Since amethistdolphin asked about the U.S. jury system . . .

[pegkerr]

For those on my friends list who are not U.S. citizens and may be curious . . .

The names of potential jurors are gathered from voting records and driving license lists. Names are chosen randomly from those lists. Years may pass and you never get called (this is the first time I've been called). The court sends you a summons--that's a legal document telling you that you are obligated to show up at a certain date and time--and you fill out a basic questionnaire about yourself and send it in. You have the right to ask to reschedule if there is some reason you cannot appear when summoned. I did that, when I was first summoned in April, because I was out of the state the first day I was supposed to appear. The court let me reschedule to this week in May. You show up, and they take your name down, and you wait in a large room with several hundred other people who have also been called that week. You get an informative booklet and watch an orientation video. Then, as cases are scheduled for trial, the judge for each case requests that a group of potential jurors come up to their court room. They choose those people by randomly shuffling the names in the larger potential jury pool.

You go into the courtroom, and the judge introduces himself/herself and members of the courtroom staff, and the attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendant. The attorneys have the chance to ask you questions--that is "voir dire." After they have asked their questions, which are used both to lay the groundwork for their cases and to try to determine whether any of the potential jurors would not be able to deliberate fairly, they have the opportunity to ask the judge to remove a small subset of the potential jurors from the pool. Today, I was one of those removed, after the questioning was done. Then the remaining jurors are sworn in, and the trial begins.

I will report to the jury pool tomorrow, and for the rest of the week. I may have to report next week, too. It is entirely likely that I will be picked for another jury and will have to sit through a trial this week. Once you have served on a jury, you are not called to serve again for four years (with this court, that is, which is the Fourth Judicial district court for the State of Minnesota. It is entirely possible that I might be called for the Federal court system--that's the system for U.S.A. as a whole, rather than one of the fifty states, like Minnesota--they are two different court systems).

It is an essential part of our judicial system, the fact that cases are decided, as the saying goes, "by a jury of one's peers." That means that when people go to court, the cases are decided by citizen jurors, people just like them. It's a great system, really, and a bedrock of our democracy. I'm actually glad to have the chance to serve.

Interestingly enough, this LiveJournal came up during voir dire. My writing was mentioned during questioning--they were asking about people who had medical education, and I mentioned that I had done quite a bit of medical research to write my second novel. They asked about hobbies, and I told the attorneys about keeping this LiveJournal. (Amusingly enough, when another woman said her hobby was reading, the judge asked her if she'd read my book. No, she replied, but she'd be interested in learning more about it.)

Plaintiff's attorney asked us to name three things that were most important to us, and something about ourselves that not many people would know. I said the three things were my family, my faith and my writing. I said that given the fact that I was pretty open on this LiveJournal, that there wasn't much that I kept hidden about myself, but one thing I thought I'd mention was that my training as a writer had probably done a lot to train me to synthesize information and to be a rather keen and analytical observer.

Comments

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

It's not exactly like this all over the US, just roughly similar. In California, you get called for half a day unless you get put on a jury, but you can get called back again after a year has passed. (At least that's how it was when we lived there.) You called the night before or the day of, depending on which half-day you had gotten, to find out if they actually needed you. We each got called almost as often as we were eligible, but of the three of us, markgritter had to show up once and didn't get put on a jury, and that was it.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Actually, the individual counties vary.

I was called a few years ago in LA County. A week of standby obligation (call a number every day, and get told, "Come in tomorrow," or, "Call back tomorrow," for five days; at which point they say, "Thank you but your service isn't needed")..

Oddly enough I got called in for two-days. The first the system screwed up and called in the entire weeks worth of jurors.

The second day I sat in the jury room and we had all of one call, and I didn't manage to get into the room.

Skip ahead to SLO County.

On call for five days (that's the new state standard) but if they don't need you, you get a new time to call (it might be noon the next day) and if they need you you get about an hour to show up, or they say to call the next day.

So I go in. And the judge apologises, we were supposed to come in the next day. When he said he was sorry, but this was a once in a lifetime sort of error...

For an account of the actual week of voir dire, I wrote it up (http://pecunium.livejournal.com/2006/05/18/), and some of my thoughts on jury duty, in general.

[rabican.livejournal.com]

Plaintiff's attorney asked us to name three things that were most important to us, and something about ourselves that not many people would know.

Hunh. I had no idea the voir dire would be so - what's the word? - self-reflective! I thought it was all fairly obvious stuff like one's religious affiliation/belief in the death penalty, things like that.

Thanks for the rundown, Peg! I'm actually a citizen, but young and yet to be called up, so this was very informative.

[nickel234.livejournal.com]

I live in Michigan and have been called 3 or 4 times already - I'm only 25!!! - I've never been in the box, but been in the room for the voir dire. I don't think I've EVER heard a question like that one asked before. Usually it's just the "raise your hand if...." with examples of "your home has ever been burglarized," "you've known someone who suffered from alcoholism,", etc. Not self-reflective questions at all, other than the question "Do you feel that you can be fair and unbiased on this case, despite the fact you HAVE been burglarized", etc.

It's interesting to watch.

[ckd]

As mrissa noted, states vary. Massachusetts uses a one day or one trial system, where if you aren't empaneled by the end of the day you are set for the next three years as far as the state courts go.

Massachusetts counties are generally meaningless, since there's no part of the state that isn't part of a municipality, but courts are still organized by county. This (when combined with the size of Middlesex County) means that I can get called for jury duty in Cambridge (walking distance from work) or someplace like Lowell (near the New Hampshire border). Last time they gave me Lowell; I was able to get a "hardship" transfer to Cambridge, since I don't own a car.

[satakieli.livejournal.com]

My father is disturbingly cynical about these things and would say that the reason you were rejected as a juror was likely either because of that extensive medical research or because you described yourself as a keen and analytical observer. I've had no chance to form my own opinions on the matter yet; I've only been called once so far and wasn't empaneled. You are closely acquainted with the legal system; please tell me you don't believe the same!

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I wasn't surprised to be striken, because through a weird combination of factors, I was one of the people who raised my hand just about the most frequently on all of the questions they raised. Yes, I'd had a child who had been hospitalized in intensive care. Yes, I was involved with the legal system. Yes, I had extensive medical knowledge. Yes, I'd worked in a medical clinic (years ago, for about three months ago, as a receptionist). Yes, I had a family member who took medication for ADD. I don't know which of these factors either the plaintiff's or the defendant's attorney would have eyed with suspicion the most, although the cumulative effect probably made me look just generally like a bad risk to one side or the other.

But what I suspect was the kiss of death for my chance to sit on this jury was the fact that I worked for an attorney who had represented a plaintiff who had sued this same defendant in a medical malpractice suit which ended just a few months ago.

I, too, have heard that attorneys don't like jurors who are too knowledgeable or educated. Is it true? I don't know--I suppose, of course, with everything, it varies from attorney to attorney. I haven't actually talked with my own attorneys about the process of picking jurors very much. It'll be interesting to run this story by them when I get back to the office to get their opinion--particularly the one who had the med mal case.

[creepygirl-chow.livejournal.com]

I worked as a bailiff in Arizona for a year, which meant that I was the liaison between jurors, attorneys, and the judge.

The attorneys I worked with didn't want lawyers on the jury, because they felt that lawyers would come in with their own preconceptions and wouldn't follow jury instructions. However, they really liked having engineers on the jury, because they were thoughtful, methodical and analytical in analyzing the evidence.

I agree about the "kiss of death" for this particular jury. I've seen jurors excused for cause for much more tenuous connections.

[snippy]

My attorneys want smart jurors, because our cases are complicated and the laws involved are arcane.

I've served jury duty twice in the last 3 years, and got called for this summer but was able to get out of it because I just served last summer. The first time I just sat in the jury pool room all day; the second time I was picked to go to a subsidiary courthouse, but the case settled before voir dire.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

When I was on jury duty last year, I spoke with the various counsel aftewards, and both sides said they would have liked me on the jury, because I as attentive, and seemed interested (I was taking notes of the voir dire).

They each figured they could persuade me of their interpretation of the law.

I think the real reason people who seem more intelligent/educated end up off juries, is they seem less willing to let the attorneys present the case, and judge it on the merits of the facts, and law; as presented.

Which makes them, actually, poor jurors.

TK

[dreamflower]

There are a lot of interesting differences from state to state. I have been empaneled once, in Mississippi about ten years ago, and it was for our district's grand jury. In that state *every felony* must have a grand jury indictment. We met once a week, on Wednesdays, for six months, and sat for as long as it took to hear the week's cases and vote whether or not to indict. There were twenty jurors on our panel, and it took a two-thirds majority to indict. We had to keep everything that happened secret for up to six months after the jury was dismissed, at which time we were allowed to go to the courthouse and pick up the notes we had taken. (I still have mine. There were a lot of doodles on them, LOL!)

In addition to hearing the cases for indictments, we also had to listen to budgetary concerns for the county, including the jails and the school district's property, the sherriff's department and a few other things, and we had to tour the jails.

It was a fascinating experience. I've always kind of wished that I'd been empaneled for a regular trial, but it never came up. And I hope that I might get called here in Oklahoma--it would be interesting to see the differences in this state.

[vass]

I did jury duty earlier this year. In Australia they don't have voir dire. They aren't allowed to ask us anything beyond our age, sex, location, occupation, and if we see any reason we shouldn't serve on this case (e.g. read this list: recognise any names? Yes? You're out. If it's a smallish jury pool, the judge might offer you a few further details to ascertain if the Joe Smith you know is the same Joe Smith who's their prime witness.)

That's how I was ruled out of the trial: one of my best friends had the same name as one of the witnesses - and yes, nearly as common a name as Joe Smith.

The defense and prosecution were each allowed six vetos, no explanations given. I noticed that the prosecution's vetos were all people with white-collar occupations: one writer, and four people with medical or scientific training.

Meanwhile I was playing the game where you try to read people's character and interests from their face, clothes etc (well, and conversations in the jury pool room.) I thought that if the defense were hoping that the people in lower-status jobs would be more naive, less intelligent, etc, they would probably be disappointed in the office assistant and the sales assistant who got picked first: they both seemed very sharp and alert to me. And then there was the retired guy who'd been on jury duty three times already, and served on a trial once - I think they voted him foreman.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

It's a little bit different here, but then there are more people living in Philadelphia (1.4 million) so there's a bigger pool to choose from. We have One Day or One Trial. That means that you spend a day down at City Hall letting lawyers decide if they want you on their jury, and if you don't get picked you just go home, end of jury duty.

I was one of a couple of dozen people under consideration for a murder trial when I went, but at one point the prosecutor asked everyone to stand who'd had a friend or family member who'd ever been convicted of anything more serious than a moving violation. I stood up because of my insane, no-good ex-brother-in-law who went to the federal pen in Texas for arson. Turned out they didn't want anyone with a connection to such a person on the jury because they assumed those jurors would be sympathetic to the defendent, so those of us who stood for that one were dismissed. If anyone had asked me I'd have told them who, where and when the relative was convicted and that I'd never liked him and was very glad when my sister divorced him. It's a pretty broad assumption that the relative is going to be sympathetic to the convicted person and therefore to the alleged murderer; after all, the person convicted could have been convicted of DOING something to the potential juror! In which case the prosecutor would probably WANT that person on the panel, while the defense attorney probably would not.

I've never been back for jury duty since, but that was before I had kids; I was summoned for duty once when the kids were small, but I begged off because I was a stay-at-home mom then, and we would have needed to get a babysitter if I'd gone for even one day, if not a whole trial, and City Hall doesn't pay for babysitting. It surely would have cost us more than the $9 a day jury duty pays. (At least, that was what it paid about 15 years ago.)

[trogon.livejournal.com]

As others have noted, the details vary by state. In Arizona, as in other states people have mentioned, it's a one day or one trial system (after which you're excused for a year). The flip side of this shorter period of service is that you get called much more frequently -- I got called about every other year, and had to show up twice (you call in the night before to see if your group is needed, depending on how many trials there are.)

Other than that it's mostly the same, other than the "informational" video being filled with factual errors (showing a fireman being handed a jury summons for Right Now and hopping off the truck to head in, for instance).

Oh, and a third source of names -- newly naturalized citizens. I know a few people who got their US citizenship while I was in Arizona, and without fail they recieved a jury duty summons within the month. The courts probably rightly figure that those folks will be among the most likely to show up for their civic duty.

In Missouri

[dragonet2.livejournal.com]

There is a one day or one trial rule, then you're off for two years. My last call was for a Tuesday session, we all got sent home at noonish.

We moved to Kansas City, MO, from Johnson County, KS in 2003. I got called once in the 10 years we lived in Kansas. I've been called three times since we moved to Missouri, and I was excused from one of those because it came just after I moved--it's based on where you live.

The only trial I served on was a civil trial with a couple of stupid people trying to sue a freezer manufacturer for the freezer allegedly burning down their house. the judge tossed them and their sorry lawyer out of the house when they refused to allow the fire department report to be read into evidence.

They claimed the fire started on their finished back porch, with the freezer. The fire department report stated the fire started in the center of the house, in their breaker box... insurance had made them as whole as it could. It was interesting, after the judge tossed it out, he allowed us to talk to the attorney and engineer representing the freezer company. (I'm very unclear about defendants and plaintiffs in civil cases...)

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I said that given the fact that I was pretty open on this LiveJournal, that there wasn't much that I kept hidden about myself, but one thing I thought I'd mention was that my training as a writer had probably done a lot to train me to synthesize information and to be a rather keen and analytical observer.

I'd suspect that this last cinched it for you. Lawyers have a dilemma -- sometimes they want smarts, and sometimes not. Intuition and following to logical conclusions often not desired. In the Q&A section on a potential case, I asked if both parents would have visitation rights no matter how the trail ended up. I was very surprised to get called up to the judge's bench, where he kindly told me (both lawyers hovering) that one of the parents wished to move out of state, which would limit visitations.

I was not selected, needless to say...

I've served once (in Tarrant County, TX), never been actually called several times, and was eliminated from the pools several times. The last time, in the new Austin municipal building, I got up to stand in line to warn the judge that I had something wrong and could go to sleep after ingesting just about anything, for 20-45 minutes, and it was uncontrollable. I was willing to serve, but I didn't want to trigger a mistrial.

He asked "Is your voice usually this husky?" I realized he was right, and said: "Actually no, that's since I arrived." He dismissed me, and told me to get moving, because they'd had people get sick in the new county building from off-gassing, and the voice change could indicate problems!

So I split. Felt weird the rest of the day, but next day was fine.

I always serve when I can -- it's an important right I value even more, now that "Identity cards" are returning in southern states.

[amethistdolphin.livejournal.com]

(I hope this is okay Peg, Im copying my answer to your comment on the other entry)

Thank you!!!!
That is the most interesting part of the US judicil system. I find it that since it is based on precedents it has the tendency of being a lot more fair than the one based on written laws. I think nothing is only black and white and a jury based system helps with those shades of grey.

Couple more questions (if you dont mind)... what happens with your job?

Is it true that there are people that ask for jury duty? I think I saw that on a TV series or movie...

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I don't know whether it is possible to ask for jury duty. I have never heard of anyone doing so; I suppose if you really wanted to, you could call up the court and ask.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

For everyday trials (where the decision will have direct affect on people's lives), I am unware of any jurisdiction which allows volunteers.

But the Constituition requires "Grand Juries" to sit on the question of charging people with crimes. They also (depending on jurisdiction) investigate some things, and may have some oversight capacities of civic functions.

Those juries allow volunteers. The Grand Juries sit for various periods. In California they are empanneled for a year, and can be extended (I believe). In some places they are a larger group, and they get empanelled in smaller chunks, to hear individual presentations; for consideration of charge (called a "true bill" and/or an indictment).

At the federal level things are different, and I can't really give the details, but I know the juries are of limitted time, and scope, often getting huge amounts of data, over the course of months. If the prosecutor needs more time he can have them extended.

The greatest difference in the Grand Jury is that the suspect/accused has no right to provide evidence. The only purpose is to show reasonable grouds to press charges.

TK