I got summoned for jury duty a couple of weeks ago. I have conflicting feelings about this. First and foremost, I would love to serve on a jury. I think it would be fascinating to watch other lawyers work, as well as judges, and listen to what other jurors say about lawyers and judges. I also think serving on a jury is an important part of being an American citizen. Our system of justice would not work if people did not take this duty seriously. Therefore, I would gladly go and sit to be selected for a jury, no problem.
Another reason I would like to be on a jury is to ensure the widening of the jury pool. In most cases, people who are actually picked to serve on juries make up two types - retired people and unemployed people. This is a not a significant portion of our population and is certainly not representative of a cross-section of the community. Not that there is anything wrong with being retired or unemployed (well, sometimes), but it is incredibly unfair that jurors are pulled from these two groups.
I know a judge (who shall remain nameless) who once told me that the people who become jurors are the ones not smart enough to get out of jury duty. He may have been jaded after presiding over so many jury selections in his time and listening to some of the stupid and ridiculous excuses people use to get out of jury duty. Some of the dandies I have heard:
"I don't like to drive in the city - I can't deal with the stress of driving to the city for jury duty. I wouldn't be able to concentrate."
"I'm planning my daughter's birthday party this week."
"My dog is very sick and needs constant care."
"I can't be fair because I don't like black people." (I'm not making that up, nor do I support it. I was present when the gentleman said this and was shocked. He was excused immediately.)
So, because I have witnessed all of this, I feel a moral obligation to represent my section of the community in a jury pool.
On the other hand, there is no way that any attorney in their right mind would place me on a jury. Mostly because I am a lawyer but also because of the type of law I practice. I had to laugh when I filled out the questionnaire. At the end, it asks you to circle certain professions if a member of your family or close friends belongs to one of those professions. The list is: Judge, state's attorney, public defender, other lawyer, Doctor, Nurse, Police Officer, and a few others. I had to circle them all.
Lawyers tend to be an insular crowd. We hang with other lawyers, we tend to marry other lawyers, and our kids often become lawyers. Particularly in a small city like Peoria, lawyers tend to know all other lawyers and such relationships will normally exclude someone from serving on a jury. I know of no attorney that has served on a jury after they entered law school.
Too bad. A jury full of lawyers would make for very interesting discussion. Of course, they would never reach a verdict . . . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
There was a time, I believe, when attorney's were automatically excused. I think journalists were also excused.
I cannot imagine a state's attorney NOT wanting to keep the press from getting a first-hand look at how the sausage is made.
The one thing that ticks me off about jury duty is when they ask what month do you want to serve, you select a month, and then they call you on a different month.
I was on a jury when I was 21 and it was an interesting learning experience. I believe in the system and don't mind serving on a jury, I just want to do it when it's somewhat convenient for me.
I've "gotten out of" jury duty twice, when my kids were young and I was a SAHM; it really would have been a hardship. However, now that they are school aged I don't claim a hardship and have been called once. I sat in the room for four days without my name even being called. It seems there must be a better way.
""I can't be fair because I don't like black people." ... I was present when the gentleman said this and was shocked."
I'm not. Students ask me ALL THE TIME if that will work to get them out of jury duty. I tell them it might, but that some judges have started handing out contempt of court citations for that kind of crap, so it might also land them in jail overnight.
When I was at Duke, there was a MURDER TRIAL that seated not one, not two, but THREE Duke Law professors on the same jury. In a jurisdiction where people don't show up for jury duty, you take who you can get!
(And Pundit, they used to excuse attorneys WIVES from jury duty. Boy was my mom pissed when Cook County stopped doing that -- and then of course she got seated on a jury at 26th and California, not somewhere nice like Skokie.)
I've known a few lawyers who got seated, but I haven't actually been called since I started law school, and when I am, I'm sure I won't be seated. The Peoria bar is much too small for that, and even if I didn't know the lawyers, I was a research assistant on the Arizona Jury Project (so I am one of maybe two dozen people in the world who have watched actual juries deliberate on actual cases), which I think would make most lawyers toss me even if they weren't in the habit of tossing lawyers.
It's too bad, I'd like to serve.
Jennifer,
There are several better ways. Lots of jurisdictions do one-and-done -- you get seated that day, or you don't have to come back. Several large jurisdictions with multi-day jury pools have gone to an automated system where you either call in (say, between 8 and 9 a.m.) or an autodialer calls you. You're "on call" for the entire week, but you only have to actually go to the courthouse if notified. This can slightly slow down the trials (if attorneys decide at noon to seat a jury, they have to wait until the next morning to start selection), but vastly increases compliance and juror happiness.
And the single best way to increase juror compliance is to give them a choice of dates to serve -- generally they either mail you a scantron and you pick 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices, and then they mail you what you got, OR they do it by computer and you mark a certain number of days when you could serve. Those who comply fastest get first choice.
In a couple of places, I've seen systems where if you serve immediately you get to pick your date, but if you defer for six months (which is always an option in those jurisdicitons), the court gets to pick your dates. Which both gives a strong incentive to comply immediately, and keeps a pool of folks available who deferred that the court can assign to any dates that are coming up light.
Nice brief and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you seeking your information.
Post a Comment