Current Events > Got a juror summons to go to court on Wednesday

(+) Yeah! (+)

What are these things like? What kinds of questions will they ask, and what are the odds I'm actually picked to serve?

---

Just say that you're heavily biased

---

I've gone twice to these things and both times they closed before my name got called up and I didn't have to go back the next day

Turbam posted...

Just say that you're heavily biased

Well I mean... I am. My first assumption in a criminal case would be that half of the evidence against the defendant was likely fabricated by corrupt cops. >.>

---

I've been summoned 3 times and served 2 times. I enjoyed my time and was sad I didn't get to serve for a 3rd time.

---

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmgcbsFFY1A

---

Stalolin posted...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmgcbsFFY1A

Was about to reference this

---

Phantom36 posted...

Well I mean... I am. My first assumption in a criminal case would be that half of the evidence against the defendant was likely fabricated by corrupt cops. >.>

Say exactly that and you'll never have to serve

There's no way to predict how your time will go. I've been summoned 3 times and only served the 3rd time. But the 3rd time was a doozy. The trial was for an older man, who, over the course of a few decades, had sexually abused several girls between the ages of 4 and 9. That trial took over 2 weeks to hear all of the evidence and testimonies, but we reached a guilty verdict in minutes...

---

I pushed back and pushed back against going and they demanded I go anyway.

I made a scene in front of the judge after I was selected for jurist seat #13 (yes, really) about how I don't trust law enforcement, reading off a list of reasons why I can't serve. She gave me a 'Sir, you're excused' and I thanked her and some wannabe alpha male cop barked 'START OVER FROM THE BEGINNING!!!' as I exited the courtroom.

---

I've found that the easiest way to get out of it is during the voir dire section. They'll go over the laws relevant to the case and ask if you understand the law and agree with it or whatever. I normally just come up with some semi-sensible, but sometimes rather ridiculous way to disagree with the law in question.

I was once summoned for a case of a woman contesting her speeding ticket. I told them I thought speed limits were too low as it is.

Another time, I was summoned for a case about aggravated sexual assault against a child. Someone else brought up that they think the defendant is guilty since they're at this point and couldn't be a fair juror. I raised my hand to say that I agree with that notion.

---

CableZL posted...

I've found that the easiest way to get out of it is during the voir dire section. They'll go over the laws relevant to the case and ask if you understand the law and agree with it or whatever. I normally just come up with some semi-sensible, but sometimes rather ridiculous way to disagree with the law in question.

I was once summoned for a case of a woman contesting her speeding ticket. I told them I thought speed limits were too low as it is.

Another time, I was summoned for a case about aggravated sexual assault against a child. Someone else brought up that they think the defendant is guilty since they're at this point and couldn't be a fair juror. I raised my hand to say that I agree with that notion.

If I ever get called again I'm just going to say straight up that I believe certain "crimes" like drug possession and prostitution aren't actually crimes and will vote not guilty regardless. Works great cause it's what I really believe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE57I3HFlZY

Keep mentioning "jury nullification" until they get too annoyed to deal with you anymore.

---

Turns out my group isn't even required to show up tomorrow.

Now that I have the whole day off anyway, what to do.

---

CableZL posted...

I've found that the easiest way to get out of it is during the voir dire section. They'll go over the laws relevant to the case and ask if you understand the law and agree with it or whatever. I normally just come up with some semi-sensible, but sometimes rather ridiculous way to disagree with the law in question.

I was once summoned for a case of a woman contesting her speeding ticket. I told them I thought speed limits were too low as it is.

Another time, I was summoned for a case about aggravated sexual assault against a child. Someone else brought up that they think the defendant is guilty since they're at this point and couldn't be a fair juror. I raised my hand to say that I agree with that notion.

And this is why i'd want a bench trial if i ever get arrested.

A jury is simply 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

---

I have to go next Wednesday.

In the past one of the lawyers brought up the fact that a juror has to be able to consider the full extent of punishment for the crime in question to be able to serve. The case for us, the range was like 5 years to 90 years, and they asked if anyone wouldn't be able to consider the whole range, and I raised my hand and said I couldn't be able to put a guy away for 90 years for the crime and I didn't get picked.
---

If your job is paying you to be there I dunno who wouldn't want to be part of a jury tbh
---

Cornmuffins posted...

If your job is paying you to be there I dunno who wouldn't want to be part of a jury tbh

If your job is more fun than being on a jury.

Personally I find the experience of being on a jury insufferable, and I'd rather be working from home doing my accounting stuff that I normally do on a weekday.
---

They asked me my hobbies, I wasnt picked sadly but i wanted to be

Phantom36 posted...

Well I mean... I am. My first assumption in a criminal case would be that half of the evidence against the defendant was likely fabricated by corrupt cops. >.>

strange because most people on here are ready to punish someone that is only accused

Usually they just tell you to go home but yes, there is a part where the judge asks you straight up if you have any experience or thoughts on the law that's been broken

I told them I thought it was a ridiculous law and I break it all the time and blah blah blah

They told me to go home

---

Phantom36 posted...

Well I mean... I am. My first assumption in a criminal case would be that half of the evidence against the defendant was likely fabricated by corrupt cops. >.>

So here's your chance to tell them what they want to hear to get yourself seated on the case, and then ruin the prosecution's case if it turns out something really is fishy with the evidence.

---