How often are you called for jury duty?

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

You're forgetting something else, the defendant's right to object to specific jurors, in what they call vor dire. That alone means there'll be far more than 14 jurors per trial waiting to see if they are selected.

I understand voir dire all too well. I understand that it's frequently used to identify, whether falsely or validly, any prejudice that may occur. I simply think that can be met during the selection process.

[Lovehound]

There's no false or valid about it. Both prosecution and defense get to reject jurors either with or without reason. (The "without" rejections are limited on both sides.) Each side gets their shot at stacking the jury in their favor. My point is that this is a valid reason, no "false" about it. It's how the system works.

I believe there would be Constitutional objections if we tried to switch to a system of professional jurors.

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

There's no false or valid about it. Both prosecution and defense get to reject jurors either with or without reason. (The "without" rejections are limited on both sides.) Each side gets their shot at stacking the jury in their favor. My point is that this is a valid reason, no "false" about it. It's how the system works.

I believe there would be Constitutional objections if we tried to switch to a system of professional jurors.

What would be the constitutional objection?
Bob.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by CALGUY

What would be the constitutional objection?
Bob.

The defendant has a right to a fair trial. I believe that may be worded "equal protection under the law." (I'm not a good civics student.) He has the right to reject any jurors with cause and a limited number of jurors without any reason necessary.

Perhaps somebody more legal minded can clarify this.

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

The defendant has a right to a fair trial. I believe that may be worded "equal protection under the law." (I'm not a good civics student.) He has the right to reject any jurors with cause and a limited number of jurors without any reason necessary.

Perhaps somebody more legal minded can clarify this.

You're basically correct in your assessment - and therein (the bold) lies the problem. There's too much fickleness in the system, just like the employment "at will" nonsense.

There should ALWAYS be a cause. Having such prevents people from wasting taxpayer dollars excluding jurors based on what can only be a prejudice unspoken. That's why our system is so inefficient in the first place - we expect this BS and throw extra money to be prepared for it instead of doing things efficiently.

I'm not suggesting that we use the same jurors every time. I'm suggesting that instead of our current system where we pull 100 random people every other day, for every jury trial forthcoming, we simply go through the millions in the state and randomly choose 20, 12 primary, some backups, and have at it. No waiting, no "selection" nothing. That's more than enough to survive voir dire yet minimizes the wasted cost of calling random people only to send them all home.

Same system we have now, only with significantly less people and the ones that are called are DEFINITELY going to end up somewhere near the jury. Same system where if you get excluded you are preempted from being called for a period of time (though I think 5 years is more appropriate). Same system where if you were a backup and are not used you are preempted from being called.

[Arus]

Well, there needs to be voir dire so that a person on trial is being judged by someone who isn't bringing any type of prejudice / bias to their decision making

A alleged rapists goes on trial; his lawyer has every right to voir dire anyone on the jury to see if they:
1) knew a person who was raped
2) their beliefs on punishment for a person who was convicted of rape
3) or if a woman, were a victim of rape themselves.

These are factors that can easily disqualify a person from serving on a jury for that specific trial.


I sat in on a domestic violence case; three women were excused because they were domestic violence victims.

Another one I served on, was about a battery case. I had to be excused because my best friend was beaten so bad that she needed reconstructive surgery, and I had to serve as a witness in that case against her ex boyfriend. For that case, I would have brought in MY experience as being apart of a battery case, to that case I was being selected for. I would not have been partial in any sense of the word

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Arus

Well, there needs to be voir dire so that a person on trial is being judged by someone who isn't bringing any type of prejudice / bias to their decision making

A alleged rapists goes on trial; his lawyer has every right to voir dire anyone on the jury to see if they:
1) knew a person who was raped
2) their beliefs on punishment for a person who was convicted of rape
3) or if a woman, were a victim of rape themselves.

These are factors that can easily disqualify a person from serving on a jury for that specific trial.


I sat in on a domestic violence case; three women were excused because they were domestic violence victims.

Another one I served on, was about a battery case. I had to be excused because my best friend was beaten so bad that she needed reconstructive surgery, and I had to serve as a witness in that case against her ex boyfriend. For that case, I would have brought in MY experience as being apart of a battery case, to that case I was being selected for. I would not have been partial in any sense of the word

Prejudice and bias will be there no matter what. Thus the reason OJ is serving a 33 year prison sentence for stealing his own stuff yet Phil Spector is serving 10 for brutally murdering someone.

[Dennis P]

The very first time I was called to jury duty EVER in my life was back in 1993, and lucky me got picked to serve on a case.

The next time I was called was five years later in 1998, where I got picked to serve on a case AGAIN.

Ever since that time, it seems I've been summoned for jury duty every three years. After 1998, I was summoned in 2001 (the week of 9/11). All I had to do that week was call in every day to see if I had to report to the courthouse. Considering the state of the country at the time, it wasn't surprising that I never had to report.

I got called again in 2004 and 2007. Those times, I had to report to the courthouse but I never got picked to serve. Just waited in the jury assembly room all day when I could have been working.

The last time was this year, the week of 7/19. Fortunately, all I had to do was check in each day to see if I needed to report to the courthouse. I never had to, so it was like 2001 all over again!