Not-a-juror

[hrj]

I wasn't empaneled. I wasn't even interrogated. Is it egotistical to feel deeply disappointed? (The annoying thing is that I've never gotten to be an actual juror, and this is the first time I've been called up when it would actually be rather convenient -- particularly given the projected short trial.) Ah well. I guess I have to work for half a day, then.

Comments

[joycebre.livejournal.com]

being a juror is an exercise in 'hurry up and wait'. You get there on time, (because they threaten you with a bench warrant if you're late) you wait around for the lawyers and judges to try to settle at the last minute. You listen to a little testimony, they send you on break while they discuss why people can't say what they just said. rinse, repeat.

[stitchwhich.livejournal.com]

If it helps, I was told by a lawyer that "the smarter you are, the less we want you on the jury". It is easier to sway jurors who don't think much. In your population area, I would imagine that is a common tool for lawyers. (Were I a lawyer, it would be for me, I guess, considering what they are taught about courtroom tactics.)

I was only called once, and then dismissed, to my disappointment too. Which how I ended up having a little by-chat with a friend who was a court lawyer.

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

Depends on the case, and which side you're on. "Easy to sway" cuts both ways.

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

After what stitchwhich says about smart people on juries, I suppose I shouldn't admit this, but I was empanelled once. Near as I could tell, the court system is mostly lunches and long breaks, punctuated by small amounts of people talking. The case I was on was dismissed, and if I could vote that judge out I would.

[joycebre.livejournal.com]

except that while the jurors are out at breaks and lunches most judges are usually working on other stuff - preliminary hearings, bickering with the lawyers about wording used, sentencing other cases, etc. (ok, the judge on my most recent case was working while we were on breaks)

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

The reason I would vote against him if I could was because I thought he was a misogynist asshole, not because I thought he was a slacker. Although he could have been a slacker, for all I know. Other than one run-in with the police, and this one jury duty, everything I know about American Law and the court system come from watching bad television dramas.

[joycebre.livejournal.com]

well that would be different :-). vote him out, then!

[visc-lore.livejournal.com]

I don't blame you for feeling disappointed. I've been on two juries, and both were fascinating. Sure, there was some waiting, and some stupid-lawyering, and some bickering amongst ourselves when trying to come to a decision - but I felt it was an honor to serve, and weighed my personal decision by asking whether I would have been internally satisfied if the defendant had been a relative, AND if the victim had been.

Better luck next time!

[tonwen.livejournal.com]

I was empanelled once, much to my very great surprise. Usually, I get dismissed before I finish saying "I'm a clinical psychologist."

The case I was on was domestic violence/wife beating. It was obvious to me that the husband was completely guilty, but most of the rest of the jurors thought the wife was lying because her story changed from the day she had the crap beaten out of her and the day she testified. I was wholly ineffective in trying to explain the whys of that to the other jurors. The case ended with a hung jury. While I and one of the other jurors were walking out of the court house, we walked by the defendant and his attorney. The attorney was chewing him out for "getting into this mess AGAIN" and if he kept this up, one day, a jury was going to send his ass to jail.

All in all, it was a very disappointing experience.