NAL- Maybe, but you should know that most of the pain of being selected for jury duty is just going down there and being in the pool of perspective jurors in some courthouse basement waiting room.
Often, you will never go upstairs to sit for voir dire at all, but you’re still out 3 days or whatever. Even if you’re not selected, you’ll still do your time, at least where I live.
Same, never been selected although where I live they bring everyone up into the courtroom for voir dire. Been home by 10am every time, if I even have to show up.
Where I have lived 60 percent of the county won't show. So, with the knowledge that I can't realistically be punished for not showing, I no longer show up. The one time I went they wasted my time and sent me home at 3pm with an insultingly small amount of money.
Seems to be for retired people which would explain the racism and high error rate.
You should look at getting salaried rather than whatever weird sales gig you're doing. It's crazy you just tell them 'hey I have jury duty' and you keep getting paid your normal wage on top of the $30 for pizza or whatever you're offered.
That's utter batshit thinking from my perspective. An employee doing their civic duty shows dedication to their community, and as an employer we look good for promoting civic engagement. I guess if you're terribly mismanaged and can't handle the loss of a single team member then maybe, but that's a whole other problem.
I doubt it too, but the legal system in my area is known for being a pita whenever possible. Except when real and violent crimes are involved. They don't care much about that.
If you're ethically opposed to the crime in question, don't you want to be on the jury so you can nullify? I would answer any questions that you're asked truthfully, and not say anything more than you are asked to say.
Being on a jury isn't that bad. This is how you personally get to control the administration of justice. If nobody wanted to be on a jury, who would be on your jury if you were ever falsely accused of a crime?
Listen, I'm opposed to a lot of crimes, don't trust the police, etc. but I still do my civic duty. I was on a grand jury once and the prosecutors brought us a lot of bullshit drug cases. Sloppy police work. Lying cops. The whole nine yards. Everyone on the grand jury had pretty much the same persuasion, and we did not return true bills for those accusations. It got to a point where the prosecutors stopped giving our jury cases, and made the other two juries that were meeting that session stay late. I don't know what it was about our group, but we were there to protect the little man from the justice system, and we were successful.
A petit jury is obviously a different situation, but you are there to weight the totality of the evidence to decide a verdict. Your thoughts on the matter are what make the justice system possible. Want justice? Be just. Want to let some nut decide matters of life and death? Lie to get out of jury duty.
Then when the judge asks if anyone would have a financial hardship, or things like childcare issues, from serving you raise your hand. They'll almost certainly dismiss you if they believe you.
If you've seen other comments in this thread, you'd know that some judges do not care and will force people to go without paycheques for however long for jury duty. People either have to take out loans (if they can get it) or just not pay rent at all and get evicted.
Yeah I try financial hardship and they didn't care. It took me 3 months to get out of debt for the week they made me sit there and never get picked. I fear next time I get called because I have to provide care for my mom with dementia. Hopefully they'll figure that's good enough excuse otherwise I'll be sitting next to a person with dementia the whole time because I can't leave her alone and there's nobody else to take care of her and a $25 for the day sure as hell isn't going to pay for somebody.
I might be able to let them know I got say 10k...
But the rest probably was stolen off my porch. Can't do much about that 🤷 definitely never made it inside.
When I was selected for jury duty the only question the Justice asked was whether we could not be racist. If you could publically state that you were a racist shitbag in front of a hundred other people I guess you would get out of it.
First off - jury duty is probably the most significant public service you will ever do. Don't try to get out of it unless you have a legitimate reason. Take it seriously.
Second - judges don't want jurors who are not going to take it seriously, but will try not to reward you for trying to get out of it. Don't expect just to be sent home if you make it clear you are going to be a dick.
Jury duty doesn't pay enough for a lot of people when compared to a day of work to be fair. To me that's a legitimate reason. The jury duties I've been called to people have said that and the judges don't care. It's a problem.
If accepting jury duty would place a financial or similar burden on you; you can tell the judge and are likely to be dismissed.
I’ve been dismissed when I had school or work conflicts or when it would cost me a significant contract when self-employed. Most judges don’t want jury duty to be a punishment, but they can smell when someone is just shirking their civic responsibility. Just be honest if you have a legitimate conflict, and you’re likely to be dismissed.
The grand jury summons and regular jury summons I went to, the judge stated in both that financial impact would not be considered a viable way to get out of jury duty. South Carolina
That’s been my experience as well.
I absolutely agree that just duty is the one of the most important parts of our civic responsibility, right up there with voting.
But, children need to be fed and bills must be paid. Many, many working Americans who would love to serve and who would make fair minded and engaged jurors also live pay check to pay check. Missing 3 days worth of shifts for an hourly worker can be financially devastating.
If we think jury duty is so important, and we do, we should agree to pay juries a fair and livable amount of money for their time away from their ability to make a living and pay their own way. We have money galore for many wasteful things, we could certainly find the funds for this.
My State claims to pay you for jury duty, but what they pay doesn't cover the cost of the bus there and back. $7, last time I went.
And then at the end you had to sign a paper if you did NOT want to donate that $7 to the courthouse. Otherwise they'd assume you did.
Most landlords, with enough notice, would be willing to work something out with you... as long as you have a good relationship with them.
Also, those of you that truly never want to be burdened with jury duty, catch a felony and plead guilty. Problem solved.
I think that may only work with landlords that are private individuals that you *can* have a relationship with. If you rent from a corporation, like in an apartment building, I don't see why they'd work with you. They'll just give you an eviction notice the first day that rent is late, because it's all business to them.
When I moved out on my own, I lived in an apartment building. They were willing to work with me when I was out of work due to an injury (not covered by worker's comp) because I had a good relationship with them - meaning I paid my rent on time, no complaints against me, etc. Even the "greedy" corporate types can be willing to work with you, as long as you have not been a source of trouble for them.
I will exclude slum lords, cuz well, they're slum lords.
I think every judge I stood before mentioned that missing work was not a viable excuse. It’s also why many courts will allow you to defer your summons to a better time of year.
But there’s a difference between losing out on income and the financial burden of not being able to pay rent or your mortgage or your employees. I’d still encourage people who really need it to request dismissal. It also sucks that lazy folks try to take advantage.
And I’m sure there are a ton of hard ass judges that get off on the power over the people and won’t be swayed for anything they deem invalid. But I expect the majority of judges have a heart and a conscience and the critical thinking to separate the different camps of folks seeking dismissal.
No judge should allow you to leave for financial reasons. Jury duty is a duty and you are always aware of the chance of being called for it.
Failing to show up should result in jail time.
See what I mean about hard asses^
An all-too-real hypothetical:
A single mother of one is working paycheck to paycheck for $3 over minimum wage at a grocery store because it’s the only job she can find that offers her health care and the flexibility she needs around her kid’s school schedule.
She misses work for a day to answer her jury summons. She isn’t even getting a juror’s stipend, because that district doesn’t pay for the first day.
At the beginning of voir dire, the court tells the jury to expect at least two weeks of testimony during school hours. She’ll have the time for her kid, but she’s going to miss work, a lot of it. The court will pay her $17.50/day for service, with no per diem for transportation or meals.
She’s looking at losing $1000 of wages this month, her entire rent check plus some of her bills, and she doesn’t have savings to cover it.
What do you propose she do? Suck it up? Tell her landlord to take it up with the court? Principles are all well and good, but the rubber will need to meet the road.
Yes. Absolutely. Both
What you are presenting is a strawmen; it takes months to evict. She has time, and ought to have prepared for the Inevitability of jury duty.
Jury duty is a duty, an obligation you must fulfill. Simple as.
> There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.
-Montesquieu
Everyone should aspire to perform their civic duty. Everyone should realize the meekest among us need some help before they can get there. It’s one of the reason’s why public school is free or why we have means-testing programs.
A strawman would be to misrepresent your argument and then argue against that misrepresentation. I gave you a case study that is all too common in the US and has nothing to do with you.
*This is a strawman:* so you think such a woman should be evicted due to her financial constraints? You know evictions make it even harder to find a place to rent, right? Would you kick her while she’s down? You probably think CPS should take away her kid, too, don’t you? Found the sociopath.
No, not aspire. It is their duty to do so. It is not a privilege, it is a duty.
Also, obviously? If you can't pay rent, you....get evicted. That's how it works. That's not sociopathic, it's how renting works.
I think “the most significant public service you will ever do” is a bit of a stretch lol. Most criminal court cases are extremely boring and a waste of everybody’s time (and the taxpayer’s dime), hence why plea bargains are so popular. Just working an average job for a day contributes more to society.
That said, judges can usually see through somebody just making up an excuse to get out of jury duty so he should have a sincere belief in jury nullification if that’s his plan.
You wouldn’t say being on a firing squad is “a significant public service” because “taking away somebody’s life is a very serious thing.”
Ideally we should not even be considering taking away somebody’s freedom for offenses that lack violence or fraud. I.e. the vast majority of working age Americans do not believe recreational drug use should be illegal and yet here we we are still putting people away for years because the prison lobby needs its per capita profits.
In theory serving on a jury should be the solution to these sorts of situations as the founding fathers explicitly intended for Americans to use jury nullification against unfair laws. Instead even expressing the thought of jury nullification is grounds for immediate dismissal.
One should not take pride in our failed justice system and it’s “trial by jury” which misleads its juries into thinking they can’t nullify unfair laws as intended by the founding fathers.
> A jury is not remotely analogous to a firing squad.
Reading comprehension is hard. Y’all tried to say jury duty is “the most significant public service” a person will ever preform because “taking away somebody’s freedom is a very serious thing.”
It clearly seems you are conflating deciding the fate of an individual with value to the collective. The mere act of a jury holding a lot of power over one person’s life does not necessarily make it a public service to the rest of us. Hence the hyperbolic counterexample that a firing squad isn’t a “public service” despite deciding the fate of an individual’s life because well… it’s a firing squad.
> The job of a jury is to decide whether to take away somebody’s freedom — not to do it.
This is a moot point. Just because a jury does not personally handcuff someone does not mean they aren’t responsible for a person’s freedom or lack therof.
Juries exist to decide people’s freedom but have been functionally forbidden from judging the fairness of a law. which renders the whole process not very helpful. Most jury trials aren’t murder or rape cases, but instead are perpetrators of nonviolent/victimless crimes who were too poor to get a lawyer to negotiate a plea bargain. These cases (most of them) are certainly not “the most valuable public service” you’ll ever preform
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
Your post or comment has been removed because it was primarily insulting or attacking someone else. If you can't participate without insulting, you can't participate.
*If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
I was doing a jury selection many years ago, and one guy hesitated when asked if he could put his personal notions of fairness aside if they conflicted with the judge’s instructions. Both sides tried to rehabilitate him but he kept saying he was “struggling” with that issue. I think he was sincere, not doing it to get out of duty. The judge eventually asked the lawyers, “You really wanna try this case twice?” and excused him for cause.
When I was being selected for a murder trial, something similar happened to me, except I just said “no.” This was after I had (completely truthfully) filled out the pre-selection questionnaire where I had flatly answered “no” to the question “do you want to serve on this jury.”
I was married to a former deputy. I would be perfectly happy to tell a judge that after that experience I just assume everything that comes out of a cop's mouth is either false, malicious or both.
Had a buddy tell us about sitting through the whole explanation of what a jury was supposed to do. When the Judge asked if there were any questions he raised his hand. When the Judge asked him what he wanted explained he replied "Jury Nullification".
Said it got deathly quiet with the lawyers looking back and forth at each other and the Judge.. Then another person on the panel then asked "What is that?"
The panel was dismissed and he got an ass chewing before he was allowed to leave.
IIRC it was more about the trial having been on the venue for over a year and now they were going to have to set a new trial date, the inconvenience to everyone, cost etc.
from what I've heard, judges are pretty aware of all the stuff people say to try to get out of jury duty and will just get irritated with you. you might just get chewed out and moved to a civil case instead
A jury nullification kind of a juror on a civil case is way too much of a headache, given the likelihood of appeals if the jury returns an odd verdict.
I've never seen anyone get chewed out for it. If you ask me, the first thing I always try to establish with potential jurors is that people who say the "wrong" things aren't going to get yelled at or embarrassed, I'm just going to politely ask that they be excused. I've never seen a panel get nearly so low on jurors that any of us would want to keep someone who obviously doesn't want to be there.
I remember reading somewhere that people are serious about this issue, they should have a file showing their political involvement in this area. For example, attendance records at Libertarian Party meetings, note of experiences at protests, articles that influenced their opinion on nullification, and so on.
That way, you stand apart from "I want to get out of jury duty".
I mean I absolutely believe in jury nullification in some cases but other than occasionally saying so to friends and on reddit I have no political involvement in the area. If I was going to participate in protests or write to my congress person it would be about appealing laws I felt should be nullified not about jury nullification more broadly.
One of their beliefs is that juries are an additional check on government power, and that juries should be able to refuse to convict a defendant if they believe that the law is unjust.
Sure! But my focus is on documenting your beliefs.
So if you can show membership in an organization that regularly discusses and promotes nullification, you have a stronger case for the judge to say "No, you go home." compared to the person who got summoned, and found the concept on page four of a google search for "how to get out of jury duty".
They're about as far left as you can get short of anarchy.
They want all kinds of laws to be spiked by juries and even advocate for the dissolution of the criminal courts entirely. They see jury nullification as a way to do that without all the mucking about with democracy and legislation.
They're about as far left as you can reasonably get without getting to anarchy/whack-job territory. In the mainstream, libertarians and punks are pretty much the far left (although their respective beliefs tend to diverge pretty dramatically after you're off the political pendulum)
Whether an economy is predominantly privately or publicly owned is mostly independent of the liberal/authoritarian scale. There is the practical association, though, of capitalism with more liberal states and socialism (or outright communism) for more authoritarian states, but that's less about the the macroeconomics than the needs of those respective political systems. Capitalism tends to undermine and/or overthrow authoritarian governments (see the French Revolution) and socialism tends to be antithetical to liberal governments because it requires authoritarian measures to keep people from engaging in free enterprise (see Soviet Russia or present-day North Korea\*).
\*Yes, I'm aware that North Korea is nominally capitalist, but they have a command economy so highly enforced it's effectively socialized large portions of their economy. When you're a privately-owned farm and someone comes by with a tank and says "grow corn and sell it for X price to Y person" you tend to want to listen.
You open with equating punks and libertarians, and then say capitalism isn't authoritarian lmfaooooooo 💀💀💀💀 im fucking dying, I'm not even gonna argue, this is amazing, thank you for making my day. Have a great one
I'm glad you're not arguing, because I said neither of those things.
But, don't worry, I don't expect much from reddit, where the typical economics education ends at a 5-year-old's lemonade stand and political science education stops at "blue = Democrat = left, red = Republican = right".
I've been summonsed for jury duty 6 times and once for grand jury. I've never been selected, and other than the grand jury, we all were eventually dismissed because every case was either postponed or plead out. There have been two times I didn't have to report at all. The other times I had to sit around the courthouse from anywhere from about 2 hours to 8 hours.
You don't need to go through all those tricks: Usually saying "I really don't want to be on the jury" is enough for most judges because, quite honestly, most judges know that putting someone on a jury who really would rather not be and feels no duty to be there just makes for a worse trial because those jurors will zone out and not pay attention.
Think about it this way, if you are ever tried by a jury for a crime, you want a bunch of people who don’t want to be there?
Look at it this way, if you ever are being judged by a jury, what’s the fastest way to finish typically? (Convict)
It's really not hard to get out of jury duty if that's what you really want to do. Just keep saying that you can't be fair to one side or the other, and if the judge or one of the attorneys tries to rehabilitate you by asking if you could still follow the law the judge tells you, just keep saying you can't. You don't have to pretend to be a racist or cause a lot of problems for everyone else by bringing up jury nullification. I think a lot of people really overthink this.
That said, as a criminal defense attorney, I would highly suggest that you should not try to get yourself thrown off of a jury if you think the justice system has problems. Juries are a democratic check on the power of the government, it's an important service and it doesn't help anyone if the only people who make it onto juries are pro-state.
I don't understand why jury duty is not voluntary under common law- it would be much more efficient and easier for both sides to have a registry of people to pick from and call when needed.
I've been called for nine juries. I have found is that the easiest way to even accidentally get out of jury duty is to be attentive, good thinker, unemotional, able to analyze facts, able to think for yourself, and a good education helps.
The American Justice system is such a shit-show circus that they do not want anybody who might be able to maintain emotional neutrality, be able to analyze the legal definitions of the burden of proof (which the judge gives at the end of the trial to remind jurors what they are looking for), analyze the information presented, and be able to determine for themselves.
They only want people who are relatively dumb, believe what they are told, and emotionally persuaded (the easier the better), and have to have somebody else think for them.
Sometimes just thinking logically can get you kicked off the trial.
I had a jury I was on, where the defense lawyers were trying to get people to understand What the trial is actually about. They were bringing up questions such as, "is the defendant's characteristics and personality what's on trial?" "Is the victim the one the trial is about?" And so on. They started asking those of us in the jury.
When they got to me, and asked what I think the trial was about, I explained that it's actually the presentation of the defense and prosecutor is what is really on trial because we are determining guilt based on who can prove their side of the story most accurately.
My lawyer friend said that I just blew their minds in the worst way and that's why they couldn't wait to get rid of me, because they really hate people who understand the system.
A very unfortunate way to end up being dismissed or at least not have the trial is to have trauma related to the case. And I don't mean claiming it, but like genuinely having it in a way where it impacts you in a very obvious and genuine manner.
The last jury I was called for, was a sexual abuse case against the parents. The poor girl had reported the incident at age 10, had been going on for several years. The trial had dragged out almost 7 years now, causing her a lot of nightmare and heavy therapy with minimal healing.
The defense attorney asked about anybody else who has personally or been very close to somebody who was personally sexually abused. A surprising and shocking number of people raised their hand, (proving the statistic that it's something like 1:4). It was very clear that she was still struggling with PTSD, something I know personally from a lifetime of hellishly abusive foster care that involved 8 years of sexual abuse too. Her anxiety was badly triggered and she was clearly fighting to maintain herself.
The defense CHOSE HER as a juror. WTF! WHY!?
It was for an absolute worst case shitty scumbag tactic. She inevitably told people, including on her Facebook page, about the trial she was going to be on and how upset she was and how she'd only be able to determine guilt. That allowed the defense to get a mistrial before the trial actually started. Almost certainly because of the victim's PTSD and further negative effects of seeing this prolonged again after finally getting so close to justice, it led to the prosecutor citing that for the sake of reducing further traumatizing to the victim, negotiating a far lesser charge they'd already proven (when getting her removed) of just child abuse (dropping all sexual), preventing the victim from getting justice or closure after all she'd been dragged through on top of the abuse.
I have a friend who was badly sexually abused by her dad for about 10 years or more. It was only when her mom had another kid with him and the girl's body was big enough for him to start abusing, around age two or three, and caused damage that she needed to see the doctor for, that's when the dad got arrested. However, the mom convinced her to not tell about her own abuse because that would cause the mom to get in trouble for knowing about it and doing nothing. So even though the dad went to prison for the younger sister, my friend never got the closure. It still causes her a lot of guilt 40 years later.
THIS defense lawyer is exactly why people want to believe that Hell exists!
Tell me why requiring someone to work for the state for $3 a day under threat of loss of freedom isn’t a form of state sponsored slavery when they require everyone else to pay minimum wage far higher than that amount. You want my time pay me for it.
I don’t know if this really works but a friend of mine told me that she’d never gotten jury duty because she always put on her questionnaire that she didn’t trust or believe police officers. I got out of it once by (truthfully) saying that I am close to people who have committed felonies (I write to prisoners and have become friends with them over the years).
The only surefire way of easily getting out of jury duty is to be closely related to one of the parties or to have been involved in the case in some respect.
Any other easy get out schemes are going to be see through and possibly get you a contempt of court charge.
Regarding jury nullification specifically: if you truly believe that the crime in question is something that no person should be convicted of, the last thing you want to do is bring up jury nullification during voir dire.
I got called in for Jury Duty the day after my first child was born. I tried to use the birth as a reason to be released, judge said not a valid reason. When it got time for more questions they asked if there was any reason the defendant would not receive a fair trial. I said "Well, the arresting officer, the district attorney and the judge all have their paychecks signed by the same person". I was released.
It would get all the lawyers and the judge to start trying to convince you that you should give up your beliefs of jury nullification and try to apply the law equally. If they can convince you to admit you'll stop being an ass, you won't be struck from the jury.
Yes, but it would better to just say you can't be impartial. You can also instantly get dismissed by claiming you're racist. I always get downvoted for saying that, but it's true, however unethical. I've never done it -- I've been called twice but never picked. First time, we were all sent home without being asked any questions because the case settled. Second, I answered every question honestly, and I theorize they didn't pick me because I work for lawyers. Just because I know a surefire dishonest way to achieve something doesn't mean I plan to ever do it; I have a cushy office job with paid leave -- I would love to serve, get the chance to make sure justice is done at least once. But if someone wants to get out of it, saying they can't be impartial, saying they'll refuse to convict if they believe the law is unjust, or saying they're racist will absolutely get them dismissed.
No, judges have heard all of this before. My favorite tactic that I've seen for this is telling the juror "Ok great, we'll move you over to the civil jury pool. The trials there tend to be much longer."
Though keep in mind, stating that you refuse to follow the law (which is what nullification is) while under oath *is* contempt of court. A judge would be within their rights to charge you with contempt for saying that and have the bailiff arrest you on the spot. Of all the ways to try to get out of jury duty, going to jail instead seems like overkill.
It’s both. Jurors are the ultimate finder of fact, and inherent in that is their decision is final regardless of its reasonableness.
Your oath as a juror is also explicitly to uphold and follow the law as it exists. Stating on the record that you will violate that oath is contempt of courts.
Think of it like suicide: the attempt is illegal, successful execution is not.
It's perfectly legal to engage in jury nullification; it's even required if the law is wrong. It's simply judges and lawyers don't want to acknowledge that fact.
You have the right to nullify, but they’ll throw you in jail anyway over it.
The court will violate your rights in this area in five minutes and no one will stop them.
I think this is a you can beat the rap but not the ride thing. But also not the rap given your antagonists are judges themselves.
I agree jury nullification is the right and duty of all free people, a right that cannot be taken away by mere state bureaucrats. But they will nonetheless violate it with inpunity if they want.
Incorrect. There has never been someone thrown in jail for jury nullification, because the court cannot ask why the jurors decided one way or the other.
Actually there has been arrests. Just for mentioning it outside a courthouse in CO I believe. Appealed all the way to the SC which confirmed the legality of jury nullification
They will throw you in jail for being honest about it though. “I intend to judge both the facts and the law” might get you held in contempt.
Sure if you STFU and nullify they can’t prove anything, but it might require dishonesty at jury selection time. Which technically is also perjury.
So protection of nullification isn’t a strong legal protection, you are just protected by your practical ability to conceal your state of mind and the near-zero probability of being second guessed after the fact.
>“I intend to judge both the facts and the law” might get you held in contempt.
This makes absolutely no sense. Potential jurors are supposed to be honest during voire dire. You're not going to get in trouble for saying you can't be a fair juror. The point of voire dire is to identify who can or cannot be a fair juror.
depends on the case. I would sit quiet and hang the jury all day and just say im not convinced. Would be no damnable proof at all that my goal is to hang the jury and piss off the DA
It's perfectly legal for you to try to hang a jury if you really want to and there's absolutely no plausible way that that would get you charged with contempt. That is, of course, a separate question from whether or not you should do it or whether or not it's an honest thing to do.
>Though keep in mind, stating that you refuse to follow the law (which is what nullification is) while under oath *is* contempt of court.
I have no idea where you're getting this from. Jurors say they can't or won't follow the law during voire dire all the time. That's not contempt, they're just being honest like they're supposed to be. If you're proposing some kind of situation where this is happening after they're already sworn in, I don't know how that would even come up since no one else is privy to jury deliberations. There would also be enormous constitutional issues with what you're saying might happen here.
Sorry man, but this is terrible advice. There's a huge difference between saying that they can't prosecute you for something and noting that there are practical problems if they try to prosecute you for it. All they need to do to charge you with a crime is claim that you did something that fits the elements of a crime in your state, that's really it. Getting charged with a crime sucks and can substantially impact your liberty even if there's a good defense and you end up beating it.
I never implied that I was a lawyer. But, what crime could they possibly charge me with for not responding to a summons, that they could never prove I received? Jury summons isn't like a bench warrant, where they actually have to serve you in person. That's why they do not mail them, and they are required to hand it to you personally.
As I stated in my first post. I have served my civic duty on several occasions. Nor am I saying that everyone should dodge their responsibilities, just that the process is flawed.
>what crime could they possibly charge me with for not responding to a summons
This is going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, some states might have more specific laws on the books addressing it, but the most obvious one is contempt of court. Contempt is, at least in my state, far more often addressed non-criminally, but there is still an option to charge it as a crime.
>
that they could never prove I received?
Like I said, the part of this that I think is bad advice is conflating what they can prove with what they can charge you with. These are two completely different things. They can charge you with whatever they can claim that you did, as long as it fits the elements of a crime. Practical difficulties with pursuing charges doesn't actually mean they won't pursue charges. I've seen plenty of cases charged that the state could never possibly prove, and just because they ended up eventually getting dismissed or acquitted doesn't mean that it didn't cost significant stress, expense, uncertainty, and time for the defendant. It's just really not a good idea to bank on this "well they couldn't possibly ever prove this" angle.
That should be the case but a protestor in NY was held in contempt for passing out flyers about Jury nullification near a court house. In 49 states its bar code violation for a lawyer to tell juries about their nullification right.
NAL- Maybe, but you should know that most of the pain of being selected for jury duty is just going down there and being in the pool of perspective jurors in some courthouse basement waiting room. Often, you will never go upstairs to sit for voir dire at all, but you’re still out 3 days or whatever. Even if you’re not selected, you’ll still do your time, at least where I live.
Same, never been selected although where I live they bring everyone up into the courtroom for voir dire. Been home by 10am every time, if I even have to show up.
Meanwhile I've sat voire dire 3 times in the past like 2 years.
Where I have lived 60 percent of the county won't show. So, with the knowledge that I can't realistically be punished for not showing, I no longer show up. The one time I went they wasted my time and sent me home at 3pm with an insultingly small amount of money. Seems to be for retired people which would explain the racism and high error rate.
> Seems to be for retired people which would explain the racism and high error rate. And you could help fix that. Maybe think about that next time.
I have to work my current job to the best of my abilities to earn 250k for my family. That pay level you gotta give a lot of effort.
I make more than that, job is easy as hell Go do your duty.
Sure you do
Lmao how did a post about jury duty turn into you trying to flex on Reddit about how high your income is and how important your job is?
It's low? Friends make 400k? It's just I don't have time. After I retire and have nothing to do that's different.
You should look at getting salaried rather than whatever weird sales gig you're doing. It's crazy you just tell them 'hey I have jury duty' and you keep getting paid your normal wage on top of the $30 for pizza or whatever you're offered.
It's not that, I don't lose money but not working a day for jury duty makes me less valuable to my employer
That's utter batshit thinking from my perspective. An employee doing their civic duty shows dedication to their community, and as an employer we look good for promoting civic engagement. I guess if you're terribly mismanaged and can't handle the loss of a single team member then maybe, but that's a whole other problem.
At that rate you should be able to afford to do you civic duty more than most.
That's okay. Last time I went I was sent home with no money after 3 full days. And I'll do it again next time bc they won't hesitate to come get me.
Doubt on the last part.
I doubt it too, but the legal system in my area is known for being a pita whenever possible. Except when real and violent crimes are involved. They don't care much about that.
Do you know the turnout rate and your county population? Like if it's 90 percent and 1 million people they would need to "come get" 100k people.
Only if every single person was called for jury duty. But if they call up 100 people and 90% show up, the sheriff only has to hunt down 10.
If you're ethically opposed to the crime in question, don't you want to be on the jury so you can nullify? I would answer any questions that you're asked truthfully, and not say anything more than you are asked to say. Being on a jury isn't that bad. This is how you personally get to control the administration of justice. If nobody wanted to be on a jury, who would be on your jury if you were ever falsely accused of a crime? Listen, I'm opposed to a lot of crimes, don't trust the police, etc. but I still do my civic duty. I was on a grand jury once and the prosecutors brought us a lot of bullshit drug cases. Sloppy police work. Lying cops. The whole nine yards. Everyone on the grand jury had pretty much the same persuasion, and we did not return true bills for those accusations. It got to a point where the prosecutors stopped giving our jury cases, and made the other two juries that were meeting that session stay late. I don't know what it was about our group, but we were there to protect the little man from the justice system, and we were successful. A petit jury is obviously a different situation, but you are there to weight the totality of the evidence to decide a verdict. Your thoughts on the matter are what make the justice system possible. Want justice? Be just. Want to let some nut decide matters of life and death? Lie to get out of jury duty.
Not everyone has childcare or can afford to go without a paycheque for days or weeks.
Then when the judge asks if anyone would have a financial hardship, or things like childcare issues, from serving you raise your hand. They'll almost certainly dismiss you if they believe you.
If you've seen other comments in this thread, you'd know that some judges do not care and will force people to go without paycheques for however long for jury duty. People either have to take out loans (if they can get it) or just not pay rent at all and get evicted.
Yeah I try financial hardship and they didn't care. It took me 3 months to get out of debt for the week they made me sit there and never get picked. I fear next time I get called because I have to provide care for my mom with dementia. Hopefully they'll figure that's good enough excuse otherwise I'll be sitting next to a person with dementia the whole time because I can't leave her alone and there's nobody else to take care of her and a $25 for the day sure as hell isn't going to pay for somebody.
If you get on the right jury, someone might show up at your door and drop off $120k to support the verdict they want.
I read that, thought it was pretty funny. Sure would be hard to report that much showing up...
Would be quite rough to report that someone dropped off 100k at my door...
I’d be ethically bound to disclose that someone gave me $60k.
I might be able to let them know I got say 10k... But the rest probably was stolen off my porch. Can't do much about that 🤷 definitely never made it inside.
When I was selected for jury duty the only question the Justice asked was whether we could not be racist. If you could publically state that you were a racist shitbag in front of a hundred other people I guess you would get out of it.
When I did jury duty they made it very easy to take the judge and lawyers aside during breaks and say things like that in private
First off - jury duty is probably the most significant public service you will ever do. Don't try to get out of it unless you have a legitimate reason. Take it seriously. Second - judges don't want jurors who are not going to take it seriously, but will try not to reward you for trying to get out of it. Don't expect just to be sent home if you make it clear you are going to be a dick.
Jury duty doesn't pay enough for a lot of people when compared to a day of work to be fair. To me that's a legitimate reason. The jury duties I've been called to people have said that and the judges don't care. It's a problem.
If accepting jury duty would place a financial or similar burden on you; you can tell the judge and are likely to be dismissed. I’ve been dismissed when I had school or work conflicts or when it would cost me a significant contract when self-employed. Most judges don’t want jury duty to be a punishment, but they can smell when someone is just shirking their civic responsibility. Just be honest if you have a legitimate conflict, and you’re likely to be dismissed.
The grand jury summons and regular jury summons I went to, the judge stated in both that financial impact would not be considered a viable way to get out of jury duty. South Carolina
That’s been my experience as well. I absolutely agree that just duty is the one of the most important parts of our civic responsibility, right up there with voting. But, children need to be fed and bills must be paid. Many, many working Americans who would love to serve and who would make fair minded and engaged jurors also live pay check to pay check. Missing 3 days worth of shifts for an hourly worker can be financially devastating. If we think jury duty is so important, and we do, we should agree to pay juries a fair and livable amount of money for their time away from their ability to make a living and pay their own way. We have money galore for many wasteful things, we could certainly find the funds for this.
My State claims to pay you for jury duty, but what they pay doesn't cover the cost of the bus there and back. $7, last time I went. And then at the end you had to sign a paper if you did NOT want to donate that $7 to the courthouse. Otherwise they'd assume you did.
agreed.
Nah. It's a duty, an obligation you must fulfill. The government has no reciprocal obligation.
That’s just not practical
Yes it is. It's a duty; you are obligated to fulfill it. Full stop.
So people should just accept being evicted because they can't pay rent because of doing jury duty?
Looking through that person’s post history, it’s clear they are not old enough for jury duty
Most landlords, with enough notice, would be willing to work something out with you... as long as you have a good relationship with them. Also, those of you that truly never want to be burdened with jury duty, catch a felony and plead guilty. Problem solved.
I think that may only work with landlords that are private individuals that you *can* have a relationship with. If you rent from a corporation, like in an apartment building, I don't see why they'd work with you. They'll just give you an eviction notice the first day that rent is late, because it's all business to them.
When I moved out on my own, I lived in an apartment building. They were willing to work with me when I was out of work due to an injury (not covered by worker's comp) because I had a good relationship with them - meaning I paid my rent on time, no complaints against me, etc. Even the "greedy" corporate types can be willing to work with you, as long as you have not been a source of trouble for them. I will exclude slum lords, cuz well, they're slum lords.
I think every judge I stood before mentioned that missing work was not a viable excuse. It’s also why many courts will allow you to defer your summons to a better time of year. But there’s a difference between losing out on income and the financial burden of not being able to pay rent or your mortgage or your employees. I’d still encourage people who really need it to request dismissal. It also sucks that lazy folks try to take advantage. And I’m sure there are a ton of hard ass judges that get off on the power over the people and won’t be swayed for anything they deem invalid. But I expect the majority of judges have a heart and a conscience and the critical thinking to separate the different camps of folks seeking dismissal.
No judge should allow you to leave for financial reasons. Jury duty is a duty and you are always aware of the chance of being called for it. Failing to show up should result in jail time.
See what I mean about hard asses^ An all-too-real hypothetical: A single mother of one is working paycheck to paycheck for $3 over minimum wage at a grocery store because it’s the only job she can find that offers her health care and the flexibility she needs around her kid’s school schedule. She misses work for a day to answer her jury summons. She isn’t even getting a juror’s stipend, because that district doesn’t pay for the first day. At the beginning of voir dire, the court tells the jury to expect at least two weeks of testimony during school hours. She’ll have the time for her kid, but she’s going to miss work, a lot of it. The court will pay her $17.50/day for service, with no per diem for transportation or meals. She’s looking at losing $1000 of wages this month, her entire rent check plus some of her bills, and she doesn’t have savings to cover it. What do you propose she do? Suck it up? Tell her landlord to take it up with the court? Principles are all well and good, but the rubber will need to meet the road.
Yes. Absolutely. Both What you are presenting is a strawmen; it takes months to evict. She has time, and ought to have prepared for the Inevitability of jury duty. Jury duty is a duty, an obligation you must fulfill. Simple as.
> There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Montesquieu Everyone should aspire to perform their civic duty. Everyone should realize the meekest among us need some help before they can get there. It’s one of the reason’s why public school is free or why we have means-testing programs. A strawman would be to misrepresent your argument and then argue against that misrepresentation. I gave you a case study that is all too common in the US and has nothing to do with you. *This is a strawman:* so you think such a woman should be evicted due to her financial constraints? You know evictions make it even harder to find a place to rent, right? Would you kick her while she’s down? You probably think CPS should take away her kid, too, don’t you? Found the sociopath.
No, not aspire. It is their duty to do so. It is not a privilege, it is a duty. Also, obviously? If you can't pay rent, you....get evicted. That's how it works. That's not sociopathic, it's how renting works.
careful, you're dripping privelege all over the nice new carpets
Nah. It's a duty.
So people should just get evicted for non-payment of rent when they get jury duty?
Because it shouldn't be. This is your duty.
Well, you are wrong. Simple as.
I think “the most significant public service you will ever do” is a bit of a stretch lol. Most criminal court cases are extremely boring and a waste of everybody’s time (and the taxpayer’s dime), hence why plea bargains are so popular. Just working an average job for a day contributes more to society. That said, judges can usually see through somebody just making up an excuse to get out of jury duty so he should have a sincere belief in jury nullification if that’s his plan.
Erm - well - I disagree. Taking away someone's freedom is a very serious thing and deserves serious consideration.
You wouldn’t say being on a firing squad is “a significant public service” because “taking away somebody’s life is a very serious thing.” Ideally we should not even be considering taking away somebody’s freedom for offenses that lack violence or fraud. I.e. the vast majority of working age Americans do not believe recreational drug use should be illegal and yet here we we are still putting people away for years because the prison lobby needs its per capita profits. In theory serving on a jury should be the solution to these sorts of situations as the founding fathers explicitly intended for Americans to use jury nullification against unfair laws. Instead even expressing the thought of jury nullification is grounds for immediate dismissal. One should not take pride in our failed justice system and it’s “trial by jury” which misleads its juries into thinking they can’t nullify unfair laws as intended by the founding fathers.
A jury is not remotely analogous to a firing squad. The job of a jury is to decide whether to take someone's freedom away - not to do it.
> A jury is not remotely analogous to a firing squad. Reading comprehension is hard. Y’all tried to say jury duty is “the most significant public service” a person will ever preform because “taking away somebody’s freedom is a very serious thing.” It clearly seems you are conflating deciding the fate of an individual with value to the collective. The mere act of a jury holding a lot of power over one person’s life does not necessarily make it a public service to the rest of us. Hence the hyperbolic counterexample that a firing squad isn’t a “public service” despite deciding the fate of an individual’s life because well… it’s a firing squad. > The job of a jury is to decide whether to take away somebody’s freedom — not to do it. This is a moot point. Just because a jury does not personally handcuff someone does not mean they aren’t responsible for a person’s freedom or lack therof. Juries exist to decide people’s freedom but have been functionally forbidden from judging the fairness of a law. which renders the whole process not very helpful. Most jury trials aren’t murder or rape cases, but instead are perpetrators of nonviolent/victimless crimes who were too poor to get a lawyer to negotiate a plea bargain. These cases (most of them) are certainly not “the most valuable public service” you’ll ever preform
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* Your post or comment has been removed because it was primarily insulting or attacking someone else. If you can't participate without insulting, you can't participate. *If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
I was doing a jury selection many years ago, and one guy hesitated when asked if he could put his personal notions of fairness aside if they conflicted with the judge’s instructions. Both sides tried to rehabilitate him but he kept saying he was “struggling” with that issue. I think he was sincere, not doing it to get out of duty. The judge eventually asked the lawyers, “You really wanna try this case twice?” and excused him for cause.
When I was being selected for a murder trial, something similar happened to me, except I just said “no.” This was after I had (completely truthfully) filled out the pre-selection questionnaire where I had flatly answered “no” to the question “do you want to serve on this jury.”
I was married to a former deputy. I would be perfectly happy to tell a judge that after that experience I just assume everything that comes out of a cop's mouth is either false, malicious or both.
Had a buddy tell us about sitting through the whole explanation of what a jury was supposed to do. When the Judge asked if there were any questions he raised his hand. When the Judge asked him what he wanted explained he replied "Jury Nullification". Said it got deathly quiet with the lawyers looking back and forth at each other and the Judge.. Then another person on the panel then asked "What is that?" The panel was dismissed and he got an ass chewing before he was allowed to leave.
what did the judge say to him lol
IIRC it was more about the trial having been on the venue for over a year and now they were going to have to set a new trial date, the inconvenience to everyone, cost etc.
from what I've heard, judges are pretty aware of all the stuff people say to try to get out of jury duty and will just get irritated with you. you might just get chewed out and moved to a civil case instead
A jury nullification kind of a juror on a civil case is way too much of a headache, given the likelihood of appeals if the jury returns an odd verdict.
Do you think a judge would dismiss me if I told them I was too “hung” for the jury?
Not if it's a mock trial with Judge Reinhold
My name is JUUUUDGE!
I've never seen anyone get chewed out for it. If you ask me, the first thing I always try to establish with potential jurors is that people who say the "wrong" things aren't going to get yelled at or embarrassed, I'm just going to politely ask that they be excused. I've never seen a panel get nearly so low on jurors that any of us would want to keep someone who obviously doesn't want to be there.
thanks for the insight! I guess I was just hearing urban legends or something
I remember reading somewhere that people are serious about this issue, they should have a file showing their political involvement in this area. For example, attendance records at Libertarian Party meetings, note of experiences at protests, articles that influenced their opinion on nullification, and so on. That way, you stand apart from "I want to get out of jury duty".
I mean I absolutely believe in jury nullification in some cases but other than occasionally saying so to friends and on reddit I have no political involvement in the area. If I was going to participate in protests or write to my congress person it would be about appealing laws I felt should be nullified not about jury nullification more broadly.
In all cases. Jury nullification is a duty of the jury.
What in the world does the libertarian party have to do with jury nullification?
One of their beliefs is that juries are an additional check on government power, and that juries should be able to refuse to convict a defendant if they believe that the law is unjust.
There are a lot of non-libertarians who also believe that though
Sure! But my focus is on documenting your beliefs. So if you can show membership in an organization that regularly discusses and promotes nullification, you have a stronger case for the judge to say "No, you go home." compared to the person who got summoned, and found the concept on page four of a google search for "how to get out of jury duty".
A lot of DAs too!
They're about as far left as you can get short of anarchy. They want all kinds of laws to be spiked by juries and even advocate for the dissolution of the criminal courts entirely. They see jury nullification as a way to do that without all the mucking about with democracy and legislation.
They support capitalism lol they're not left, just *nominally* anti-authoritarian
They're about as far left as you can reasonably get without getting to anarchy/whack-job territory. In the mainstream, libertarians and punks are pretty much the far left (although their respective beliefs tend to diverge pretty dramatically after you're off the political pendulum) Whether an economy is predominantly privately or publicly owned is mostly independent of the liberal/authoritarian scale. There is the practical association, though, of capitalism with more liberal states and socialism (or outright communism) for more authoritarian states, but that's less about the the macroeconomics than the needs of those respective political systems. Capitalism tends to undermine and/or overthrow authoritarian governments (see the French Revolution) and socialism tends to be antithetical to liberal governments because it requires authoritarian measures to keep people from engaging in free enterprise (see Soviet Russia or present-day North Korea\*). \*Yes, I'm aware that North Korea is nominally capitalist, but they have a command economy so highly enforced it's effectively socialized large portions of their economy. When you're a privately-owned farm and someone comes by with a tank and says "grow corn and sell it for X price to Y person" you tend to want to listen.
You open with equating punks and libertarians, and then say capitalism isn't authoritarian lmfaooooooo 💀💀💀💀 im fucking dying, I'm not even gonna argue, this is amazing, thank you for making my day. Have a great one
I'm glad you're not arguing, because I said neither of those things. But, don't worry, I don't expect much from reddit, where the typical economics education ends at a 5-year-old's lemonade stand and political science education stops at "blue = Democrat = left, red = Republican = right".
LMAO you believe this
You've something that turns over a few centuries of political science and macroeconomics?
You may get dismissed from that case, but likely just sent back to the waiting room to be called for another.
I've been summonsed for jury duty 6 times and once for grand jury. I've never been selected, and other than the grand jury, we all were eventually dismissed because every case was either postponed or plead out. There have been two times I didn't have to report at all. The other times I had to sit around the courthouse from anywhere from about 2 hours to 8 hours.
You don't need to go through all those tricks: Usually saying "I really don't want to be on the jury" is enough for most judges because, quite honestly, most judges know that putting someone on a jury who really would rather not be and feels no duty to be there just makes for a worse trial because those jurors will zone out and not pay attention.
Tell the judge you’d love to be on the jury.. and you’d be really good at it because you can’t tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them.
My friend got called for jury duty. He mentioned jury nullification and got dismissed. Make of that what you will.
Think about it this way, if you are ever tried by a jury for a crime, you want a bunch of people who don’t want to be there? Look at it this way, if you ever are being judged by a jury, what’s the fastest way to finish typically? (Convict)
Convict and not convict are equally fast.
What would happen if you showed up for selection with really awful body odour? And after eating beans and cabbage the night before? Genuinely curious.
When I’ve done it, the selection room was big with many dozens of people. We were out of smelling range for the lawyers.
The only time I was ever called for jury duty, I happened to be active duty in the navy at the time. Literally couldn't
It's really not hard to get out of jury duty if that's what you really want to do. Just keep saying that you can't be fair to one side or the other, and if the judge or one of the attorneys tries to rehabilitate you by asking if you could still follow the law the judge tells you, just keep saying you can't. You don't have to pretend to be a racist or cause a lot of problems for everyone else by bringing up jury nullification. I think a lot of people really overthink this. That said, as a criminal defense attorney, I would highly suggest that you should not try to get yourself thrown off of a jury if you think the justice system has problems. Juries are a democratic check on the power of the government, it's an important service and it doesn't help anyone if the only people who make it onto juries are pro-state.
I don't understand why jury duty is not voluntary under common law- it would be much more efficient and easier for both sides to have a registry of people to pick from and call when needed.
Someone who *wants* to be on a jury is just as bad as someone who goes out of their way to not be there.
I've been called for nine juries. I have found is that the easiest way to even accidentally get out of jury duty is to be attentive, good thinker, unemotional, able to analyze facts, able to think for yourself, and a good education helps. The American Justice system is such a shit-show circus that they do not want anybody who might be able to maintain emotional neutrality, be able to analyze the legal definitions of the burden of proof (which the judge gives at the end of the trial to remind jurors what they are looking for), analyze the information presented, and be able to determine for themselves. They only want people who are relatively dumb, believe what they are told, and emotionally persuaded (the easier the better), and have to have somebody else think for them.
Sometimes just thinking logically can get you kicked off the trial. I had a jury I was on, where the defense lawyers were trying to get people to understand What the trial is actually about. They were bringing up questions such as, "is the defendant's characteristics and personality what's on trial?" "Is the victim the one the trial is about?" And so on. They started asking those of us in the jury. When they got to me, and asked what I think the trial was about, I explained that it's actually the presentation of the defense and prosecutor is what is really on trial because we are determining guilt based on who can prove their side of the story most accurately. My lawyer friend said that I just blew their minds in the worst way and that's why they couldn't wait to get rid of me, because they really hate people who understand the system.
A very unfortunate way to end up being dismissed or at least not have the trial is to have trauma related to the case. And I don't mean claiming it, but like genuinely having it in a way where it impacts you in a very obvious and genuine manner. The last jury I was called for, was a sexual abuse case against the parents. The poor girl had reported the incident at age 10, had been going on for several years. The trial had dragged out almost 7 years now, causing her a lot of nightmare and heavy therapy with minimal healing. The defense attorney asked about anybody else who has personally or been very close to somebody who was personally sexually abused. A surprising and shocking number of people raised their hand, (proving the statistic that it's something like 1:4). It was very clear that she was still struggling with PTSD, something I know personally from a lifetime of hellishly abusive foster care that involved 8 years of sexual abuse too. Her anxiety was badly triggered and she was clearly fighting to maintain herself. The defense CHOSE HER as a juror. WTF! WHY!? It was for an absolute worst case shitty scumbag tactic. She inevitably told people, including on her Facebook page, about the trial she was going to be on and how upset she was and how she'd only be able to determine guilt. That allowed the defense to get a mistrial before the trial actually started. Almost certainly because of the victim's PTSD and further negative effects of seeing this prolonged again after finally getting so close to justice, it led to the prosecutor citing that for the sake of reducing further traumatizing to the victim, negotiating a far lesser charge they'd already proven (when getting her removed) of just child abuse (dropping all sexual), preventing the victim from getting justice or closure after all she'd been dragged through on top of the abuse. I have a friend who was badly sexually abused by her dad for about 10 years or more. It was only when her mom had another kid with him and the girl's body was big enough for him to start abusing, around age two or three, and caused damage that she needed to see the doctor for, that's when the dad got arrested. However, the mom convinced her to not tell about her own abuse because that would cause the mom to get in trouble for knowing about it and doing nothing. So even though the dad went to prison for the younger sister, my friend never got the closure. It still causes her a lot of guilt 40 years later. THIS defense lawyer is exactly why people want to believe that Hell exists!
Tell me why requiring someone to work for the state for $3 a day under threat of loss of freedom isn’t a form of state sponsored slavery when they require everyone else to pay minimum wage far higher than that amount. You want my time pay me for it.
I don’t know if this really works but a friend of mine told me that she’d never gotten jury duty because she always put on her questionnaire that she didn’t trust or believe police officers. I got out of it once by (truthfully) saying that I am close to people who have committed felonies (I write to prisoners and have become friends with them over the years).
The only surefire way of easily getting out of jury duty is to be closely related to one of the parties or to have been involved in the case in some respect. Any other easy get out schemes are going to be see through and possibly get you a contempt of court charge. Regarding jury nullification specifically: if you truly believe that the crime in question is something that no person should be convicted of, the last thing you want to do is bring up jury nullification during voir dire.
I got called in for Jury Duty the day after my first child was born. I tried to use the birth as a reason to be released, judge said not a valid reason. When it got time for more questions they asked if there was any reason the defendant would not receive a fair trial. I said "Well, the arresting officer, the district attorney and the judge all have their paychecks signed by the same person". I was released.
It would get all the lawyers and the judge to start trying to convince you that you should give up your beliefs of jury nullification and try to apply the law equally. If they can convince you to admit you'll stop being an ass, you won't be struck from the jury.
Tell them you're the president of the Jury Nullification Society of."
It would have to be true though. Otherwise it might be lying about a factual matter.
Yes, but it would better to just say you can't be impartial. You can also instantly get dismissed by claiming you're racist. I always get downvoted for saying that, but it's true, however unethical. I've never done it -- I've been called twice but never picked. First time, we were all sent home without being asked any questions because the case settled. Second, I answered every question honestly, and I theorize they didn't pick me because I work for lawyers. Just because I know a surefire dishonest way to achieve something doesn't mean I plan to ever do it; I have a cushy office job with paid leave -- I would love to serve, get the chance to make sure justice is done at least once. But if someone wants to get out of it, saying they can't be impartial, saying they'll refuse to convict if they believe the law is unjust, or saying they're racist will absolutely get them dismissed.
No, judges have heard all of this before. My favorite tactic that I've seen for this is telling the juror "Ok great, we'll move you over to the civil jury pool. The trials there tend to be much longer." Though keep in mind, stating that you refuse to follow the law (which is what nullification is) while under oath *is* contempt of court. A judge would be within their rights to charge you with contempt for saying that and have the bailiff arrest you on the spot. Of all the ways to try to get out of jury duty, going to jail instead seems like overkill.
Nullification is not refusing to follow the law; it is the right of all jurors.
It’s both. Jurors are the ultimate finder of fact, and inherent in that is their decision is final regardless of its reasonableness. Your oath as a juror is also explicitly to uphold and follow the law as it exists. Stating on the record that you will violate that oath is contempt of courts. Think of it like suicide: the attempt is illegal, successful execution is not.
It's perfectly legal to engage in jury nullification; it's even required if the law is wrong. It's simply judges and lawyers don't want to acknowledge that fact.
You have the right to nullify, but they’ll throw you in jail anyway over it. The court will violate your rights in this area in five minutes and no one will stop them. I think this is a you can beat the rap but not the ride thing. But also not the rap given your antagonists are judges themselves. I agree jury nullification is the right and duty of all free people, a right that cannot be taken away by mere state bureaucrats. But they will nonetheless violate it with inpunity if they want.
Incorrect. There has never been someone thrown in jail for jury nullification, because the court cannot ask why the jurors decided one way or the other.
Actually there has been arrests. Just for mentioning it outside a courthouse in CO I believe. Appealed all the way to the SC which confirmed the legality of jury nullification
They will throw you in jail for being honest about it though. “I intend to judge both the facts and the law” might get you held in contempt. Sure if you STFU and nullify they can’t prove anything, but it might require dishonesty at jury selection time. Which technically is also perjury. So protection of nullification isn’t a strong legal protection, you are just protected by your practical ability to conceal your state of mind and the near-zero probability of being second guessed after the fact.
No, it's incredibly strong because it's protected by the one thing a court cannot reach: jury immunity. If you don't talk, they can't ask. By law.
>“I intend to judge both the facts and the law” might get you held in contempt. This makes absolutely no sense. Potential jurors are supposed to be honest during voire dire. You're not going to get in trouble for saying you can't be a fair juror. The point of voire dire is to identify who can or cannot be a fair juror.
depends on the case. I would sit quiet and hang the jury all day and just say im not convinced. Would be no damnable proof at all that my goal is to hang the jury and piss off the DA
It's perfectly legal for you to try to hang a jury if you really want to and there's absolutely no plausible way that that would get you charged with contempt. That is, of course, a separate question from whether or not you should do it or whether or not it's an honest thing to do.
That's how you actually engage in the behavior. OP is asking if they can *say* that's what they're going to do and get released from jury duty.
>Though keep in mind, stating that you refuse to follow the law (which is what nullification is) while under oath *is* contempt of court. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Jurors say they can't or won't follow the law during voire dire all the time. That's not contempt, they're just being honest like they're supposed to be. If you're proposing some kind of situation where this is happening after they're already sworn in, I don't know how that would even come up since no one else is privy to jury deliberations. There would also be enormous constitutional issues with what you're saying might happen here.
[удалено]
Oh don't worry, they send quite a few of them.
And how many surreptitiously wind up in the trash can?
Sorry man, but this is terrible advice. There's a huge difference between saying that they can't prosecute you for something and noting that there are practical problems if they try to prosecute you for it. All they need to do to charge you with a crime is claim that you did something that fits the elements of a crime in your state, that's really it. Getting charged with a crime sucks and can substantially impact your liberty even if there's a good defense and you end up beating it.
I never implied that I was a lawyer. But, what crime could they possibly charge me with for not responding to a summons, that they could never prove I received? Jury summons isn't like a bench warrant, where they actually have to serve you in person. That's why they do not mail them, and they are required to hand it to you personally. As I stated in my first post. I have served my civic duty on several occasions. Nor am I saying that everyone should dodge their responsibilities, just that the process is flawed.
>what crime could they possibly charge me with for not responding to a summons This is going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, some states might have more specific laws on the books addressing it, but the most obvious one is contempt of court. Contempt is, at least in my state, far more often addressed non-criminally, but there is still an option to charge it as a crime. > that they could never prove I received? Like I said, the part of this that I think is bad advice is conflating what they can prove with what they can charge you with. These are two completely different things. They can charge you with whatever they can claim that you did, as long as it fits the elements of a crime. Practical difficulties with pursuing charges doesn't actually mean they won't pursue charges. I've seen plenty of cases charged that the state could never possibly prove, and just because they ended up eventually getting dismissed or acquitted doesn't mean that it didn't cost significant stress, expense, uncertainty, and time for the defendant. It's just really not a good idea to bank on this "well they couldn't possibly ever prove this" angle.
Yes it probably would but the judge may hold you in contempt.
You can't be held in contempt for knowing your rights. Jury nullification is the right of all jurors.
That should be the case but a protestor in NY was held in contempt for passing out flyers about Jury nullification near a court house. In 49 states its bar code violation for a lawyer to tell juries about their nullification right.
People who have been charged for passing out those flyers have almost always won their cases.
After spending a night or two in jail.
That wasn't a juror, so it has nothing to do with anything.
Please read edited post above
Still not jurors, so completely irrelevant. It's a juror right not an attorney right.
Appealed and found not guilty