ATL Public Service Announcement: Don't Skip Out on Jury Duty
Or if you do, be discreet about it. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
A Milwaukee woman who became verbally abusive to jury management staff and walked out of the Milwaukee County Courthouse without serving her jury duty time has been charged with violating a seldom-used state law.According to a complaint, Zandra Rodgers, 40, was initially summoned to jury service in November 2006. She postponed the service four times before she showed up May 21.
According to a statement of Milwaukee County sheriff's Deputy Jeffrey Paape, he was summoned to the jury room to deal with a "disgruntled juror." According to Paape, Rodgers was loud and profane, prompting him to ask her to step into the hallway to discuss her issues privately. She declined to discuss the matter and left the courthouse, according to the complaint....
Clerk of Courts John Barrett said most people realize the importance of jury duty, referred to in state law as the "most cherished constitutional right."
Jury duty might then also qualify as the "most eagerly relinquished constitutional right."
(Don't get us wrong -- we'd love to serve on a jury (and came thisclose to doing so). But most people view jury duty as a hassle and a burden.)
Woman charged with violating jury duty law [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]
(15) Comments
Primero
Isn't it the right to a jury trial that is the cherished right, while serving jury duty is ... well, a civic duty?
In either case, I too would like to be on a jury but just missed being called in during a recent on-call service.
A $40? That's it? Clearly the last time the law was violated was 1874, or else the legislature would have upped it to $1,000 or something.
I'd serve on a jury only if I got to be the foreman. If they don't appoint me foreman, then they don't deserve me.
When I earned tenure at New York Law School and "retired" from the active bar, I immediately started getting jury summons for service in state court in New York County and served on juries in two trials. It was absolutely fascinating. I think it would be very useful for trial lawyers in particular, since being in the jury box and focusing on trying to learn as much as possible about the case with a view to discussing the merits in the jury room really brings home the things that the lawyers are doing that are counterproductive to their cases. I wonder whether trial lawyers realize the bad impression they make on jurors with conduct that they probably just think is good, aggressive lawyering? They could learn alot by sitting in a jury box and observing their peers at work.
New York State repealed the automatic exemption for lawyers a while back, and now, particularly in Manhattan, the jury pools are filled with lawyers. For an ordinary citizen, failing to respond to a jury summons may mean a small fine. For a lawyer, it may mean a notice to the Office of Court Administration and professional discipline.
But then, frustratingly, the last time I was called for jury duty, I was voir-dired for what sounded like a really interesting murder trial. But both the prosecution and defense lawyers were very condescending in addressing all the lawyers in the jury pool and we were all dismissed. Some trial lawyers just don't want to have any lawyers on their juries.
I would think that if you -really- didn't want to attend jury duty, just start talking about jury nullification when you get to the courthouse.
Prof. Leonard: Thanks for the interesting thoughts. I agree it would do many trial lawyers some good to serve on a jury.
I have a slightly different take on Professor Leonard's explanation. I also am a law professor and am summoned every year, but I have been empaneled only once. I did both prosecution and private civil practice in real life and always thought the ex-prosecutor status was what got me excused. But several lawyers have since told me it was the prospect of having a law professor grade them that was the fatal flaw. Some memories of law school are forever.
I was called for jury duty in SF for an asbestosis case a year ago, and as a solo practitioner a 3 month jury trial would have killed my practice.
I was called right into the box, along with four other lawyers.
The judge let none of the lawyers out, dispite one of them being a Wilson Sonsini partner who professed to currently represent three of the corporate defendant’s in the case.
(I was the first plaintiff’s preemptory.)
Funny aside: The venire member to my left was the obviously gay aid to Senator Barbra Boxer. One the of Bigoil defense attorneys asked him if their lobbyists were polite when they dropped by to speak to the Senator. He replied: “Your people don’t really talk to us.” (He was the first defense preemptory.)
I am a young(er) attorney, and I landed on a murder trial earlier this year. I wondered why the judge began laughing when I identified my profession. Only after the trial did I learn that by the time they got to me (and after striking four other attorneys), both sides were out of preemptive strikes, and because I work in Civil and honestly stated that I could be impartial, they couldn't get rid of me. It was truly a fascinating experience, especially when it came to sorting out the jury instructions. The less educated had a very hard time grasping the importance of the placement of certain words, such as "if and only if."
The less educated had a very hard time grasping the importance of the placement of certain words, such as "if and only if."
My dog understands if and only if... Were you on a jury comprised of Hamsters?
1:28 - Oh my GOD I needed that laugh!!! Well done sir. Well done.
The jury foreman refused to believe we could hang on one charge. He read the instruction as requiring that we reach a verdict on ALL charges. Another gentleman who was otherwise very bright (but unsophisticated in terms of linguistic nuances) firmly believed that answering no to the question of whether the defendant intentionally used a weapon would annul our guilty vote on second degree murder. In all, it was a good lesson on the importance of using plain English in legal writing.
AUSA: We still think you're a hamster. That's the end of that.
WHY CAN'T I JUST SAY NO TO THIS GREAT PRIVILEGE OF JURY DUTY?
OBLIGATING ME TO GO REMINDS ME OF HITLER GERMANY.i THINK I WILL PAY THE FIND BUT WILL NOT DO IT.