Jury Duty

[sam_gordon]

All my knowledge is from reading books and watching TV/movies, but don't the lawyers already HAVE the jurors names and addresses? There's no reason to take them down in court, especially during voir dire. If the defendant REALLY wanted the information, they just need to ask their lawyer for it.

 

[kdonnel]

Well, that was easy easy. I guess living in a tiny city plus being respectful works. I emailed the Clerk of Court last night and she just responded I've been deferred until May. Woot!

My county of 1 million offers one deferral for any reason.

The process is generally setup to minimize disruption to jurors as much as possible.

 

[sheilafri]

I was called last May but was able to be deferred as I had knee surgery scheduled. They said they'd put me in the December pool, but so far I have heard nothing. I wouldn't mind serving, but I suspect that, based on my job (I'm a scientist/chemist, I know how all those analytical methods that are used on physical evidence work and the odds of false positives, etc), most attorneys wouldn't want me on a jury. That's what I'm hoping, at least!

Don’t count on it. DH and I are both lawyers. DH has been on two juries, I’ve been on one. My case was a hit and run. Not a piece of technical evidence presented.

BTW Maybe it’s because I am a lawyer, but I am proud of having done a civic duty.

 

[TiggerTrigger]

Every state and area seems to handle it a bit differently, from what I've seen.

I believe they can call you once a year here. You receive a notice with a specific date, time, and reporting location. When you arrive, you're given a number and sorted into jury pool rooms if it's the downtown courthouse or combined together if it's one of the smaller regional area courts. They are pretty inflexible with excuses and rescheduling. The last time I was called was at the big downtown location. Once I was sorted into my jury pool room, various deputies came in and called ranges of juror numbers to sort everyone into courtrooms. After that, it was pretty much an all day affair of voir dire. All I know is that I seem to get called more often if I vote in an election.

 

[hertamaniac]

I was called last July during a heat wave (I live in central Florida). Since retiring, I wear t-shirts, shorts and flip-flops/Crocs every single day. But for jury duty, I wore a golf shirt, dress pants and shoes. It's been about 6+ years since wearing this type of clothing and I was so uncomfortable. Especially when I looked around the other 299 potential jurors and would say 90% were in shorts/t-shirts/sandals. What was I thinking?

Anyway, our county has exploded in population over the past 5 years and the courthouse had a major expansion. What used to be ~50 potential jurors was over 300 this time on this day. All the seats, which were extremely uncomfortable, were taken and folks were sitting on the floor in the hallway. On top of that, the A/C was working but it's hard to cool so many folks all sitting in the same room.

No food was given, there were a couple of water fountains, some vending machines (which were driven pretty hard) and zero entertainment on the televisions (turned off). We had to check-in by 7:30, but the stragglers were coming in by 8 AM.

First callings came about 9:30 AM after we all had to stand-up and swear an oath of duty. We got to 11:30 AM and lunch was declared (on your own), but be back by 1 PM; here came more stragglers around 1:30. I waited and waited and waited, but never got called. We got the "all the rest of you will be dismissed once I hear from the judge" around 4 PM. Guess what? We waited and waited and waited until around 4:30 PM and said were dismissed.

It was great to witness the procedure unfold itself, but there is no way I'm dressing up again. And, I will be bringing bottled water, etc. in with me next time.

 

[cabanafrau]

Yes I saw that. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by your peers. And that means they have a right to know who is deciding their guilt of innocence.

Actually not quite correct. The information does have to be on record with the Court and provided to the attorneys, however Defendants do not have absolute rights to the information at will. There are occasions where there are investigations into jurors for various reasons, most often during the appellate phase of a case. I don't believe even then the raw identifying data is provided directly to the convicted offender, although their appellate counsel has right to the information on their behalf for identified appellate issues.

Here it is mandated that jurors are only referred to on the record by juror # or seat #. It is possible that somewhat identifying information may come out during voir dire -- i.e. what you do for a living, with a particular employer occasionally identified as well. Such as if a prospective juror states they are a server in a restaurant, occasionally for a particular reason they may be asked which restaurant. Sometimes if a prospective juror identifies a close family or friendship tie to law enforcement they may be asked to identify the department. Depending on the relationship they've specified that information could make the juror more readily identifiable.

Attorneys do not have the right to take a deep dive into a prospective juror's life for the heck of it. Depending on the particulars of a case sometimes voir dire does get intensely personal for legitimate reasons. Depending on the issues it can be incredibly rough and most judges like to keep as tight a control as possible so painful personal issues aren't laid bare in a way that's more painful and damaging than it needs to be. Generally attorneys only push so far as the point where the Judge will intervene and suggest it's obvious the juror must be dismissed for cause, since the attorneys are obligated to preserve their ability to strike X number of jurors for no cause in order to shape the jury in a way they perceive as most likely sympathetic to their side of a case.

 

[3rd_time_the_charm]

Actually not quite correct. The information does have to be on record with the Court and provided to the attorneys, however Defendants do not have absolute rights to the information at will. There are occasions where there are investigations into jurors for various reasons, most often during the appellate phase of a case. I don't believe even then the raw identifying data is provided directly to the convicted offender, although their appellate counsel has right to the information on their behalf for identified appellate issues.

Here it is mandated that jurors are only referred to on the record by juror # or seat #. It is possible that somewhat identifying information may come out during voir dire -- i.e. what you do for a living, with a particular employer occasionally identified as well. Such as if a prospective juror states they are a server in a restaurant, occasionally for a particular reason they may be asked which restaurant. Sometimes if a prospective juror identifies a close family or friendship tie to law enforcement they may be asked to identify the department. Depending on the relationship they've specified that information could make the juror more readily identifiable.

Attorneys do not have the right to take a deep dive into a prospective juror's life for the heck of it. Depending on the particulars of a case sometimes voir dire does get intensely personal for legitimate reasons. Depending on the issues it can be incredibly rough and most judges like to keep as tight a control as possible so painful personal issues aren't laid bare in a way that's more painful and damaging than it needs to be. Generally attorneys only push so far as the point where the Judge will intervene and suggest it's obvious the juror must be dismissed for cause, since the attorneys are obligated to preserve their ability to strike X number of jurors for no cause in order to shape the jury in a way they perceive as most likely sympathetic to their side of a case.

Good to know and interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[HopperFan]

Actually not quite correct. The information does have to be on record with the Court and provided to the attorneys, however Defendants do not have absolute rights to the information at will. There are occasions where there are investigations into jurors for various reasons, most often during the appellate phase of a case. I don't believe even then the raw identifying data is provided directly to the convicted offender, although their appellate counsel has right to the information on their behalf for identified appellate issues.

Here it is mandated that jurors are only referred to on the record by juror # or seat #. It is possible that somewhat identifying information may come out during voir dire -- i.e. what you do for a living, with a particular employer occasionally identified as well. Such as if a prospective juror states they are a server in a restaurant, occasionally for a particular reason they may be asked which restaurant. Sometimes if a prospective juror identifies a close family or friendship tie to law enforcement they may be asked to identify the department. Depending on the relationship they've specified that information could make the juror more readily identifiable.

Attorneys do not have the right to take a deep dive into a prospective juror's life for the heck of it. Depending on the particulars of a case sometimes voir dire does get intensely personal for legitimate reasons. Depending on the issues it can be incredibly rough and most judges like to keep as tight a control as possible so painful personal issues aren't laid bare in a way that's more painful and damaging than it needs to be. Generally attorneys only push so far as the point where the Judge will intervene and suggest it's obvious the juror must be dismissed for cause, since the attorneys are obligated to preserve their ability to strike X number of jurors for no cause in order to shape the jury in a way they perceive as most likely sympathetic to their side of a case.

And I would venture it is the unicorn jury that is actually peers with the defendant, unless peer means human only.

DH has never been a peer of the defendants he sat in for. And last fall he was dismissed by plaintiff specifically because he was a peer of the defendant.

 

[Keladry84]

I had to go in for jury today. They had called too many jurors in, so they started reading names and called about 40 people to go into the courtroom. I was one of the few left over and was dismissed around 9:30 am and told my duty was wrapped up (meaning I don't need to call in, etc.) I don't know if it will take me out of future pools. My friend who was also called today was 1 of the 40 who had to go into the courtroom, so I'm sure the process will be longer for her.

 

[cabanafrau]

And I would venture it is the unicorn jury that is actually peers with the defendant, unless peer means human only.

DH has never been a peer of the defendants he sat in for. And last fall he was dismissed by plaintiff specifically because he was a peer of the defendant.

If you mean peer in the sense of being known to the defendant, no jury candidates who have a history or a relationship with a defendant, or the attorneys, or potential witnesses in the case for that matter, should be seated on a jury. That's kind of obvious in regard to some type of history with a defendant, but a history with attorneys or potential witnesses are also factors. The anticipated witness lists of both sides are read to the jury pool early in the voir dire process, generally even before any numbers are drawn to start putting butts in seats in the box.

Just as jurors are repeatedly instructed to regard the testimony of law enforcement no differently than they would any other witness, it's important that none of the jurors have some type of history with a witness who testifies in the case. It's prejudicial if a juror knows a doctor who's called to testify about a case. If the doctor operated on their brother in the past and it was successful that past, out of court experience may influence how they receive any testimony the doc gives. By the same token, if the same doc operated on their brother and the outcome was not good they may be inclined to reject any testimony the doc gives. They also want to know if your brother's unsuccessful surgery has colored your opinion re: doctors and/or the medical profession overall.

That's why attorneys are given latitude to probe prospective juror's lives and histories according to the details of a particular case. If it's a sexual assault case a jury panel should expect to have their potential past experience, and their close adjacent experience with sexual assault to be deeply probed, which may very well be an extremely painful experience for the juror. That's often particularly shocking for potential jurors. If the case involves medical malpractice or contractor negligence, past experience and adjacent experience regarding medical matters or contractors will be deeply explored. If your neighbors went through a nightmare mold battle after a kitchen reno that you are aware of, it's unlikely you will pass the threshold to be seated on the jury of a contractor negligence case when you share that fact when questioned.

They're looking for a panel that can as cleanly as possible take in only the testimony from the witness stand, applying the law they're given and rendering a verdict based solely on the facts and circumstances of this case alone, nothing else. Peers simply means people you might encounter in your community, nothing else.

 

[sam_gordon]

I had to go in for jury today. They had called too many jurors in, so they started reading names and called about 40 people to go into the courtroom. I was one of the few left over and was dismissed around 9:30 am and told my duty was wrapped up (meaning I don't need to call in, etc.) I don't know if it will take me out of future pools. My friend who was also called today was 1 of the 40 who had to go into the courtroom, so I'm sure the process will be longer for her.

Pretty sure they always call more jurors than what are needed. Some number won't show up, some will be excused for some reason, you've GOT to call in more than needed.

 

[Keladry84]

Pretty sure they always call more jurors than what are needed. Some number won't show up, some will be excused for some reason, you've GOT to call in more than needed.

For sure! A few years ago when I lived in a different state they called like 100 of us. At least here they dismissed the extra pretty quickly.

 

[tvguy]

Actually not quite correct. The information does have to be on record with the Court and provided to the attorneys, however Defendants do not have absolute rights to the information at will. There are occasions where there are investigations into jurors for various reasons, most often during the appellate phase of a case. I don't believe even then the raw identifying data is provided directly to the convicted offender, although their appellate counsel has right to the information on their behalf for identified appellate issues.

Here it is mandated that jurors are only referred to on the record by juror # or seat #. It is possible that somewhat identifying information may come out during voir dire -- i.e. what you do for a living, with a particular employer occasionally identified as well. Such as if a prospective juror states they are a server in a restaurant, occasionally for a particular reason they may be asked which restaurant. Sometimes if a prospective juror identifies a close family or friendship tie to law enforcement they may be asked to identify the department. Depending on the relationship they've specified that information could make the juror more readily identifiable.

Attorneys do not have the right to take a deep dive into a prospective juror's life for the heck of it. Depending on the particulars of a case sometimes voir dire does get intensely personal for legitimate reasons. Depending on the issues it can be incredibly rough and most judges like to keep as tight a control as possible so painful personal issues aren't laid bare in a way that's more painful and damaging than it needs to be. Generally attorneys only push so far as the point where the Judge will intervene and suggest it's obvious the juror must be dismissed for cause, since the attorneys are obligated to preserve their ability to strike X number of jurors for no cause in order to shape the jury in a way they perceive as most likely sympathetic to their side of a case.

But normally it is public. In some cases, a Judge can take action in a high profile case such a this one.
https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/01/24/how-courts-care-jurors-high-profile-cases

 

[cabanafrau]

But normally it is public. In some cases, a Judge can take action in a high profile case such a this one.
https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/01/24/how-courts-care-jurors-high-profile-cases

It may be public in some courts, but not all, so not actually normal. Even in cases where it's not concealed it is somewhat protected. When cameras are allowed in a courtroom you'll notice that jurors are never shown. News reports may comment on the demeanor of a juror/jury, looks on the jury's face(s), make note of where a juror was looking, who they were looking at, but we don't see their faces. Even if the media has the names and addresses of the jurors, they do not make any attempt to reach out for any type of comments or interview until after a trial is over and they have been officially dismissed from service.

 

[HopperFan]

If you mean peer in the sense of being known to the defendant, no jury candidates who have a history or a relationship with a defendant, or the attorneys, or potential witnesses in the case for that matter, should be seated on a jury. That's kind of obvious in regard to some type of history with a defendant, but a history with attorneys or potential witnesses are also factors. The anticipated witness lists of both sides are read to the jury pool early in the voir dire process, generally even before any numbers are drawn to start putting butts in seats in the box.

I think this is obvious, not what I meant and would be considered way more than a peer. A peer is someone who is of like standing in the community, someone in the same social economic group, many consider race, religion, age ... all factors.

My point was a jury of one's peers rarely happens so the use of "peer" is not even adhered to and to me has little value. The homeless indigent defendant is not getting a jury of homeless persons, the affluent high social ladder person is not getting a jury of like affluent persons, a minority defendant is likely not getting a majority of his minority as jurors. The system is outdated in so many ways.

 

[cabanafrau]

I think this is obvious, not what I meant and would be considered way more than a peer. A peer is someone who is of like standing in the community, someone in the same social economic group, many consider race, religion, age ... all factors.

My point was a jury of one's peers rarely happens so the use of "peer" is not even adhered to and to me has little value. The homeless indigent defendant is not getting a jury of homeless persons, the affluent high social ladder person is not getting a jury of like affluent persons, a minority defendant is likely not getting a majority of his minority as jurors. The system is outdated in so many ways.

How would that be achieved, and to how fine a point would you suggest measuring a peer? Juries aren't only for single defendant criminal trials, or even solely for criminal trials at all. Sometimes each defendant gets an independent jury, but more often trials are bifurcated because the logistics of two juries sitting on a single trial are so unwieldy the court deems it prudent to handle the matters separately.

What about a civil trial with a jury -- which party would be entitled to a jury of its peers? What happens if one, or both party is not an individual, but a couple or a family -- or even a business entity? How would one even begin to go about sorting out the factors of determining a peer?

Where does or should the issue of judicial economy factor into the notion that a jury of one's peers should match specific updated criteria of today? Should we ask taxpayers to pick up a bigger burden to address this issue, or should we cut other areas to fund this expensive prospect?

At a quick glance your suggested list of neglected criteria not addressed under our longstanding system neglects to address gender identity. It would seem that for many people today gender identity is at the forefront of how they view their place in society. Shouldn't gender be considered if we're updating things?

Should the need ever arise, I wish to be judged by a jury of my peers selected under the system that has a long history as the gold standard of justice all over the globe and save the updating for things like medicine, technology, energy creation and other areas that would benefit far more from updating IMO.

 

[HopperFan]

Should the need ever arise, I wish to be judged by a jury of my peers selected under the system that has a long history as the gold standard of justice all over the globe and save the updating for things like medicine, technology, energy creation and other areas that would benefit far more from updating IMO.

It really doesn't matter what is happening around the world - it only matters what happens here. I would say we are far from gold. We have way too many people imprisoned because they are poor or a minority - with our system and our jurors. We have way too many people with money or corporations walking out the door with a slap on the hand, with our system and our jurors. We have jurors that have no ability to understand the facts put in front of them. This is 2024, the world has changed, the system has not. It is a flawed system, too flawed for the point at which we have evolved in this country. Rather sad.

My point that keeps getting missed here is PEERS are not what make up a jury. We should stop using that term, stop telling defendants that there will be peers sitting there judging them.

 

[Luv Bunnies]

I once had to report for jury duty a day after I was laid off from my job. I lined up with the rest of the people who wanted deferrals or excusals and took my turn in front of the judge. I explained that I needed to look for a new job and would prefer not to be tied up in a trial. He excused me right away. Another time I was in the process of having my son evaluated for autism. We had several appointments with various specialists lined up over a few weeks, and some appointments were not easy to get. We'd already spent a few months on a waiting list for a certain neurologist. I explained the situation to the judge, saying it would be difficult to cancel and reschedule the appointments. He also excused me right away.

Several other times, I did not need an excusal and sat in the courtroom, waiting my turn to be questioned by the attorneys. I know, for a fact, that I will always be excused. But I patiently wait my turn to be rejected! They always ask if I know anyone in law enforcement. I say yes, my father was a deputy sheriff in this county. My uncle was chief of police in a nearby city. My mother was a jail nurse in this county for 25 years. My sister and I both worked as medical clerks in the county jail when we were in college (yes, we were nepo-clerks!). They invariably tell me I'm excused and I walk out the door. A few year ago, the court broke for lunch and I hadn't been called up yet. I shared a table at a sandwich shop with another potential juror. I told him I would be excused and I wasn't quite sure if he believed me. As soon as they kicked me out, I glanced over at him and he was smiling like, "Hey! You were right!" I doubt I'll ever be on a jury around here.

 

[cabanafrau]

It really doesn't matter what is happening around the world - it only matters what happens here. I would say we are from gold. We have way too many people imprisoned because they are poor or a minority - with our system and our jurors. We have way too many people with money or corporations walking out the door with a slap on the hand, with our system and our jurors. We have jurors that have no ability to understand the facts put in front of them. This is 2024, the world has changed, the system has not. It is a flawed system, too flawed for the point at which we have evolved in this country. Rather sad.

My point that keeps getting missed here is PEERS are not what make up a jury. We should stop using that term, stop telling defendants that there will be peers sitting there judging them.

Lay it out then, how do you propose to accomplish what you suggest?

What precisely about the system is so flawed, and what are your solutions? I'm not asking what you think the results of the flaws are -- I'm asking what precisely are the flaws and how you propose to remedy them.

As I understand it you are suggesting that a jury of peers means that a jury should have the same race, ethnicity, religion, age and socio economics as the parties in the case. Which parties in the case?

Are you suggesting that juries are or should vote along racial, ethnic, religious, age and socio economic bases? If so, why bother having a trial or presenting evidence?

Does a jury having the same racial, ethnic, religious, age and socio economics as a party in the case inherently make them capable of understanding the facts put in front of them?

 

[tvguy]

It may be public in some courts, but not all, so not actually normal. Even in cases where it's not concealed it is somewhat protected. When cameras are allowed in a courtroom you'll notice that jurors are never shown. News reports may comment on the demeanor of a juror/jury, looks on the jury's face(s), make note of where a juror was looking, who they were looking at, but we don't see their faces. Even if the media has the names and addresses of the jurors, they do not make any attempt to reach out for any type of comments or interview until after a trial is over and they have been officially dismissed from service.

If you read the article I posted, only once in New York Federal Court had not released the names of jurors. That surprised me. I was in charge of handling cameras in courtroom requests for a TV station, and yes, some Judges do not allow the jury to be shown, but if you ever watch shows like Forensic Files, Dateline and 20/20 where they cover a try, they frequently show jurors faces. So "never" is not correct. But, like I said, it all depends on the Judge. Some won't allow jurors faces to be show, some don't allow court staff other than the Judge to be shown. Not uncommon for a Judge to say video only, no audio. A couple strange restrictions I recall, one Judge said STILL photos only, no video, and another said we could only show the defendant from the neck down!