Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<100k35d$c8fs$31@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Wed, 21 May 2025 04:33:49 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <100k35d$c8fs$31@dont-email.me>
References: <100j7o7$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> <100jinh$2logg$1@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 10:33:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d37da6a888670205dc44571bbdd5188";
	logging-data="401916"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185uNGffQYzAKM4OitPYqRPl6yPrfcLT6U="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aoSLbByWrMz/HIn6W+/2dOBZItk=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250521-0, 5/20/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <100jinh$2logg$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-CA
Bytes: 8631

On 2025-05-20 11:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.
> 
I guess it's true that sausage makers don't like outsiders knowing how 
the sausage actually gets made....

>>>   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