Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Judge reams out people avoiding jury duty
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 23:40:03 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <100jhul$c8fs$29@dont-email.me>
References: <100j7o7$c8fs$26@dont-email.me> <100java$2glu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <100jc9v$c8fs$27@dont-email.me> <100je1k$2glu0$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 05:40:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d37da6a888670205dc44571bbdd5188";
	logging-data="401916"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jBxoJYQXidIBFcWR/b0G8i96WAxAlxNQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Nv3p1TxMcshCvMa+lR8/hzTAGfc=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250520-12, 5/20/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <100je1k$2glu0$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-CA

On 2025-05-20 10:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 20, 2025 at 7:03:41 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-05-20 9:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   On May 20, 2025 at 5:45:58 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
>>>   wrote:
>>>   
>>>>   A judge in Hamilton, Ontario gathered a whole lot of people who had
>>>>   failed to turn up for jury duty and demanded to know why.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thespec.com/news/crime/hamilton-courtroom-fail-to-obey-jury-duty-summons/article_6719b3d0-6d16-58bc-801e-62bf15b3fed1.html
>>>>
>>>>   I've only been called once and I showed up. The defendant made a last
>>>>   minute decision to plead guilty and the whole jury pool of 250 was
>>>>   dismissed so I wasn't there very long.
>>>>
>>>>   I'm under the impression that most Americans feel that only fools fail
>>>>   to wiggle out of jury duty. Is this true?
>>>   
>>>   I'd actually enjoy serving on a jury, especially now that I'm retired and
>>> have
>>>   time to kill. Even when I was working, the FedGov's policy is to pay you the
>>>   whole time you're on jury duty as if you were at work, so you don't lose any
>>>   money and you get (potentially) a week out of the office. A lot of people
>>>   aren't so lucky and don't get paid while on a jury. Most, if not all, states
>>>   have laws that prohibit an employer from firing you for jury duty but they
>>>   don't have to pay you while you're on one.
>> Interesting. I think employers in this country have to pay you for the
>> time you are on the jury but it may not be your normal pay. It may just
>> be minimum wage, which would be a major cut for people with good jobs.
>> When I told my employer about my summons, they assured me it wouldn't be
>> a problem for them but it was inconvenient for me because I was working
>> an evening shift that ended around midnight so I didn't get my full
>> night's sleep before showing up for the jury pool.
>>>   
>>>   When I retired, I embarked on something I’d wanted to do for years and
>>> packed
>>>   up the car and just started lazily driving around the country,
>>> state-by-state,
>>>   staying in various places, sometimes a week at a time, to see all the
>>> sights.
>>>   L.A. to Key West, Florida to Maine, etc. The trip took me a month and a
>>> half.
>>>   
>> That's all? I can imagine a trip like that lasting years.
>>
>>>   When I finally returned home, I found a long-expired summons for jury duty
>>> in
>>>   my accumulated mail. I called the number on the summons and explained what
>>> had
>>>   happened. The woman looked up the number on my summons and said it was no
>>>   problem, they'd just cancel it in the system and issue a new summons for me
>>>   since I was home now and being retired had no work conflicts with serving.
>>> And
>>>   a few days later, a new summons showed up.
>>
>> Clearly, there are *some* reasons that are considered acceptable for not
>> answering the summons and you hit on one of them ;-)
>>
>>>   I went and got eliminated the
>>>   moment both sides discovered I was a lawyer.
>>>   
>>
>> Is being a lawyer a get-out-of-jury-duty card in every trial?
> 
> No, but both sides generally don't like people in the jury room that can both
> explain the law to the other jurors and tell them all the legal tricks that
> lawyers pull to keep evidence away from the jury.
> 
> In CA, there are, however, exceptions written into the law that they have no
> discretion about granting. (Being a lawyer isn't one of them.) If you meet
> them, it's an automatic pass.
> 
> One of them is that you can decline to serve if you're a certified peace
> officer (cop) and they have a whole list of like 20 different types of cops
> that qualify, everything from a standard beat cop to a fish and game warden,
> but federal agents are nowhere on that list so I still had to go when I got a
> summons back in 2016.
> 
> I figured I'd go in, fill out the background questionnaire and when the
> lawyers realized I was a federal cop, they'd kick me immediately, but I
> actually ended up serving on the jury. I was stunned. During voir dire,
> neither the prosecution nor the defense seemed to have any problem with me
> being both a lawyer and police. (It was an aggravated DUI case.)
> 
> Even the judge, who has everyone's forms up on the bench, was perplexed. As
> they were about to move on to the next potential juror, she stopped them, then
> asked me if I would have any problem presuming the defendant innocent given my
> background in law enforcement. She was obviously trying to signal to the
> defense that I was a cop in case he missed it. I said I felt I could and the
> defense attorney, who must have been fresh off the set of LAW & ORDER, still
> asked me no questions and didn't object at all.
> 
It's interesting that the judge tried to "help" the defence. I'm a 
little surprised the prosecutor didn't object.

> So I ended up getting picked for the jury. My boss didn't believe me. He
> thought for sure I was just saying I got picked so I could take a few days
> off. He even showed up in the courtroom to watch one morning of testimony.
> 
That's funny! I would have thought he'd just ask to see your jury 
summons. Maybe HE was the one looking for a day off ;-)

> (We found the guy guilty.)
> 
I hope he learned his lesson. Some drunks apparently DO clean up their acts.

>> Do they at least make sure you don't have a criminal record when they compile
>> their
>> lists of prospective jurors?
> 
> I would assume so. They do ask you about any arrests or convictions you've had
> on the questionnaire. I don't imagine they just take people's word for it when
> they say no, though.
>
I certainly hope not.

>> What about language? If you don't have
>> fluency in the language the court is using, are you automatically
>> disqualified from serving or do they find an interpreter for you?
> 
> In my trial, the judge excused an ancient Chinese lady from serving who could
> barely speak English.
> 

A wise move on the part of the judge.



-- 
Rhino