OT: Jury Duty

[Walker11]

 

[Husky25]

I disagree with this. You usually only get three or four peremptory challenges (i.e., removal of a prospective juror for any reason or no reason at all); otherwise you have to establish "cause" to remove a venireperson. Depending on the judge and how far s/he is willing to go to "rehabilitate" an allegedly biased juror, this is not an easy task, and it can doom you quickly if you are trying to get only jurors you believe are favorable to your side.

I learned long ago that it is more about "deselection" of jurors who you think will hurt you than it is about selecting jurors who you believe will help you. If someone is willing and able to give both sides a fair shake, that's all I need. Someone who is reluctant almost always makes a better juror than someone who is too eager.

Based on what I've seen of your posts, Tom, I'd probably take you as a juror. I assume you would honor your oath and I would rely on me being able to do my job.

If I'm not mistaken Preemptory challenges are not the only way an attorney can dismiss a juror. If both sides mutually agree that a juror is unfit, they are dismissed. The last time I served, they did not fill the entire jury (if anyone) from my day. Far more than 8 prospective jurors went through voir dire prior to me. I was the last of the day.

 

[Northbound]

Any judges, trial lawyers or court workers here?

I've been called for jury duty. Been there. Done that. Don't want to do it again.

What's the best day to reschedule my date to minimize my chances of being put on a lengthy trial? Friday before a Monday holiday? Just before Christmas or Thanksgiving?

If you're in NYC do the following, it worked for me:

1) When they ask you what are your hobbies
2) You say hunt and fish
3) When they ask do you own guns
4) You say yes - 6 of them
5) Everybody in the box tries to get as far away from you as possible
6) You are dismissed

They couldn't get me out of there fast enough.

 

[TRest]

If I'm not mistaken Preemptory challenges are not the only way an attorney can dismiss a juror. If both sides mutually agree that a juror is unfit, they are dismissed. The last time I served, they did not fill the entire jury (if anyone) from my day. Far more than 8 prospective jurors went through voir dire prior to me. I was the last of the day.

Correct, most of the presiding judges in CT will let the (civil) attorneys agree on cause, but there are a few control freaks who want veto power over that decision. I also generally like having people with prior jury experience serve again, there's no such thing as fulfilling your lifetime quota.

 

[8893]

If I'm not mistaken Preemptory challenges are not the only way an attorney can dismiss a juror. If both sides mutually agree that a juror is unfit, they are dismissed. The last time I served, they did not fill the entire jury (if anyone) from my day. Far more than 8 prospective jurors went through voir dire prior to me. I was the last of the day.

Correct, most of the presiding judges in CT will let the (civil) attorneys agree on cause, but there are a few control freaks who want veto power over that decision.

Yeah I find that this varies widely by the courthouse, trial judge and opposing counsel.

 

[sledog]

or say that same thing happened to me, ans that you think they should be quartered and hung. You'll never be selected.

Also used the medical reason - with MD note, always works. Better if serious condition.

 

[temery]

Thanks for all the advice. I've rescheduled to the day before a vacation. That's as far as I'll go to get out of jury duty.

I actually enjoyed my last stint. My only complaint was that 200 people (myself included) were asked to wait for several hours while the lawyers negotiate plee deals. I see no reason why this can't be done ahead of time.

There seems to be little to no concern for the sacrifice the jurors are making, and that is the greatest reason people hate jury duty - it's not the trial, it's the needless waiting.

 

[8893]

Thanks for all the advice. I've rescheduled to the day before a vacation. That's as far as I'll go to get out of jury duty.

I actually enjoyed my last stint. My only complaint was that 200 people (myself included) were asked to wait for several hours while the lawyers negotiate plee deals. I see no reason why this can't be done ahead of time.

There seems to be little to no concern for the sacrifice the jurors are making, and that is the greatest reason people hate jury duty - it's not the trial, it's the needless waiting.

If it makes you feel any better, much of the time lawyers spend in court is spent waiting, too.

As for appreciating jurors, without exception every trial judge I have had has gone out of his or her way to express appreciation for the jurors and how essential they are to the system, and once we are actually on trial the judges do everything in their power to minimize the amount of time that the jury has to be there.

 

[temery]

If it makes you feel any better, much of the time lawyers spend in court is spent waiting, too.

As for appreciating jurors, without exception every trial judge I have had has gone out of his or her way to express appreciation for the jurors and how essential they are to the system, and once we are actually on trial the judges do everything in their power to minimize the amount of time that the jury has to be there.

But that's the thing ... There is no reason to make a couple hundred potential jurors wait. I know very, very few people who have been selected for a trial before noon. Either tell the lawyers and prosecutors to show up at 4 am, or tell the jurors to show up at noon. It really is that simple.

 

[8893]

But that's the thing ... There is no reason to make a couple hundred potential jurors wait. Move the clock back four hours, or tell the jurors to show up at noon. I know very, very few people who have been selected for a trial before noon.

As for the lawyers waiting - that's likely because the prosecutor is haggling with othe lawyers, and they are waiting their turn. There is no reason this can't be fine ahead of time.

I can't speak to the criminal side because I only do civil. But the reality for many litigants is that they do not settle until the very last moment, which would only be extended if you pushed the jury off until later. That's why it doesn't happen ahead of time.

 

[temery]

I can't speak to the criminal side because I only do civil. But the reality for many litigants is that they do not settle until the very last moment, which would only be extended if you pushed the jury off until later. That's why it doesn't happen ahead of time.

Then push the last moment back to 8 am, and the trials will start at 9.

As someone who has been involved in more than one civil trial, I've been made to wait for hours because those suing me believed I'd settle if made to wait long enough. And the judge said repeatedly he expected both sides to work things out rather than go to trial

That's complete bull$hit, and I don't care if it works for others. If either side says he won't settle, that should be the end of it. I've spent an obscene amount of money on lawyers waiting for my time in front of the judge.

 

[8893]

Then push the last moment back to 8 am, and the trials will start at 9.

As someone who has been involved in more than one civil trial, I've been made to wait for hours because those suing me believed I'd settle if made to wait long enough. That's complete bull$hit, and I don't care if it works for others. If either side says he won't settle, that should be the end of it.

All I can tell you is that it happens often and pushing back the clock won't change it. I've been in your shoes many times, and it still doesn't mean that the next guy won't try to push it to the next "last" moment. The fact is that there really isn't a "last moment" to settle, because one side can always decide that they want to meet the other side's offer/demand, and the judge can't force them to trial if a settlement is reached. Sometimes it's the very process of going through jury selection that makes people settle, because the parties start to get a preview of how jurors perceive the issues relevant to the case, because of the judge you drew, or because they start to see how the other lawyer is going to present the case and it causes them to re-evaluate their positions.

You may not care that it works for others, but the fact is that it does and the change you suggest won't change that dynamic.

 

[temery]

All I can tell you is that it happens often and pushing back the clock won't change it. I've been in your shoes many times, and it still doesn't mean that the next guy won't try to push it to the next "last" moment. The fact is that there really isn't a "last moment" to settle, because one side can always decide that they want to meet the other side's offer/demand, and the judge can't force them to trial if a settlement is reached. Sometimes it's the very process of going through jury selection that makes people settle, because the parties start to get a preview of how jurors perceive the issues relevant to the case, because of the judge you drew, or because they start to see how the other lawyer is going to present the case and it causes them to re-evaluate their positions.

You may not care that it works for others, but the fact is that it does and the change you suggest won't change that dynamic.

I don't expect anything to change, but the judge clearly sets the time table. If s/he can say, "settle by noon," s/he can say, "settle by 9 am."

One judge in Tennessee ran his court in this way, and it worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, he's the only judge I ever saw who did so. The rest maintained the status quo.