Any tips on getting out of jury duty?

[R. Rich]

Why was I not quoted?

 

aussiew either?

 

You have something against Texans?

301488[/snapback]

 

 

Are you black Texans?

[VABills]

Are you black Texans?

301502[/snapback]

That play golf and hit their tee into the ground when they have a bad drive?

[aussiew]

Why was I not quoted?

 

aussiew either?

 

You have something against Texans?

 

Er.....Beerball........I'm only Texan by injection

[R. Rich]

That play golf and hit their tee into the ground when they have a bad drive? 

301506[/snapback]

 

Those monsters.

[Beerball]

Are you black Texans?

301502[/snapback]

Is it a prerequisite? My wife is Black Irish...or Orange Irish, I can never keep track of that stuff. Is that close enough? Also, I've watched Franko Harris on TV if that helps any.

 

One more thing, I've offended aussiew again. Please remove her from all thoughts about black Texans.

[Terry Tate]

Of course, everyone who is adamantly opposed here to being subject to jury duty will recognize they are a part of the problem, and refrain from making negative comments on any future unsatisfactory court judgements.

[Alaska Darin]

This is truly amazing. 

 

What about all the people in the Army reserve who's families are losing their homes and/or going bankrupt because they are on greatly reduced incomes while they serve full time in Iraq??

 

So get a loan and do your duty. 

301442[/snapback]

 

 

To all of you saying "do your duty", I would like to thank you for being so much higher and mighter than the rest of us... thanks.

 

Second, it is practical for ALOT of people (especially those of us who rely on our own businesses for some/all of our income) to just say "oh, I have to do my duty, $10 a day will have to do!"...

 

Third, to solve all of this, jury duty should be like maternaty leave for people who do work for someone else. You get paid for your time away. Period.

 

And for people who can prove to a court that they are self employed, the court should pay them what they can prove is an average wage over the past 6 months.

 

Finally, the possibility of professional jurors isn't such a bad one. At least we would have 12 people in the box that somewhat know the law, rather than 12 people who are either 1) pissed off because they don't want to be there, 2) thinking about how much money they are losing by being there...

 

but remember, it's easy to say "just do your duty"...

301457[/snapback]

The irony of these two posts being back-to-back isn't lost...

[IDBillzFan]

The irony of these two posts being back-to-back isn't lost...

301564[/snapback]

If you really want irony during the offseason, I suggest you track down everyone who thinks it's okay to get out of jury duty because it doesn't meet their personal needs, and cross reference it with their expectations in the Michael Jackson trial.

[stevestojan]

If you really want irony during the offseason, I suggest you track down everyone who thinks it's okay to get out of jury duty because it doesn't meet their personal needs, and cross reference it with their expectations in the Michael Jackson trial.

301592[/snapback]

 

 

Wow... truly sad how you not only follow my threads, but study the hell out of them...

 

Tell us another Fabio story... your fan base is thinning and could use a shot in the arm...

[Alaska Darin]

If you really want irony during the offseason, I suggest you track down everyone who thinks it's okay to get out of jury duty because it doesn't meet their personal needs, and cross reference it with their expectations in the Michael Jackson trial.

301592[/snapback]

I was thinking about that when I perused that thread but left it alone in the spirit of "please don't bash the tards anymore." In related news, did you see the Farrelly Brothers new movie is coming out?

 

It's called "Ringer" (or something similiar) and involves a normal guy pretending to be retarded so he can win the Special Olympics. There's no truth to the rumor the concept is loosely based on spending a short time at The Stadium Wall. Really.

[LabattBlue]

I once served on civil trial that revolved around an accident between a couple on a motorcycle and a person in a car. Also involved was a bar who served the person in the car alcohol. The amounts the lawyers were looking for where staggering. Well into 7 figures. You basically have no guidelines for future "pain & suffering". It was not that hard to come up with who was to blame(a percentage between driver and bar), but impossible to determine an amount. I agonized over this for several weeks after the trial.

 

I always wondered if the amount gets knocked down during appeal or some other process. Anyone know the answer to this?

 

 

My point....Knowing what it was like going through this civil trial, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to server on a rape or murder trial where most of the evidence is circumstantial.

[IDBillzFan]

I was thinking about that when I perused that thread but left it alone in the spirit of "please don't bash the tards anymore." 

301640[/snapback]

It's not really 'bashing the tards.' It's just the truth. The problem with giving opinions all the time is that occasionally you trip yourself up. Happens to politicians all the time because they're constantly inundated with "What do you think about this? What do you think about that?" Next thing you know you're saying something like "I voted for it before I voted against it."

 

That's not a tard being bashed by anyone other than his own words.

[Mickey]

I once served on civil trial that revolved around an accident between a couple on a motorcycle and a person in a car.  Also involved was a bar who served the person in the car alcohol.  The amounts the lawyers were looking for where staggering.  Well into 7 figures.  You basically have no guidelines for future "pain & suffering".  It was not that hard to come up with who was to blame(a percentage between driver and bar), but impossible to determine an amount.  I agonized over this for several weeks after the trial. 

 

I always wondered if the amount gets knocked down during appeal or some other process.  Anyone know the answer to this?

My point....Knowing what it was like going through this civil trial, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to server on a rape or murder trial where most of the evidence is circumstantial.

301656[/snapback]

The amount of the verdict can be challenged at the trial court level first and then on appeal if necessary. If the trial court thinks the amounts were screwed up by the jury the judge will likely present an alternative set of figures and if the litigants do not agree to them, either declare a mistrial or let the verdict stand as is. It is how the Judge can kind of push the litigants into accepting the judge's evaluation. A mistrial can be a catastrophe for a plaintiff, they will usually accept a lower verdict to avoid that and if the award was really high, the defendant will want to take the lower figure from the judge rather than have the verdict stand. In that case they would have no choice left but an appeal. This actually happens a lot.

 

Value is always a difficult thing to decide because of the very nature of pain and suffering. Everyone always complains about jury verdicts being too high or too low but no one has come up with a better system for deciding the value of pain and suffering. Instead they offer one size fits all approaches which are pretty much guaranteed to be unfair. Imagine making everyone on the planet wear shoes that were all the exact same style and the exact same size. What would you choose, pumps? Loafers? High-tops? Skates? Hiking boots? What size would you pick, 12 EEE? Women's Petite 4? Toddler 5? Caps are no more rational. Imagine saying that no person, no matter what could ever wear a shoe bigger than a 10 EE. What about all the people with feet bigger than that?

 

Juries don't always hit the nail right on the head, sometimes they miss by a mile although even that is subjective. That is why we have post trial motions and appellate courts. There are safety valves to protect against run-away juries. A fair hearing in front of a jury selected by both sides with each having a fair opportunity to select jurors is not what defendants want. They don't want a fair trial, they want a fixed deck guaranteeing that they win even when they lose. Nice deal if you can get it.

[stevestojan]

Like I said before, the idea of having professional jurors sounds like a better idea. This guys article talks about it....

 

http://kipesquire.blogspot.com/2004/12/sho...nal-jurors.html

 

 

Here's how a Canadian lawyer described the current dilemma:

 

So who does actually sit on juries? Well, you have those not smart enough to figure out how to get out of doing it. And, if they aren't smart enough to figure that out, do you really want them sitting in judgement of a criminal case? Because that is how events like [a] mistrial occur. Then there are the under-employed. They have nothing better to do. Or the aged and retired. While smart enough, most seniors I know would have a great deal of difficulty understanding the technology involved in many trials today such as forensic digital analysis of a computer's hard drive in the search for evidence, which seems to have become an issue in many, if not most, cases these days. Then there's DNA evidence. As demonstrated in the OJ Simpson trial, with a mountain of DNA evidence conclusively demonstrating guilt, the jury simply didn't understand it and were left with Johnnie Cochrane's pithy but ridiculous; "If the glove don't fit..." nonsense.

[aussiew]

Maybe we could follow the law and really be entitled to a jury of our "peers"?

 

So, in a trial, I would be judged by twelve 50+ single mothers who loved football and loitered around message boards finding thoughts in common with under 30 men.

 

One could only hope.

[stevestojan]

Maybe we could follow the law and really be entitled to a jury of our "peers"?

 

So, in a trial, I would be judged by twelve 50+ single mothers who loved football and loitered around message boards finding thoughts in common with under 30 men.

 

One could only hope. 

301745[/snapback]

 

 

"Your honor... we are close to coming to a verdict, but to make up our minds, we need to see the baliff in football pants... . . why? For the sake of JUSTICE!"

 

[Mickey]

Like I said before, the idea of having professional jurors sounds like a better idea. This guys article talks about it....

 

http://kipesquire.blogspot.com/2004/12/sho...nal-jurors.html

Here's how a Canadian lawyer described the current dilemma:

 

So who does actually sit on juries? Well, you have those not smart enough to figure out how to get out of doing it. And, if they aren't smart enough to figure that out, do you really want them sitting in judgement of a criminal case? Because that is how events like [a] mistrial occur. Then there are the under-employed. They have nothing better to do. Or the aged and retired. While smart enough, most seniors I know would have a great deal of difficulty understanding the technology involved in many trials today such as forensic digital analysis of a computer's hard drive in the search for evidence, which seems to have become an issue in many, if not most, cases these days. Then there's DNA evidence. As demonstrated in the OJ Simpson trial, with a mountain of DNA evidence conclusively demonstrating guilt, the jury simply didn't understand it and were left with Johnnie Cochrane's pithy but ridiculous; "If the glove don't fit..." nonsense.

301733[/snapback]

 

New York has recognized some of these problems and revamped the jury system so that it is much harder to get out of jury duty and the pool of jurors has been increased. Used to be a lawyer called to serve could just call up and let the commissioner know they were an atty and they would be excused because the lawyers never want an atty on the jury. No more. The amount of lawyers ending up on juries has increased dramatically because now the trial lawyers have to use up one of their precious preemptory challenges to get them off the jury.

 

A lot of people use the OJ trial as an example of bad juries but that is unfair. We all had the case spoon fed to us by hysterical reporters looking to keep their ratings up with sensational news month after month after month. The jurors didn't see any of that. They saw the evidence and only the evidence. Yeah they got hit with spin from lawyers from both sides. The public got hit with that as well and with the lawyers spinning on the court house steps and with the talking heads spinning like tops twenty four seven. The jury was exposed to a lot less BS than we were.

 

Fact is, the prosecution's case was weak. Just look at the films, that crime scene was a circus. Do I think OJ did it? Absolutely. Do I think I am smarter than the people on the jury or would have vote any differently than they did? I can't say that and neither can anyone else who didn't sit through the whole trial in their shoes. Besides, you don't judge a system based on its performance in the kind of trial that comes along once every 50 years or so. That case was a singularity, an aberration. It would be like judging the US Navy based on their performance on December 7, 1941. You don't judge a system based on its best day or its worst day.

[aussiew]

"Your honor... we are close to coming to a verdict, but to make up our minds, we need to see the baliff in football pants... . . why? For the sake of JUSTICE!"

 

You get it!

[manateefan]

I gotta go in May and dont want to be chosen.....i cant afford to miss any time for my buisness.

 

any tips on how not to get chosen?

300567[/snapback]

 

When my husband and I still lived in Kenmore, he simply told them he was self-employed (we owned a bar) and because we had less than three employees, he was excused. I don't know if the rules have changed, but at the time it was that simple

[Tom]

I got called to serve in Essex County, New Jersey about a year and a half ago.  I work in investment management sales for a small money manager in North Carolina (however, I live in NJ) and it was the worst possible time.  They sent me to the jury room for a murder case and when they asked for hardship cases I told them that quite frankly it was a tough time for me professionally, I was not capable of focusing on this situation, I missed a couple of important meetings during the three days it took me to get to that point and let them know that I would be an empty juror - they let me out.  I understand the whole civic duty thing, but that burden is not distributed evenly because some people are less dispensable at their jobs than others - either because of the company's size or the nature of the job.  I've known people that have had to close retail businesses while they served on jury duty - they weren't paying me enough a day to cover gas.

Who said life was fair? I've served a few times & it was a hardship but I sucked it up & moved on.