Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Judge reams out people avoiding jury duty
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 03:53:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <100jinh$2logg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100j7o7$c8fs$26@dont-email.me> <100java$2glu0$1@dont-email.me> <100jc9v$c8fs$27@dont-email.me> <100je1k$2glu0$3@dont-email.me> <100jhul$c8fs$29@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 05:53:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="185f2bd8c6c3975d97b3a73559a9ba6f";
	logging-data="2810384"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DzKR/76/48GAuvekvI815"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4f4YjQmfMjmiNj0HbdvdM1MvndM=

On May 20, 2025 at 8:40:03 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:

> 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.

She was helping both sides, really. It's true the defense usually objects to
cops but prosecutors don't much care for them on the jury, either. Same reason
as lawyers: they know all the details about how things are done, like crime
scene processing, and can point out to jurors when things seem to be 'missing'
or suppressed.

>>  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.