This is topic Jury Duty in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006618

---

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 02-09-2012, 10:09 AM:
 
Recently got a form mailed to to fill out and return. Says I could be called in the next two months. I'm not sure how I feel about this. My Dad is a judge and I know most of the judges and lawyers, (I take my dad to work every morning and see them in Chambers and the courtroom). Last time I was in a jury was about 35 years ago, my dad was in law school and had a mock trial, they were picking jurors and I ran up and volunteered.

I also watch too many crime/drama shows these days so I don't know how I would react.

guilty,
Rick
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-09-2012, 10:49 AM:
 
Don't sweat it. I've been on the jury pool here several times over the past decades and I've only had to serve in a trial one time. The other times, either the trial was cancelled before it happened due to any number of reasons -- or if it went on I didn't get selected.

If you do have to serve, depending on what kind of trial it is, it can be boring at times but the way the whole process works is very interesting.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 02-09-2012, 11:07 AM:
 
Just remember, opinionated people are less likely to be picked
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-09-2012, 11:16 AM:
 
Go ahead and go on jury duty.

In many states, there is a "One Day or One Trial" system.
You go and sit in the jury pool for one day. If you are selected for a trial, you continue on that case until it is complete. Otherwise you go home at the end of the first day.

Sometimes you are on jury duty for a set period of time.
You might go and interview to be on the jury panel and, if selected, you can be called to a trial at any time during that period. If there are no trials during your tenure, you don't do anything. At the end of your jury period, usually a week or a month, you are off the hook.

In Pennsylvania, regular trials are "One day or One Trial" for regular cases and a one month panel for grand juries.

My wife was on the grand jury last summer and she never even got called once.

Since your father is a judge and you know most of the lawyers and staff at the courthouse, you'll probably be ripe for exclusion from a lot of cases.

When juries are selected, lawyers can challenge any juror.
They have a set number of "peremptory" challenges where they don't have to give a reason for excluding a person. If they just don't like the color of your shirt, they just exclude you. They are usually only given two or three peremptory challenges.
There is also "challenge for cause" where the lawyer selecting jurors has to provide a tangible reason. Common challenges for cause are because the potential juror knows somebody associated with the case or because they might have a bias against the defendant.

Go ahead and report as planned. In your case, I beg you'll be excluded because you know so many people. If so, you will have done your civic duty and you'll be off the hook.

If you get selected, let's hope it's for a multiple murder case.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-09-2012, 11:20 AM:
 
Oops, posted simultaneously with Randy. What he said. More than likely Richard you won't have to actually serve at all, since you have a close relative who happens to be a judge. During jury selection, attorneys for both sides get to dismiss a certain number of jury candidates. Candidates with any kind of law enforcement or legal profession backgrounds (even casual ones) usually get dismissed - supposedly such candidates are seen as less than the ideal theoretical "jury of your peers."

The one time I appeared for jury duty (in Santa Monica, CA), I wore a suit. And apparently a "he looks guilty" look on my face. The defense counsel dismissed me. I remember the amusing look of surprise the prosecutor gave at that point - I think he was counting on having me aboard for that trial. Anyway, I never had to appear in-person again. I just called in every day until my two weeks of eligibility ran out.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-09-2012, 04:43 PM:
 
I wonder if any CEOs or movie directors had to postpone important meetings or shooting a big scene because they happened to get called in for jury duty. I'm not so sure our citizens are capable of being impartial and looking only at the facts. There's some people who honestly believe that a woman can't get pregnant when "truly raped" because their body goes into shock and won't "drop an egg" and nothing you can tell or show them will change their minds. This is also why some people should not be allowed to vote.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-09-2012, 04:59 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I wonder if any CEOs or movie directors had to postpone important meetings or shooting a big scene because they happened to get called in for jury duty.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

putting you on the jury would put you under extreme hardship or that doing so would cause that for your company

---

quote:

---

The judge, when reviewing my paper explained to me that
according to the rules of the court (at least here in CA)
he could only consider what effect being out of work would
have on ME, and that any negative effects on my employer or
anyone else were of no concern to the court.

---

quote:

---

(4)The prospective juror will bear an undue risk of material injury to or destruction of the prospective juror's property or property entrusted to the prospective juror, and it is not feasible to make alternative arrangements to alleviate the risk. In determining whether to excuse the prospective juror for this reason, consideration must be given to:

(A)The nature of the property;

(B)The source and duration of the risk;

(C)The probability that the risk will be realized;

(D)The reason alternative arrangements to protect the property cannot be made; and

(E)Whether material injury to or destruction of the property will so disrupt the economic stability of any individual as to be against the interests of justice.

---