Foo - Jury Duty Rants

Since this subject somewhat hijacked the Mandeville case thread in road cycling, I thought I'd let the conversation continue in here where it belongs. Some thoughts I've had:

I'm waiting for the day someone sues the court system for making them work for less than the state's minimum wage.

They only pay us for mileage one-way. I am so tempted to serve for a day, then set up a sleeping bag on the bench in the hall and explain to the guard that they didn't give me enough money to go home today, but since I don't have to drive in tomorrow, I'll have enough to go home that day.

People denied an excuse for financial hardship should be able to collect any coincidental late fees and penalties from the court system for anything they can not pay with the lost wages.

So, share your complaints, stories, thoughts, rants, etc.

Just enjoy the opportunity to convict an innocent person.

I'm waiting for the day someone sues the court system for making them work for less than the state's minimum wage.




Entitlement at it's finest. I would hope that said oppressed soul would win this case and be awarded with the monetary sum they desire only to find out that they must leave the jurisdiction (county state or country).

:)

why don't you just express some really offensive prejudices and get htrown off the case?

Every employer I've worked for compensated me for days that I had jury duty. Their policies were to compensate for a full day's pay, less what I received from the court, but every one of them paid me for the entire day.

So, share your complaints, stories, thoughts, rants, etc.

I don't care what I was or was not paid.

I'm happy to have been a part of a legal system that, in my experience, works the way it should. YMMV.

I won't say the financial rewards are very...rewarding, but that's not the point. The point is to ensure the proper functioning of our justice system, whereby any person who desires it can be granted the opportunity of trial before a jury of their peers.

It's not a job. It's a civic duty. The judge who briefed us when I had jury duty pointed out that while there are a lot of things the government (we) tell us (ourselves) not to do, there are very few things they (we) actually demand us (ourselves) to do. Jury duty is one. Males registering for the draft is another.

The one time I've had jury duty so far, I came really close to being selected for a grand jury, which would have been a month-long, full-time commitment. The odds were pretty slim. My county calls in something like 20 groups of jurors per month (here you only serve for one day unless your case goes longer), so the odds were already against me being there on grand jury day. Then to be picked as one of 30 candidates out of ~300 jurors was doubly bad luck.

Fortunately, I wasn't selected, although if I had been, my employer was one of those conscientious businesses that would have continued to pay me during my time of civic service, minus the county stipend.

I don't care what I was or was not paid.

I'm happy to have been a part of a legal system that, in my experience, works the way it should. YMMV.

I won't say I'm happy to be, but I am happy the system is in place and will willfully do my part to keep it functional.

Wow, must be a lot of privileged people here. I always serve and I don't complain about the money because I get paid by my employer. However, some of you seem to have never known what it is like to literally live paycheck to paycheck. I feel that if someone needs their normal pay to pay their bills, they shouldn't be denied that right. They should still do their civic duty, but they shouldn't be penalized for it. No credit agency is going to say "that's ok, you can skip your bill this month because you were doing your civic duty".

Coasting, my problem with that is it wastes the time of those of us who are willing to serve... and of the court employees, attorneys, parties, etc. If you're going to do that, at least make it entertaining enough to be worth my while.

I'm lucky, I will never serve again because from now on I plan on being honest and speaking up... I don't believe the system works; too many people are prejudice or lazy and won't do the right thing when the time comes. I sat through 3 very horrible trials... all I can say is most of the jurors were absolute idiots. Just my personal opinion and experiment but I hope never to serve again.

BTW the money was never an issue because my employer pays. I would gladly serve if jurors weren't idiots!

Just because the people are idiots doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

just sayin'.

Wow, must be a lot of privileged people here. I always serve and I don't complain about the money because I get paid by my employer. However, some of you seem to have never known what it is like to literally live paycheck to paycheck. I feel that if someone needs their normal pay to pay their bills, they shouldn't be denied that right. They should still do their civic duty, but they shouldn't be penalized for it. No credit agency is going to say "that's ok, you can skip your bill this month because you were doing your civic duty".

Coasting, my problem with that is it wastes the time of those of us who are willing to serve... and of the court employees, attorneys, parties, etc. If you're going to do that, at least make it entertaining enough to be worth my while.

I didn't mean to completely ignore that part of your post. I agree there should be exceptions. I thought the processes in place were sufficient, but I'm not personally very familiar with them, especially in other counties.

Just because the people are idiots doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

just sayin'.

Explain how it works when jurors are idiots... I am curious. :innocent:

Yee Haw....my hospital pays me my regular rate to be on Jury Duty. Life is grand, I've always enjoyed jury duty.

Explain how it works when jurors are idiots... I am curious. :innocent:

"the system" guarantees you a jury of your peers. If your peers are idiots, that does not indicate a fault in the justice system - it indicates a fault in the homestead selection process.

You aren't guaranteed a trial by a "jury of the most intelligent, rational individuals ever to have graced the US of A".

Don't forget - you can always waive your sixth (or seventh) amendment rights.

Here's my idea on what would be a lot more fair to jurors, and almost as equitable to defendants:

You get the first 12 names picked out of the pool - only people who know one of the people involved in the case get off. No peremptory challenges. Hardship cases can protest by mail. In my experience, they could inconvenience about 1/4 as many people as they do now, and when they do get called - they'll almost certainly serve instead of just wasting time listening to a bunch of lame excuses and stupid questions.

Explain how it works when jurors are idiots... I am curious. :innocent:

The defendant has the right to choose if they would like their trial to be conducted by peers or a judge.

Rather than go into detail myself, I'll just give you what users have contributed to the wikipedia article as a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury#Pros_and_cons

You should also know that it is not the role of a jury to determine the application of the law. That's the judge's role in a jury trial, and his required expertise. The jury's role is to determine what the facts are after being presented with claims from both sides.

The fact that people are idiots is part of why the plaintiff and defendant or their representatives are both allowed to perform the final screening of a jury. If those who have a stake in the decision are satisfied with those making it, then certainly those chosen should accept it and simply try to do their best.

My current employer pays, but not all that I've had do. This was an especially large factor at low paying jobs.

I don't think much of the process because you can literally be called to wait for nothing. If you have the sort of job where other people count on you, they're screwed. The impact of a missed day varies drastically from one person to the next.

On the other hand, you don't want juries that are composed entirely of people who have nothing better to do. I find it hard to imagine that would achieve a better result.

However, the compensation is simply an effin' insult. There is absolutely no way that it can be said to offset the real expenses any normal person would incur while serving. There is no way that any of the people who are forcing you to be there would fulfill their role for anywhere near that amount.

They should just pay zero and say it's your duty or actually pay something that might reasonably help.

Explain how it works when jurors are idiots... I am curious. :innocent:

This!


I served in a jury where the defendants were the Big Three automakers here in the states. It was obvious they were not at fault when the empirical evidence was shown to the jury. However we had some idiot jury members that felt the big three had big pockets and should just pay the plaintiff (I’m sure the tax payers are now paying for this lawsuit now). We also had two jury members that voted for the plaintiffs’ side because if we finished by lunch (had the 8 votes necessary); they would have half the day off from work. It was such a waste of time and tax payers’ money. I will never ever serve jury duty again.

Couch

They should just pay zero and say it's your duty or actually pay something that might reasonably help.

and how would you determine the latter?

what would "reasonably help" someone else in my county would be a raindrop in a lake for me.

I served in a jury where the defendants were the Big Three automakers here in the states. It was obvious they were not at fault when the empirical evidence was shown to the jury. However we had some idiot jury members that felt the big three had big pockets and should just pay the plaintiff (I’m sure the tax payers are now paying for this lawsuit now). We also had two jury members that voted for the plaintiffs’ side because if we finished by lunch (had the 8 votes necessary); they would have half the day off from work. It was such a waste of time and tax payers’ money. I will never ever serve jury duty again.

what, and you just sat there and let them have their way?

what, and you just sat there and let them have their way?

Well, I did threaten to set the couch in the jury room on fire but the judge was a smart man and took my matches away.

Couch

what, and you just sat there and let them have their way?
Civil case = simple majority.

Civil case = simple majority.

So then the majority of the jury just sat there and did nothing. Gotcha.

What was it Burke said?

So, share your complaints, stories, thoughts, rants, etc.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=571031

We're just killing time till the jury reaches a verdict in the Dr.Arrogant case,then the s&!t will really hit the fan.:thumb:

Wonder what they're having for lunch today... I think our local court house sends in sandwiches during the deliberations. Not for jury selection though.

I was called for jury duty. I was in the pool and the lawyer asked me a question:

"Have you ever been at fault in an accident?"
"Yes when I was 16, I rear-ended a car."
"Did that go to court?"
"Yes, I was sued for 1.25 million dollars"
"What did you think of that?"
"I thought the lady was nuts."

At this point the judge accused me of lying to get out of jury duty. He told me that he could have me arrested for contempt of court. I told him that I was telling the truth and if he wanted documentation I could provide it. The judge had the State Highway Patrol officer escort me out of the court room.

A few days later, I ended up the the same judges courtroom. He took one look at me and dismissed me.

The defendant has the right to choose if they would like their trial to be conducted by peers or a judge.

Rather than go into detail myself, I'll just give you what users have contributed to the wikipedia article as a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury#Pros_and_cons

You should also know that it is not the role of a jury to determine the application of the law. That's the judge's role in a jury trial, and his required expertise. The jury's role is to determine what the facts are after being presented with claims from both sides.

The fact that people are idiots is part of why the plaintiff and defendant or their representatives are both allowed to perform the final screening of a jury. If those who have a stake in the decision are satisfied with those making it, then certainly those chosen should accept it and simply try to do their best.

I am well aware of the law - I have a JD (but I am non-practicing). Jurors are asked to weigh the evidence and decide if guilty or liable. They are fully briefed on the applicable law and provided with jury instructions to that extent. Whether most jurors review the instructions is questionable. I know in my experience they could care less. Listen I don't argue the system in the ideal won't work, but sadly most jurors are far from ideal. There is an argument as to what a "peer jury" would be... does that mean a gangbanger should only be judged by other gangbangers or does that mean we all have to live under the same laws and regulations and thus are peers of each other regardless of socio-economics, education etc. Our system does not discriminate against age, race, economic or educational situation. That said... it also does not discriminate against bias and prejudice. Frankly people are not honest when asked during voir dire if they are judge fairly based on the facts and not personal bias.

I actually had this said to me... after 3 weeks of testimony in a murder trial, our first few moments of sitting and deliberating, a nicely dressed, wealthy South Orange COunty woman annouced "I don't know how to decide this case... I am clearly not his (the defendant's) peer"... meaning she is so much better than him. Maybe she should have said this before she was selected to sit on the jury and not wasted all of our time (the matter ended in a hung jury).

Again, I have better things to do... but you all enjoy your time sitting on a jury!

Whether most jurors review the instructions is questionable. I know in my experience they could care less.

In my experience, the instructions are pored over by the jury during deliberation. We read each instruction numerous times.


Listen I don't argue the system in the ideal won't work, but sadly most jurors are far from ideal.

Is this your argument for a homogeneous society?


There is an argument as to what a "peer jury" would be...

"Peers" = people who are equal as the defendant under the eyes of the law. i.e., those to whom the same set of laws apply.


I actually had this said to me... after 3 weeks of testimony in a murder trial, our first few moments of sitting and deliberating, a nicely dressed, wealthy South Orange COunty woman annouced "I don't know how to decide this case... I am clearly not his (the defendant's) peer"... meaning she is so much better than him. Maybe she should have said this before she was selected to sit on the jury and not wasted all of our time (the matter ended in a hung jury).

Maybe the attorneys should have done their jobs better?

I am well aware of the law - I have a JD (but I am non-practicing). Jurors are asked to weigh the evidence and decide if guilty or liable. They are fully briefed on the applicable law and provided with jury instructions to that extent. Whether most jurors review the instructions is questionable.

Last time I was called the judge and prosecutor were really interested in making sure the jurors would follow the judge's instructions... I got the feeling they were concerned about a jury nullification. It was interesting that they could practically order the jurors not to do it, not even discuss it as a possibility, but then the jurors could do it anyway and there was nothing the court could do about it.

What's a better solution than citizen juries?

I don't particularly enjoy jury duty but like someone else said, it's a civic duty.

In my experience, the instructions are pored over by the jury during deliberation. We read each instruction numerous times.

Not in mine... but I accept this is not everyone's experience... here in Southern California people don't tend to take this job seriously.

Is this your argument for a homogeneous society?

Huh... no. Just stating the facts...

"Peers" = people who are equal as the defendant under the eyes of the law. i.e., those to whom the same set of laws apply.

I agree... which is why I was so upset with thelady in the murder trial. The foreman and I tried to explain this concept to her but she wouldn't listen. She gave up before even hearing the entire case.

Maybe the attorneys should have done their jobs better?

The goes without saying...



:rolleyes:

I am well aware of the law - I have a JD

That may be your problem; you know how things should be done. Then you get into a room with 11 people who don't and it's like herding rabid cats.

What's a better solution than citizen juries?

Citizen juries where the jurors are properly compensated for their time.

Again, I have better things to do... but you all enjoy your time sitting on a jury!

You should probably hope that some non-idiots take the time to sit on a jury if you are ever needlessly sued or falsely accused of a crime.

The following is no reflection on you Pam, you have the right to decide how to do your part, but the following is just a general observation I am making now instead of a second post...

I have more contempt for "intelligent" people that try to get out of jury duty than for idiots that do their time. The problem is that too many people think they are too good to do their part for the system. Just think of the saying that "someone is too dumb to be a juror if they can't talk their way out of jury duty." With this attitude, is there any doubt of why jury panels are turning into idiocracies? It isn't the fault of the idiots, it is the fault of the intelligent people getting out of jury duty (and some idiots get out of jury duty too, but I believe this is in a smaller proportion).

I can boldly say that any jury I am on (and I have only been on one, as a 52 year old) there will be at least one intelligent person. That at least gives the trial a chance of having a logical outcome.

For the one trial that I served on the jury, deliberations were very fast, and possibly some idiots rushed their decision, but I can tell you that I believe we came to the right decision, and a drunk driver was found guilty.

Darwin good for you. I think the same of myself. I took my civic duty seriously and wanted to do the right thing for the Plaintiff or victim. Again I am just being honest and explaining my experiences - I will explain them to the judge and attorneys during voir dire and if they still want me to sit, I will sit. I would never say anything just to get out of sitting. I just unfortunately have lost my faith in the system.

I'll give you another one of my experiences... civic trial. Bicycle accident. The City clearly was negligent - they were aware of a defect in the roadway that caused the cyclist fall but because of budget issues did not make repairs. The case went to the jury at 3:45 pm on a Friday. Some of the jurors didn't want to come back on Monday to deliberate. They convinced all but 3 of us to decide there was liability and that liability caused the injury but the City did not have notice (although their own expert confirmed they did) so they could all get out and not have to return. The injuried cyclist had a permanent brain injury and other physical ailments that would bother her for a lifetime... yet the jurors could care less - they only cared about getting off early... the poor cyclist - 4 years of hurt and pain before the trial and over in an instance because of laziness. And don't get me going about the Judge - he was as bad. I actually wrote the bar and the state about his behavior or lack thereof... again I am just being honest and calling it as I see it.

pam

what happened to your complainnts. did they ever follow it up?

pam

what happened to your complaints. did they ever follow it up?

Interesting enough they did, at least they called me and I met with someone and filed a former complaint. Unfortunately judges are elected officials (here) so unless there was a criminal or ethical infraction nothing they could do. The judge thankfully was not relected.

Citizen juries where the jurors are properly compensated for their time.That sounds reasonable. Are you willing to pay for it? I guess you could mandate large employers to pay their employees but the state would probably have to pay for small businesses and self employed.

That sounds reasonable. Are you willing to pay for it? I guess you could mandate large employers to pay their employees but the state would probably have to pay for small businesses and self employed.

Good lord we pay for all sorts of stupid stuff now... this isn't so stupid. Just more government workers to add to the already overbloated payrolls but at least it would be worthwhile.

Wow, must be a lot of privileged people here.


Well, you asked. :p :)

The rest of the financial hardship comments are something I do agree with. Little Darwin states it very well:



I have more contempt for "intelligent" people that try to get out of jury duty than for idiots that do their time. The problem is that too many people think they are too good to do their part for the system. Just think of the saying that "someone is too dumb to be a juror if they can't talk their way out of jury duty." With this attitude, is there any doubt of why jury panels are turning into idiocracies? It isn't the fault of the idiots, it is the fault of the intelligent people getting out of jury duty (and some idiots get out of jury duty too, but I believe this is in a smaller proportion).

That sounds reasonable. Are you willing to pay for it? I guess you could mandate large employers to pay their employees but the state would probably have to pay for small businesses and self employed.
Absolutely! There are many other useless projects we could dispose of to cover juror pay many times over... including one that I benefit from right now. We wouldn't have to raise taxes if they just trimmed the fat instead.

I've spoken with friends about the idea of making large companies pay for service. That would be a complicated but fair system.

why don't we just add it onto the existing court fee structure?

Seems like an appropriate "sanction" for the externalities

why don't we just add it onto the existing court fee structure?

Seems like an appropriate "sanction" for the externalities
I thought court fees only existed in civil cases. Who pays the fees in criminal court?

I thought court fees only existed in civil cases. Who pays the fees in criminal court?

the taxpayers.

was this a trick question?

:innocent:

was this a trick question?

Apparently, yours was :p

I'd love it if convicted defendants had to pay all court costs. I also think victims of frivolous lawsuits should have the right to collect costs incured, provided they prove within the case that the lawsuit was frivolous. I think the loser in any civil case should have to pay for the winner's legal fees. Finally, I think convicted criminals should have to work within the prison if they can't pay the court fees, and they should also have to work for their food just like free people. Such systems would reduce clutter, prevent fraud, and reduce the taxpayer's burden.

It's fun to imagine a perfect world.

Explain how it works when jurors are idiots... I am curious. :innocent:

You make a good point. Voters are idiots too. The whole system is seriously flawed.

That sounds reasonable. Are you willing to pay for it? I guess you could mandate large employers to pay their employees but the state would probably have to pay for small businesses and self employed.
Yes, I think reasonable pay for jurors should come out of general tax revenues that we all have to pay. We end up paying anyway in one way or another (having to serve without compensation, extra costs to businesses which then raise prices, etc.). Paying the jurors a reasonable wage would just make the costs more obvious and accountable.

The big advantage I see is that the system would become more efficient with the jurors' time. When juror time is "free" to the court system there isn't sufficient incentive to only call the minimum number of people required and to make sure they aren't sitting around unnecessarily. But if they were getting a reasonable wage that comes out of some department's budget there would be more steps taken to make sure the money isn't being wasted.

Efficiency would also be improved by reducing the number of people who seek ways to avoid serving on a jury because of the financial burden. This uses up extra court time, encourages deceptive answers to the lawyers' questions by those seeking to be dismissed, and makes it necessary to have a larger pool of prospective jurors than would otherwise be needed.

there's still the unanswered question of who decides what is appropriate compensation for a juror.

Surely Warren Buffett and I wouldn't get the same per diem?

there's still the unanswered question of who decides what is appropriate compensation for a juror.

Surely Warren Buffett and I wouldn't get the same per diem?

A truly capitalist viewpoint would question why Warren Buffet should get more pay for performing exactly the same work. The value isn't in his name, position, or existing wealth. It's in the service rendered.

Minimum wage would be a obvious starting point for discussion. I'll withhold further opinion until I read others' comments.