.

Ever cover a trial, including preliminaries? Lots of lawyer B.S. there. It's a quick way to lose respect for the system.

 

[Dick Whitman]

When they stop locking people up pending trial, I'll stop believing that arrested people are probably guilty.

That doesn't make a pile of sense.

Ever cover a trial, including preliminaries? Lots of lawyer B.S. there. It's a quick way to lose respect for the system.

"Lawyer B.S." = Representing your client, who is paying you to do so, to the best of your ability.

I think a great book to get some idea of how trial lawyers strategize and why certain things matter is the Jeffrey Toobin book on the O.J. Simpson trial, "The Run of His Life." Shows why things that we might think are important actually become major sticking points. Best portion is the stuff on the maid, who was going to flee the country instead of testifying. There was all this wrangling and finangling to get her in court. And then it didn't even end up being used (they had to tape the testimony so as not to interrupt the prosecution's case). It didn't end up mattering in the end, but that's hindsight. A lot like journalism, actually.

 

[LongTimeListener]

When they stop locking people up pending trial, I'll stop believing that arrested people are probably guilty.

That doesn't make a pile of sense.

Ever cover a trial, including preliminaries? Lots of lawyer B.S. there. It's a quick way to lose respect for the system.

"Lawyer B.S." = Representing your client, who is paying you to do so, to the best of your ability.

I think a great book to get some idea of how trial lawyers strategize and why certain things matter is the Jeffrey Toobin book on the O.J. Simpson trial, "The Run of His Life." Shows why things that we might think are important actually become major sticking points. Best portion is the stuff on the maid, who was going to flee the country instead of testifying. There was all this wrangling and finangling to get her in court. And then it didn't even end up being used (they had to tape the testimony so as not to interrupt the prosecution's case). It didn't end up mattering in the end, but that's hindsight. A lot like journalism, actually.

I've always thought that was a huge reason for the extreme anger that O.J. got off -- that we all saw "Mister Yonny" lying through his teeth and trying to shuttle the maid out of the country, just the blatant game-rigging dishonesty, but the jury wasn't privy to that. (Well, that was one reason for the anger, the other being that he so obviously did it.)

 

[MartinonMTV2]

B.S. wasn't meant literally for all cases, but definitely for some.

You don't have to push hard to get some defense attorneys to admit they defend guilty clients.

 

[Mark McGwire]

Why would you have to push them? The guilty are entitled to a defense, too.

 

[Dick Whitman]

When they stop locking people up pending trial, I'll stop believing that arrested people are probably guilty.

That doesn't make a pile of sense.

Ever cover a trial, including preliminaries? Lots of lawyer B.S. there. It's a quick way to lose respect for the system.

"Lawyer B.S." = Representing your client, who is paying you to do so, to the best of your ability.

I think a great book to get some idea of how trial lawyers strategize and why certain things matter is the Jeffrey Toobin book on the O.J. Simpson trial, "The Run of His Life." Shows why things that we might think are important actually become major sticking points. Best portion is the stuff on the maid, who was going to flee the country instead of testifying. There was all this wrangling and finangling to get her in court. And then it didn't even end up being used (they had to tape the testimony so as not to interrupt the prosecution's case). It didn't end up mattering in the end, but that's hindsight. A lot like journalism, actually.

I've always thought that was a huge reason for the extreme anger that O.J. got off -- that we all saw "Mister Yonny" lying through his teeth and trying to shuttle the maid out of the country, just the blatant game-rigging dishonesty, but the jury wasn't privy to that. (Well, that was one reason for the anger, the other being that he so obviously did it.)

I think Cochran actually wanted her to testify, because he thought that she would be able to help Simpson with her timeline, i.e. she was a possible alibi. In his opening statement, he actually told the jury that she would be able to place him somewhere else while the murder was taking place, I think. That didn't actually end up being the case, but I know she was a defense witness, because they had to interrupt the prosecution for like a week and sequester the jury during that time because Clark and Darden, etc., etc., didn't want their case interrupted (understandably), as was their right.

I might have a couple of the specifics of the facts wrong, but I think I'm on the right track.

Yeah, it ended up looking like a fishing expedition. But at the time, the defense thought her testimony might help and probably would help. So they had to run her out there. Of course, it is an indictment of Corchran and Shapiro and crew that they would not know exactly what she was going to say. And it is particularly so since they put it in their opening statement for the jury like it was fact.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Only got called for jury duty once. A large group of us were sworn in, then sent to a waiting room.

An hour of reading magazines later, the Commissioner of Jurors came back in, said the case was settled, and sent us home. That was it.

On the topic of this Brooklyn woman, I think the judge is an idiot. If that woman serves on any jury on a case involving a black or a Hispanic, I'd think their lawyers would move for a mistrial in a New York second. That's if she's picked.

Plus, she answered honestly. Would the judge have the woman just lie, and then end up on a jury?