So I was called for jury duty today, and I didn't try to get out of it beforehand. Petit jury, state. I'd been in the building for a month before, on grand jury, so I knew some of the ropes. Most cases are settled in two days or without jury input, so I figured that was what I'd do, and I could manage that; our daughter baby-sat. That went fine apart from the fact that he thought she was our California son. (she lives with us; he frequently thinks I'm his mother.)
Got tentatively selected for a criminal case: a woman who was charged with having killed her newborn. Judge said it would have graphic details to look at. Probably at least a two week case. When asked, I said my husband had Alzheimers; it would cost me about $160-175/day to pay for his care in order for me to be on the jury, the judge said, well, we only pay $15; you're excused. So I'm off for three years.
I got home, came to the computer and within one minute flat had found the information on the case from the papers at the time in 2006. Just typed a few words into google, and there it was. She'd stuffed the baby in a baggie and stowed it under the washing machine, then was bleeding and taken to the hospital. Denied having had a baby. At least that's what's on google.
And this is what is so disturbing - of course if you're on a case you are told not to talk about it with anyone. From having been on the grand jury 11 years ago, I know that the truth you are given is selective (note the news today about Ted Stevens). I know you are given truthful statements by the prosecution but I was acutely aware when on that grand jury that I was not given the WHOLE truth. Had I been on this jury, I can't honestly say I wouldn't have come home and googled. I wouldn't have talked or texted with anyone, but I spend my days sometimes checking out what I read. It would have been very hard to stay away from it for weeks. I've read that the widespread dissemination of almost all information is really threatening the "adversarial" mode of jury trials now, and I can see how that would be the case.
briegull, I agree with you wholeheartedly! Also, I read somewhere of a trial being declared a mistrial because some of the jurors were using their blackberries while sitting in the jury box!!
I agree with you as well. Why a jury member is not allowed to get the entire story is beyond me. For example, if a person has committed numerous crimes in his life, why can't a jury be told that? Most of the times, that is inadmissable information.
I have a family of lawyers and law professors. We've had great late night cousin debates that never convinced me tht all the facts should be out in the open.
As far as I know, as full time caregivers, we are permanently excused from jury duty. I was excused immediately when I sent back the form with "full time caregiver" filled in, along with an explanation. We'll see if I get another summons in a few years.
My husband was called for jury duty a couple of years ago. Before he retired, he was a professor of forensic science. His advisor when he got his master's was the man who invented the breathalyser. He (my husband) has testified as an expert witness several times including once on the differences between the breathalyser and the intoxilizer. When he was called for jury duty, he was questioned for a DUI case. One of the attorneys asked if he knew anything about the two instruments. When DH answered yes, he was immediately excused. Not only don't they want you to know some things about the specific case, they don't want you to know about the issues.
Joan, I've been told by my husband's doctor that all I have to do is ask and they will give me their standard caregiver letter with a full explanation for the Judge. I wanted to have one on hand, but they told me that the letters work better if they have a current date.
Years ago I was excused from jury duty because I had a very young child and no family for several hundred miles. And I've asked for temporary excuses for my own medical reasons a couple of times. I have experience with this stuff in multiple states. If you are clear they totally understand.
I found the experience interesting, and the experience with the grand jury 11 years ago absolutely fascinating. We're supposed to in general only have to be there two days, unless a trial runs longer. Apparently only 2-3% actually GO to trial. I would have been interested in being on a jury.. but not for two weeks or more at this point in my caregiving life. ANother woman got out of it because her vacation airline tix were non-refundable; another because she had a brand-new grandchild; another because one of the doctors is HER physician (this is RI: two degrees of separation!)
I served on a jury a couple years ago. Basically, the only information the jury is to have is the information relating to the case at hand. They are there to judge that case. Whatever transpired before that, elsewhere, whatever is denied to them because it could skew their perception of the current issue. Allowing that information could as easily release or convict a person--not on the facts of the case, but on other data which may or may not be true. This is a part of the Justice is Blind ideology.
..which may or may not be true. But if someone has been convicted of a crime, then of course they are presumed to have committed it, whether or not the jury in a later case knows about it. I know it's the justice is blind, but that doesn't make me like it any more. Strikes me as condescending. Don't you worry your pretty little head about A, just pay attention to B.
Here in California, it is dangerous to go to the courthouse when called for jury duty unless you can serve an indefinite length of time. I had to talk with one of the head honchos who runs the jury pool about how the rules here work when they called every last one of our employees -- most of us twice -- within a three month period. (One does have to wonder exactly how random the process is...)
He told me that when potential jurors show up, he tries to find out which people cannot serve on a longer trial, and assign them to pools for shorter trials. However, the judges do not like people trying to get out of longer trials, and frequently will not tell him how long a trial may last. And if a person ends up in a courtroom, being considered for the jury, and finds out it may last six months, it is too late to back out -- you can get held in contempt. So if you can't serve any longer than a couple of days, and you have justifiable reasons, then you should answer the summons with your explanation as to why you need to be excused.
And in my experience, simply saying that you care for an elderly Alzheimer's patient takes care of that -- I wasn't required to show proof of any sort. It's apparently one of the very few excuses they take seriously here.
I had waken up in the night worried that I should have gotten a letter from his doctor or something.. but my excuse was accepted immediately, with solicitous comments.
In California I got excused because I had just gone back to work after a two month short-term disability (was being paid disability by the state, so they could check). I also went to the court in Orange County and almost didn't make it from the only parking lot we were allowed to use to the courthouse, and told the clerk that when I did almost fall down at her feet. She told me that being unable to walk those three blocks (and she considered my condition not being able to do that walk consistently) was excuse enough to be excused. I was told I should have told them.
So what I've learned from all of this is that when the jury notice arrives you send out a nice, polite, excuse letter explaining your situation. If it a really long term thing, like taking care of someone with a terminal disease, they excuse you for years at a time. If it is something short, like my just going back to work after a big disability, they give you 6 months and try again.
Several years ago my wife was walking in down-town Bangor, ME, doing some shopping. A uniformed man stopped her and asked 1) are you a US citizen? 2) are you a resident of Penobscot County? She answered yes to both and was told to stand with a group of other people. Then they were all taken to the court house and told they were being selected for jury duty. They were allowed one phone call. She ended up on the jury. Seems this was in the middle of flu season, and they couldn't get enough potential jurors. State law says the jury will be picked from people on the "Highways and byways" of the state, to they pulled people off the street. She actually enjoyed the experience, and a few years later, when again called for jury duty, she went willingly, again ending up on the jury.
It never ceases to amaze me that criminals know when trials will be occuring and have all the time in the world to prepare. Jurors in our community get two weeks notice with no end point. If you don't get picked you have to call the court every evening to see if you must appear. This can go on for two weeks. I've enjoyed jury duty. For some reason I get pulled for with federal or local almost every two years. I declined the two calls this year with no problem.
In Illinois if you get called for jury duty and you are not chosen for a case, you are done at the end of the day. You do not have to check after that. Although, if you did get chosen, you have to appear for as long as the case is. I got chosen once a few years ago on a simple real estate case, trial lasted a full week. It was interesting. I wouldn't be able to do it now though with my husband, and all.
I'm in Illinois, and when I was called for jury duty, I had to phone everyday to see if I needed to report that day. I wonder if it's different in different counties. I think I was very lucky. My letter said that I might end up on a jury for a trial lasting 3 to 4 weeks. The first day I was to report was supposed to be the first day of the trial of a police officer accused of raping 4 women and stalking another, presumably with the intent of raping her. The trial was postponed, and I never had to report. It would have been an interesting case, but also a difficult one to decide. The officer was eventually tried and found guilty.
Believe it or not, having to phone in every day is a load better than the system that was in place in most states before they bought into the phoning system. My husband was once required to GO in every day for two weeks. He never was put on a jury, but could have found himself on one on the last day that lasted weeks or months.
The trial I was called into has started - I guess they didn't have trouble seating the jury since it had happened 3 years ago (!) and not many seemed to remember it. I'm glad I wasn't involved. It's being covered on TV and in the paper. They haven't got to the defense yet.