Jury Duty - To Serve or Not to Serve

September 8, 2008 10:07 PM

I want to get out of jury service, but I refuse to lie.

Background: I got yet another jury duty notice in the mail today. I’ve been called to Jury Duty about 8 times in my life and I’ve always shown up for my service. Of those 8 times, there were two instances where I actually made it into the jury box and was selected each time. The other times, we were dismissed before even going to a courtroom or they set the jury before my name was called. About 10 years ago I served on a murder trial that lasted two weeks and last year I served on a robbery trial that lasted less than a week. We found different verdicts in each case, and as it turned out I was the foreperson for each trial. I almost made it onto a criminal grand jury a couple years ago, but was dismissed after they held a lottery of the remaining people. Now that would have been interesting to do!

I have no issue with jury service in general. It’s an important part of our process and I was happy to do my civic duty. I think both parties in my trial got a fair shake and was satisfied overall with the system and the process. It was an interesting learning experience both times. My company also pays my full salary when I’m on a jury so that isn’t an issue either.

So while I feel that I could still be an impartial juror and I could follow the law, my truth is that in my heart I don’t actually want to do it again. Let’s face it, those of you who have been on a jury know that it can be physically and emotionally exhausting. Having someone’s fate in your hands is a big deal and can weigh heavily on the mind. I know it did mine – that didn’t affect my final decision in the matter, but it’s still there. It seems unfair to have to keep going back once you've sat on a jury.

So. I’ve already served on a jury twice, is it fair of me not to want to do it again? Should I happen to make it all the way to the jury box this time, how do I get out of it without lying? If I just stated the above, would that get me out of it or just make me look like a whiny brat? Should I just suck it up?

posted by trixare4kids to law & government (33 comments total)

You appear to be the perfect juror: you don't have a hardship claim, and you take the process seriously. Of course they love you!

One thing you can try (if you get as far as voir dire) is to ask the bailiff if you can speak to the judge - in my experience, there's usually a point at which potential jurors have the opportunity to speak to the judge one-on-one if they need to. Tell the judge what you've told us - the judge may well give you a break.

And if there's enough room on the jury survey to explain this, do that too.
posted by rtha at 10:18 PM on September 8, 2008

So. I’ve already served on a jury twice, is it fair of me not to want to do it again?

You served on a jury about a year ago? I am pretty sure in my state you are excused from jury service for ten years after being impaneled and serving on a jury. Your recent service may excuse you from jury service this time around.

Should I happen to make it all the way to the jury box this time, how do I get out of it without lying?

Tell the judge (or the lawyers, if they are participating in voir dire) you don't want to serve. Tell the judge you consider it an inconvenience and you don't want it weighing on your mind. The judge may excuse you.

If I just stated the above, would that get me out of it or just make me look like a whiny brat?

It might not get you out of it, but if you say it respectfully, I don't think it will necessarily make you look like a whiny brat.

Should I just suck it up?

You should be candid about your feelings about serving on the jury. If you are candid and the judge refuses to excuse you, you don't really have a choice. So "sucking it up" really isn't an option, since whether you serve on a jury or not isn't up to you.
posted by jayder at 10:21 PM on September 8, 2008

I would mention the fact that you've served before and the part about it being exhausting. However, I would reverse the statement about the impartiality as it is probably true. Don't suck it up because you'll probably spend most of your time thinking 'why did I do this again' rather than thinking about the case. Jury duty is not something to be taken likely. Worse comes to worse, just have a few drinks before hand(just kidding). Good luck.
posted by docmccoy at 10:27 PM on September 8, 2008

"lightly, not likely"(sorry)
posted by docmccoy at 10:28 PM on September 8, 2008

Two words: Jury nullification

Tell em you know all about it, and have no qualms about exercising the right.
You'll be off the list in no time.
posted by nightchrome at 10:31 PM on September 8, 2008 [3 favorites]

Maybe you already looked into this, but in California and San Francisco county courts (which would seem to apply to you), you get 12 months between serving. I don't suppose your service "last year" is within 12 months?
posted by unknowncommand at 10:35 PM on September 8, 2008

If the new summons is for federal service you probably won't get out of it based on local service.
posted by Jahaza at 11:12 PM on September 8, 2008

When I was going through a rough patch a few years ago I just ignored the notice. Nothing ever happened after that. Just saying.
posted by crapmatic at 11:15 PM on September 8, 2008

When I was going through a rough patch a few years ago I just ignored the notice. Nothing ever happened after that. Just saying.

Don't do this. Just saying.

If you explain your situation just like you did above, you should be alright. And no, you won't look like a whiny brat.
posted by qvtqht at 1:06 AM on September 9, 2008

Don't listen to nightchrome. Jury nullification is not a right.

You are not required to serve on a jury if you have served in the recent past; the meaning of "recent" depends on your state. For example, in California it's 12 months, in New York, Texas, and the federal court system it's 2 years, and in Connecticut it's 3. Service in one judicial system will generally not excuse you from service in another, but it's worth a shot.The jury duty website for your particular jurisdiction should have the information you need.
posted by valkyryn at 3:32 AM on September 9, 2008

Regardless of whether or not it's actually a protected right, mentioning the words 'jury nullification' within earshot of the D.A. is basically a guarantee against serving on that jury.

I would be careful listening to anyone counseling you to just no-show (there can be legal ramifications, depending on where you live), but if either side feels strongly that they don't want you on that panel of 12, you won't be on it. Hence, you can play at buzzwords, and this one's a doozy.
posted by Mayor West at 4:29 AM on September 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Yeah, you should just suck it up. The system demands conscientious jurors, there aren't enough of 'em to go around, and you, my friend, are one of 'em.
posted by box at 4:51 AM on September 9, 2008

Take some legal courses maybe?

I know some barristers who claim that they should never be on a jury (they may be exempt in some places) because they know the system inside out. As a barrister friend of mine told me, she would know the meanings behind certain phrases used, and she would also spot what *wasn't* said in court. That gives a lot of information away to those who knew it. For example, in the UK, there is often a discussion on a general note about the 'character' of the suspect or witness. If the phrase "of previously good character" is not used, you can bet your life the guy has got previous (not always admissible).

Most non legal folks wont notice something that wasnt said, a barrister might, and therefore can make different judgements, and be unable to reveal information in the jury room.

Or, don't take some legal courses:

I read some Law Report articles suggesting that juries should y consist of trained legal personnel. The thinking being that the non legal general public are the last people on earth you'd want on a jury as no doubt they're full of nasty little prejudices, and worse, opinions.

So there you go. I had to give both sides of the argument of course! You are free to go away and deliberate your response.
posted by daveyt at 5:13 AM on September 9, 2008

Do you have any conflicts with your employer? Could your boss perhaps write a letter stating that you are too crucial to the day to day processes to allow another week off in just one years time?
posted by banannafish at 5:16 AM on September 9, 2008

No one "feels like" jury duty. Yes, it's exhausting, and we all have better things to do - but this doesn't separate you from the other jurors on your panel in any way, and you're likely to embarrass yourself if you claim it does. Yep, it's called "jury duty" and not "jury fun option!"

But, if you want to game it without lying, see if you can defer your appearance until a Friday, preferably before a holiday or long weekend. Fewer juries seem to be actually chosen on those days, although they summon the same number of people as usual. Your odds may be better. But also, YMMV.
posted by nkknkk at 5:49 AM on September 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Say what you've told us when you're interviewed. I wouldn't want someone in your situation serving on a jury in a trial I was taking part in. Not to say that I don't think you can be impartial, but someone who's already been called eight times, in two trials, and one so recently could well be more concerned with when the whole thing's going to be over than with the trial and the fate of the person on trial. If you wonder whether that might describe you, then say so. Otherwise just say that you feel you've done your fair share for a good while, and that you just don't want to do it again.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 6:12 AM on September 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

Ooooh. What mayor west said about jury nullification.

Also, along the lines of what daveyt said, if you know any foreign languages to any degree, make sure to mention that and hope that some of the witnesses will be using interpreters. There was a ruling (don't remember what jurisdiction though) saying that if you know a foreign language (I believe in this case it may have even been the juror's first language), you still have to go only on what the interpreter says, even if they are clearly wrong. So mention that you know a foreign language, and that you couldn't trust the interpreter over your own knowledge in all cases.

I guess the same could go for any specialized knowledge you have, such as if you're a doctor, financial expert, or what have you. Make sure they know that if they were to bring up an expert witness in your area that is spouting baloney, you're not going to just trust them.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 6:21 AM on September 9, 2008

You could also call the clerk of the summoning jurisdiction and ask to be rescheduled. I'm sure responses vary wildly between jurisdictions, but in mine they will just put your name back into the cue - which could delay another summons for months or years.

Also nthing suggestions to mention during voire dire your feeling that you've gone above and beyond what's reasonable and politely express how your feelings will impact the case at hand. If you can truthfully say that you'll be frustrated past the point of impartiality and reasonableness then I can't imagine the judge or the lawyers keeping you on the panel.
posted by GPF at 6:59 AM on September 9, 2008

Slight derail question: when being interviewed for jury duty, what would happen if I said, "I don't believe in the prison system. I could not be responsible for sending someone to jail. So if I'm on the jury, I will acquit regardless of the evidence. I don't even have to hear the evidence. No prison!" I'm not talking about saying this as a ruse. I'm talking about saying it and meaning it.

To be honest, it's not that cut and dried for me. I don't like the idea of criminals on the streets. But I also loath the prison system. So I could go either way. I'm still working things out. But I don't think I should be on a criminal-case jury, because what pushes me one way or the other might be the trial. And a trial over someone's fate is not the place for me to work out my personal ethics.

My question is: could I get into any sort of legal trouble admitting that I wouldn't take (or might not take) the evidence into account?
posted by grumblebee at 7:08 AM on September 9, 2008

The system is set up so you can't get out of jury duty. I also wouldn't be subtlety telling the court you are going to acquit or find a defendant guilty because you are pissed off about getting jury duty. That's a good way to at the very least get screamed at by the judge or at the worst be held in contempt of court. Neither is too much fun. Judges have amazing bullshit detectors. So not lying is both the ethical and smart thing to do.

You don't tell us anything about yourself so I can't give much specific advice. But are you really busy at work, do you have kids you need to take care of, is money tight and losing work time would be hard right now. These are all legitimate excuses a judge might excuse you for (no slam dunk though) unless the jury pool is really thin that day.

I have seen people excused for more or less "not believing in prison system" but in those occasions they were both African American community workers (to use a really really broad term) who had lived their entire lives in the ghettos of DC trying to promote change. So you know they could sell it (and I honestly think they were telling the truth as they both launched into a well informed speech on the subject), I'm going to take a wild guess you don't have the personal background to sell that, so I wouldn't just be throwing it out there.

What I would do is tell the judge exactly what you've told us. You've done your civic duty without complaint multiple times. You're feeling burnt out. Judges appreciate that and if they are able to (depending on that days jury pool) they will probably be sympathetic and excuse you.
posted by whoaali at 7:27 AM on September 9, 2008 [1 favorite]

There are many ways to keep yourself from being chosen for a panel (and, most of those ways will be accompanied by shame and humiliation in front of your peers), but none of those ways will keep you from being held in the jury pool for your full term (unless you get incarcerated).

And, the judge will not help you. If you don't want to participate in the jury pool, you need to contact your Jury Commission immediately.
posted by Avogadro at 9:32 AM on September 9, 2008

Slight derail question: when being interviewed for jury duty, what would happen if I said, "I don't believe in the prison system. I could not be responsible for sending someone to jail. So if I'm on the jury, I will acquit regardless of the evidence. I don't even have to hear the evidence. No prison!" I'm not talking about saying this as a ruse. I'm talking about saying it and meaning it.

Slight derail answer: you will get your ass handed to you by the judge, and you will return to the jury pool to serve your full term.
posted by Avogadro at 9:34 AM on September 9, 2008

Slight derail answer: you will get your ass handed to you by the judge, and you will return to the jury pool to serve your full term.

That's too bad, because it would be an honest explanation of where my ethics lie. It shouldn't automatically keep me off jury duty, but I'd think a judge would want to know that a potential juror is wrestling with questions about incarceration. There's a big difference between me and someone who feels that if you can prove that someone is a murder, he should definitely go to jail. Why isn't that useful info for the legal system? Surely in States where there's a death penalty, there are plenty of people who say, "I'm opposed to the death penalty. I won't send someone -- even a proven murderer -- to the electric chair." Do they get their asses handed to them by the judge?
posted by grumblebee at 9:58 AM on September 9, 2008

That's too bad, because it would be an honest explanation of where my ethics lie. It shouldn't automatically keep me off jury duty, but I'd think a judge would want to know that a potential juror is wrestling with questions about incarceration. There's a big difference between me and someone who feels that if you can prove that someone is a murder, he should definitely go to jail.

If you are unwilling to deliver a guilty verdict even if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then yes, that will automatically keep you from serving on a panel. But you will stay in the pool, presumably to be called for another panel and then to get summarily and humiliatingly dismissed from panel after panel, and you won't get to go home before anybody else.

A person who is unable to accept the basic premises of criminal law (guilty until proven innocent, trial before a jury of one's peers, etc.) is as useless to the legal system as a basketball player who decides to attempt time and time again to kick the ball through non-existent uprights.

Opposition to the death penalty will typically not excuse a juror from serving on a panel for a capital offense since sentencing is at the discretion of the judge. A person who is against the death penalty is totally different from a person who is against the legal system.
posted by Avogadro at 10:17 AM on September 9, 2008

grumblebee, assuming the judge (or the parties) believe you are sincere about the prison system, you'd still likely be able to serve on a jury in a civil matter (lawsuits, etc.) or where the punishment is limited to fines or something other than prison, since your beliefs on prison shouldn't affect your ability to impartially decide matters in those cases.
posted by EatenByAGrue at 10:24 AM on September 9, 2008

That makes sense, EatenByAGrue. My question was whether or not I could get in trouble (Contempt?) for just being honest about my confusion re: the morality of prison. In other words, even though that IS how I feel, would I be wise to keep those feelings to myself (if I want to escape legal trouble)?
posted by grumblebee at 10:31 AM on September 9, 2008

Getting back to the question...

In my experience, if you were to state everything you said above -- you've been on 2 heavy-duty criminal trials in the past, served as foreperson, and the prospect of sitting on ANY jury (not just murder/robbery) has you deeply concerned about your emotional and physical health -- you'll most likely get a pass by the DA and judge. (Defense attorney, maybe not.) They do it every day, and they know how tough it can be.

Any of the lying or fibbing strategies mentioned here will be obvious to the court staff, and will only result in 50-50 odds anyway. The judge will decide whether he/she wants to punish you (by forcing you to stay on the jury) or get rid of you (because you're a nuisance). So if you're gonna lie, make sure it's a big, fat one -- like not speaking English, or explosive bowel incontinence. You'll be tested on it, but it will raise your chances of not serving to something like 85%.
posted by turducken at 10:37 AM on September 9, 2008

...also, on the heels of Avogadro, if you declare you don't believe in prison, the death penalty, or other criminal punishments, then (at least in CA), you'll be thrown back into the pool and sent to a civil trial. (Unless, of course, you don't believe in fines, etiher.)
posted by turducken at 10:39 AM on September 9, 2008

That makes sense, EatenByAGrue. My question was whether or not I could get in trouble (Contempt?) for just being honest about my confusion re: the morality of prison. In other words, even though that IS how I feel, would I be wise to keep those feelings to myself (if I want to escape legal trouble)?

The judge would likely also tell you (if he thinks you aren't just trying to get out of jury duty) that jurors only decide the facts of the case, they don't (except in rare cases) sentence the defendant. Furthermore, even with fairly serious crimes a prison sentence is not guaranteed. There are many other sentences that do not involve actual jail time. So your job as a juror is to simply resolve the question of fact and possible sentencing should not weigh into your thought process.
posted by whoaali at 10:46 AM on September 9, 2008

The judge would likely also tell you (if he thinks you aren't just trying to get out of jury duty) that jurors only decide the facts of the case, they don't (except in rare cases) sentence the defendant.

That's like saying, "Your job is just to make bombs. You're not responsible for dropping them on civilians. So there's no reason you should feel guilty."

Sorry for the derail, and thanks for the answers. I'll bow out. I'm available via MeMail.
posted by grumblebee at 10:59 AM on September 9, 2008

The advice, given by a judge visiting the office who was explaining this to a coworker last week, is to reschedule for the week after a long weekend, and then report promptly. Judges have no desire to get back to work quickly. Said coworker used this strategy and was dismissed.
posted by klangklangston at 12:04 PM on September 9, 2008

If you explained your conflict over the morality of incarceration, etc., the judge would ask you if you believed you could put that to one side and fairly weigh the issues in *this* case. You should answer the truth - if you believe that you can, no problem. If you can't, then you'll be removed from this case and offered up for another.
posted by jasper411 at 1:04 PM on September 9, 2008

Thanks for all the food for thought.

To answer some of the questions: In California you can get called once a year. I was called last summer and it's been just a bit more than a year, so I'm fair game. I have no extenuating circumstances that would keep me from serving such as taking care of someone or breastfeeding.

I think I'll just try saying what I said above and hope or the best. Thanks for all the input, I appreciate it.
posted by trixare4kids at 11:16 PM on September 9, 2008