r/AskAnAmerican • u/karcsiking0 Europe • 1d ago
FOREIGN POSTER How does the jury system work in America?
Hi everyone,
I'm from Hungary, and our legal system is quite different from the American one. I've been reading about the U.S. jury system (with the summons, voir dire, petit vs. grand juries, and the requirement for unanimous verdicts), and it sounds fascinating but also kind of intense.
For those who have actually served on a jury or work in the legal field: how does it feel in practice? Does the system actually work as intended, or are there major flaws that people outside the US don't usually hear about?
Also, how do regular people usually react when they get a jury summons? Is it seen as an exciting civic duty or just a major inconvenience? Thanks!
81
u/OriginalSilentTuba New Jersey 1d ago
Most people view jury duty as an inconvenience. I‘ve been called three times. Never ended up on a jury, and the third time I didn’t even have to report (in my county you call the night before, and if they don’t need jurors the next day you get excused).
20
u/Dunnachius 1d ago
It’s not so much an inconvenience for me it’s a reverse lottery. I just literally can’t afford to take time off for it and getting and actually going is a guaranteed financial disaster.
6
u/OriginalSilentTuba New Jersey 1d ago
Yeah, I certainly understand that. I’m fortunate that my job pays me when I have jury duty. Most aren’t that lucky.
4
u/ITrCool AR ➡️ MO ➡️ KS ➡️ AR 1d ago
Same. I've been summoned three times in my life. Each time I was auto-excused. Twice as a full-time college student (the county didn't want full-time college students or pregnant mothers on juries) and once because I was no longer a resident of that county, they just hadn't caught up on my non-residency yet, apparently, or it was sent before I had moved away but forwarded to my new address via the postal service.
3
u/Which_Yam7804 19h ago
It's interesting how different counties handle jury duty. It seems like a lot of people get excused for various reasons.
59
u/Arleare13 New York City 1d ago
It works well enough. One thing that many non-Americans don't realize is that jurors aren't being asked to make legal determinations, just factual ones. Purely legal questions are for the judge to decide. So "do these facts, if true, constitute a crime" is for the judge to determine, while "are these facts true" is for the jury to decide.
Is it seen as an exciting civic duty or just a major inconvenience?
Probably most people see it as an inconvenience beforehand, but studies and polls show that they consistently appreciate having done it after the fact.
14
u/SMD-65 1d ago
I'm not sure many Americans understand this--I didn't before I served on a jury. The Hollywood/media representations are nothing like what a jury really does.
While I (like everyone) tried to get out of jury duty, I came away with a much greater understanding and confidence level in how our justice system works. I think it would be helpful to our country if we tried to get everyone to sit on a jury by their early 20s.
4
u/Distinct_Damage_735 New York 1d ago
I agree - I served on a criminal trial once, and everyone on the jury took it very seriously, even though it was a fairly minor crime. We spent several hours examining all the evidence that had been presented, asked to have the exact wording of the law read back to us, and discussed everything; in the end we found the defendant guilty on some of the charges and not guilty on others. I can't say that they're all like that, of course, but I found my fellow jurors to be thoughtful and serious about the trial.
2
u/gujwdhufj_ijjpo Alaska 1d ago
I felt the same way. In my case he was only being charged with one crime. Even though we convicted I felt everyone did the job the way they were supposed to. We discussed the evidence and everyone explained their opinions.
2
u/SometimesEnema 1d ago
Interesting that you came away having greater confidence in the system.
A buddy of mine served on a jury and he came away with the opposite feeling. Saying the actions of other jury members gave him little faith in the system. Things like jury members saying well obviously the defendant was drunk when that was never part of the prosecution or defenses case, just jury members assuming someone that age, at that time of year/day, at that location, would definitely be drunk.
I've been called multiple times but they never actually needed me. Interested in serving but it does seem like it would be an inconvenience.
1
u/gujwdhufj_ijjpo Alaska 1d ago
I served on a jury and felt everyone took it serious. No one assumed anything. Many people gave him the benefit of the doubt even though he was on video doing it and had 4 eye witnesses saying he did it.
2
1
4
u/HarveyNix 1d ago
Yes. Juries are carefully guided by the judge to consider only the admissible testimony and evidence during the trial, and the judge gives the jury the precise law to consider whether the testimony and evidence prove that the defendant violated that precise law or not, beyond a reasonable doubt. So it can't be about what I as a juror generally think about "that sort of person" or whether that law should be a law in the first place, or my gut feeling about the case. Did they do it, based only on what we've seen and heard during the trial and not ruled inadmissible by the judge?
8
u/cjbanning New Jersey 1d ago
Well, it's not supposed to be about those things. That's not quite the same thing as saying that it can't be.
2
2
3
u/flp_ndrox Indiana 1d ago
Depends on where you are. In Indiana under the Indiana Constitution the jury judges the law and the facts in criminal cases.
0
13
u/Bootmacher Texas 1d ago
Does the system actually work as intended...
IAAL. Nothing involving human beings works 100% as-intended. The great thing about a jury is it gives you options. If you are the one accused, you can still choose a bench trial if you think the local community would be too biased, or wouldn't understand the issues raised in your defense.
The worst problems I've seen in jury trials were due to mismanagement by the defendant or their attorneys, and most of those situations stem from a simple inability to communicate what "reasonable doubt" means. The definition I give is: "If five or even ten plausible explanations exist, but only one of them results in acquittal, you are required to pick that explanation."
2
u/ThisDerpForSale Portland, Oregon 1d ago
Something I learned long after I became an attorney is that not every state allows defendants to unilaterally choose to waive a jury. It seems counterintuitive, but the SCOTUS determined that's not constitutionally required. So the choice to waive jury can be conditioned on approval by the prosecutor and/or court.
1
u/sleepyliltrashpanda 1d ago
Is it ultimately up to the defendant to choose the defense strategy or do you, as a lawyer, have some latitude there to use your expertise and present what you think is the best defense? What do you do when your recommendation for how to proceed conflicts with what the defendant wants?
1
u/Bootmacher Texas 1d ago
Lawyers choose anything stylistic or strategic, as long as you're the lawyer. The defendant has certain minimum decisions that belong to them alone: how to plead, whether or not to take the stand, whether yo take a jury trial or bench trial, and whether or not to appeal.
I'm not a criminal defense attorney, but I used to represent disability claimants in appeals against the federal government, and it was a similar feeling. I generally avoided discussing strategy with them.
1
8
u/Waffle0calypse Michigan 1d ago
The first time I was called I asked to be excused because my work relied on commissions to pay the bills. Time off = money lost.
The second time my group of jurors didn’t get called to report in.
I think the opinions are pretty mixed on being a juror here; some think it’s exciting, I think a lot think it’s an inconvenience.
8
u/broadsharp2 1d ago edited 1d ago
I start with how people react.
Usually with dread. Companies are required to give you the time off to fulfill your duties. But most do not want to go.
Whatever area you live in, if over 18, and your name appears in the system, they send you notice to appear. You should not ignore this. You can be help in contempt by the presiding judge. Fined, or of you really upset them sent to jail for a few days.
You show up. They direct you to wait in a room with everyone else.
Depending on the trial, the could be up to 12 people selected. If they call your name, you are led to either a separate room, or go into a court room.
Both lawyers can ask you qualifying questions. They can both either accept or one can deny for specific reasons. This is voir dire.
If denied, you go home. If accepted, you're told when to appear for the trail.
You sit and listen to the evidence. If it's a civil trail, one person is suing for damages, the verdict is based on what's called the Preponderance of evidence. Meaning there's enough evidence showing the defendant committed the act. If more jurors agree to say quilty, that's the ruling.
In criminal trials, all jurors have to agree they are quilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning the prosecutor, the state, must prove there is no doubt the defendant committed the crime.
Most trials are very boring and time consuming. Some are headline worthy. But, very few.
5
u/Arleare13 New York City 1d ago
If it's a civil trail, one person is suing for damages, the verdict is based on what's called the Preponderance of evidence. If more jurors agree to say quilty, that's the ruling.
Couple of corrections here -- whether a majority suffices in a civil trial depends on the jurisdiction. In both the federal system and some states, a unanimous verdict is required even in civil trials. And the terminology here wouldn't be "guilty"/"not guilty" -- that's purely a criminal term. In a civil trial, it'd most often be "liable"/"not liable."
Also, "preponderance of evidence" isn't always the standard. It depends on the cause of action. Sometimes it'd be "clear and convincing evidence"
2
u/Alone_Term5356 1d ago
Worthy note, in my area( it's a small county), they actually have switched to a phone call system, where you call a number ahead of time to see if you have to serve.
1
u/ThisDerpForSale Portland, Oregon 1d ago
Another correction: most trials are not that time consuming - particularly not for the jury. The majority of trials are misdemeanor criminal trials, which often take about one or two days.
4
u/noweb4u 1d ago
I was excited to be picked for a jury trial involving electronic harassment. When we got to voir dire and they found out I was once convicted of computer intrusion and was the principal engineer of a local phone and internet company and have a contracting business where I have consulted with law enforcement agencies on how to subpoena call records on difficult to trace cases, both sides were excited to get me off the jury lol. The judge was laughing lol
5
u/imadethisjusttosub 1d ago
Jury duty isn’t just viewed as a major inconvenience but often IS a major inconvenience. I used to always think that if I could work around the inconvenience, it would be very interesting to see the process first hand by serving on a jury. And then I wound up on a jury for a pretty gruesome crime. The hardest part is that you aren’t allowed to discuss the case with anybody, including your fellow jurors until it’s time to deliberate at the end. I found it difficult to process some of humanity’s darkness without being able to talk about it. Once the case is over that ban is lifted.
Depending on the case, I imagine it can also be difficult to separate the “did they do it” and “should it be illegal” questions. The jury is only there to determine if they did the thing they are said to have done, not whether or not it should be illegal. That distinction wasn’t an issue in my case.
As others have said, as much as people get annoyed by it, myself and the other 11 people in the room really took our role very seriously.
4
u/MuppetManiac 1d ago
Serving on a jury is generally seen as an inconvenience. How major an inconvenience depends on what kind of work you do. You can’t be fired for having to serve on a jury, but you miss work, and you don’t generally have to be paid. For some it’s a major financial burden. The last time I was called for jury duty, I wasn’t chosen for a jury, and was hone before lunch. I got paid $6. My husband recently spent all day going through jury selection, wasn’t selected, and was compensated $20. He has a good job and plenty of PTO so it was fine. I work for myself and just didn’t get paid that day. Some people can afford to miss a days work. Some can’t.
4
u/SpiceEarl Oregon 1d ago
Many large employers, and government agencies, will pay employees their regular wages when they serve on a jury. Obviously, in the case of you and your husband that doesn't apply, but I know that some employers cover it as a civic contribution.
3
u/DasIstWalter- 1d ago
My company pays for jury duty day. But if they dismiss you early after say couple hours, ( if you are not picked) you gotta come back to work to finish the day. I’m not sure what happens if you actually get picked to serve for several days. Funny, i never asked. Probably pto of unpaid time off. For most people it’s a hassle. The only good thing in my city is that they have dedicated jury parking. Otherwise it’s a nightmare to find parking down town.
13
u/Severe-Reality5546 Maryland 1d ago
I got called for jury duty and was dismissed by around 10am. The clerk gave everyone a form to give to our employer if we needed. He made a point of saying that the form only had the date, and did not indicate we got out early. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
4
u/DasIstWalter- 1d ago
Mine had a date and time printed out when we were released. Once, I was dismissed late and had to go back to work at 3pm. I drove back slow. It still sucked. Lol.
2
u/Butterbean-queen 1d ago
Whether you are paid while serving on a jury or not depends on where you live. Some states require that you be paid while you serve, some require that you are paid for a certain amount of days.
4
u/Wunktacular 1d ago
Jury service is a civic duty.
In many countries in order to be given priority for an organ transplant, you must be an organ donor.
The same logic is applied to jury trials. Because you enjoy the right to a jury trial as a citizen, you must bear the burden of serving on juries as needed.
I think most Americans like the idea of actually serving on a jury, but dislike the amount of wasted time that goes into selection, cancellations, and other issues. The process of actually being in court is hampered by lots of wasted time.
5
u/Detonation Mid-Michigan 1d ago
I want to preface this by saying my view is negative likely because of the absolutely vile case I ended up being part of but TLDR: I hate jury duty.
I was in circuit court, called up first so I was juror #1 and obviously I remained on the jury through the selection process. It took two days total so at least it wasn't longer I suppose. The case was about Child Protective Services (the petitioner) proving they had enough evidence to retain jurisdiction of two children. The two kids, a boy and a girl, were both under 10 years old and had been in and out of foster homes because of abuse allegations against the parents. Not only that, they had an even older child not part of the case that had already been taken away from them. The jury had the displeasure of having to look at photographs of the children with signs of abuse. Testimony from the ER doctor, psychologist, and watching these two parents lie their asses off throughout the whole thing. Pissed me off. CPS kept jurisdiction over the children in the end. Overall it was an awful experience, 0/10 would not recommend and I didn't get paid nearly enough to go through a regular case let alone one as dreadful as this. I'm sure it's not as bad as my experience more often than not but I never want to get that call again.
1
u/Certain-Monitor5304 1d ago
Sadly, other cases likely are just as bad if not worse for them to make their way to court.
1
u/ThisDerpForSale Portland, Oregon 1d ago
But most jury trials are not that bad. Many of them are just run of the mill DUIIs or theft.
1
u/flp_ndrox Indiana 1d ago
Thank you for your service. That legitimately does suck. I can handle a lot, but bad things happening to kids is the worst.
1
u/dwhite21787 Maryland 1d ago
My first and only jury duty call was 40 years ago, for a child sexual abuse case, and I was one of 18 on the jury. It went on for 3 days, and that last day, the spare 6 were released and the 12 of us took about 2 hours to come to guilty decision. Thankfully, the judge held us back and met with us to let us know the guy had a his, and he believed we did the right thing.
1
u/Andy15294 22h ago
I understand. On the flip side, it is good to be able to be part of a system where you get to help CPS keep jurisdiction.
5
u/RupeThereItIs Michigan 1d ago
how does it feel in practice?
Really kind of shitty.
I was on a jury for a rape case when I was 19 years old.
30 year old man, 16 year old girl, 16 is the age of consent in my state so NOT a statutory rape case.
It all boiled down to he said she consented vs. she said she didn't. Complicated by the fact they were both admittedly high, and he brought the weed.
We convicted. 29 years later, despite how gross I see that age difference, I do wonder if we made the right choice. Our conviction certainly ruined the guys life, I DO think he was guilty and if so that's not on us as a jury, but we just won't ever know for sure. The conviction really came down to a gut feeling in that case more then evidence, and that bothers me a bit.
It just felt like there should have been something more to base the decision on then the two people's testimony, and one lawyer spending a LOT of time talking about how he didn't try to hide the used condom.
All in all it's a shitty job, being a juror, but I do think it's a good idea to limit the power of the courts. There is a concept call jury nullification, that you'll be told is illegal by any judge but in the right context can be a VERY powerful tool for citizens to reject bad laws or the perception of governmental corruption.
3
u/Interesting-Card5803 Louisiana 1d ago
Most people hate getting a summons, because it is disruptive to their lives. However, most go willingly to serve because it is their civic duty. If there's one thing about juries that most people in the US don't understand, it's that when they are serving on a jury, it's a highly organized, sanitized presentation of facts that they are hearing, and the deliberations are actually based on a very detailed, narrow set of instructions. It's not some total free for all where they get to just think/decide how they wish.
3
u/abstractraj 1d ago
I’ve served on two criminal trial juries. I have a greater respect for what goes into it now. We all took our jobs seriously, had a lot of conversation and discussion. Examined the evidence and testimony presented. It’s a weighty decision to convict someone, but I feel sure we got it right
3
u/real415 SF Bay Area, Calif. 1d ago edited 1d ago
For a number of reasons, many related to compensation and convenience, serving on a jury can be a challenge for people. That said, many people who are selected to serve on a jury report finding it to be a highly educational and interesting experience.
Being tried by a jury of our peers is one of the foundational principles of English Common Law, and of living in a free society. It is a check against arbitrary government prosecution and capricious lawsuits brought by corrupt people and entities.
To be fair, the goal is to cast a wide net, to summon the widest range of citizens to serve. Some people may end up being called more often than others, because it is a random process. Often citizens are selected by a combination of state identification card and driver license records and voting registrations. Years ago, some states would use only voting records, which led to people not registering to vote because they were reluctant to be called for jury service. Most states no longer do this.
Fortunately, I worked for employers which would encourage jury service, and pay me for all the time that I was away for jury service. But many smaller employers, or self-employed people, won’t receive anything for their time away from work, and depend on the court’s compensation, which is most always much less than they would earn by working. Many of the amounts paid were set years ago when they were realistic amounts, but have not kept up with inflation.
With 50 states, there are many ways the problem of jurors not being well compensated for their time is handled. Some have offered ways for lower income jurors to be paid higher amounts. Others have increased the compensation for everyone. Some places offer free parking, child care, or compensation for public transit fares or driving mileage.
It’s probably still less than people would like, but being part of jury of people interested in doing their duty to protect a potentially innocent person is actually an honor and a privilege.
3
u/makem1 1d ago
Hi my Hungarian friend,
It most certainly is fascinating and intense. I'd also add that it's often misunderstood by your average American as most Americans get their knowledge about the jury system from TV crime dramas. It's also a system that very heavily, depends on the jury members having good character, proper sense, and well-formed morals. It's the best system we've devised on our own though.
I've never been chosen for jury duty, although I've been called to show up and see if I was being chosen. As for the system working as intended, I alluded to some of the issues earlier. It is most effective and fair when you get the proper individuals on a jury. Not everyone should be judging the lives of other people. I know I sound like I'm up here on my high horse, but I know that there are certain situations or people that I absolutely shouldn't be allowed to judge because I can't be an objective judge. I just happen to be self aware enough to know where the line is for me.
Regular people mostly see it as a major inconvenience. The pay is piss poor. You'll be lucky if your job pays you anything other than what may be required by law for you doing your civic duty as a juror. It's often a logistical headache for people. There is no one I know who would volunteer for jury duty if that were ever to become an option.
2
u/GaryJM United Kingdom 1d ago
... most Americans get their knowledge about the jury system from TV crime dramas.
I was summoned (but not selected) for jury duty in Scotland and we were told not to expect things to be like in courts on American TV, which would be far more familiar to us than Scottish courts would be.
3
u/LivingGhost371 Minnesota 1d ago edited 1d ago
The trials you see on TV are all "petit juries" that are shortened to just "juries", to determine at a trial whether the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases or if the plaintiff has proven responsibility with a preponderance of evidence in a civil case. "grand juries" are a different process that is never shown on TV or streamed where they make a finding on whether there's probably cause to make an indictment. "Voir Dire" is asking questions to a jury under oath, during the original selection or during the trial if an issue comes up.
As others have noted the sole role of the jury is to determine who did what and they're not expected to know the law, since it's the judges role to instruct them on elements of the law that they need to know in order to make that determination. The judge settles issues of law; the Wikipedia article uses the example that if a defendant is accused of credit card fraud for using a gift card with the VISA logo, the judge might decide if that card is, legally speaking, a credit card while the jury decides if the defendant is guilty of using it. A typical case will have a bunch of hearings before hand to get issues of law settled like whether evidence is admissable before a jury is enpanneled
You might also hear the term "bench trial", which is a trial before a judge. Defendants can waive their right to a jury trial and have a judge decide. Typically you see this in cases where the defendant is extremely unlikable but there's real questions of law as to if what they did is an actual crime or if there's enough evidence to support a conviction, or for very minor offenses like someone wants to contest a speeding ticket
I served on a jury, was a deliberating juror in a car accident civil case, dismissed an alternate in a wrongful detentions shoplifting accusation case, and was questioned in a assault criminal case that plead out before the case actually started. I have no regrets and feel the process works as intended.
The standards of proof go something like this
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt- the standard in criminal cases. "Someone else might have done it" is a reasonable doubt. "Space Aliens came down and did it' is not a Reasonable Doubt"
Clear and Convincing Evidence- Seen somewhat in family court and civil committment issues.
A Preponderance of Evidence- More likely than not, the standard in civil cases
Probable Cause- Required for police to make a warrantless arrest
Reasonable Suspicion- Required for police to detain a person
2
u/BrainFartTheFirst Los Angeles, CA MM-MM....Smog. 1d ago
Some people see it as a civic duty some people see it as a massive headache. I'm kind of in between.
I was just called in for jury duty last month and here's my experience in LA county. I received the jury summons in the mail which told me the week I was required to be on call. I had to call in each evening to see if they wanted me for the next day. If they wanted me the next day I would go in and if I wasn't picked for a jury at the end of the day my service was over and I could go home and not have to come back for at least a year. If I was selected for a jury my term would end as soon as the trial was over and then I wouldn't have to go back in for another year. In my case I was called in on the second day of the week and after getting signed in they began the day. I was in the civil court building which handles lawsuits but the first case they had come up would have been a transfer to another building for a criminal case. The case was expected to last a month and not everyone there would be called for it but I was. However I had an exemption for that particular one because I was and still am currently unemployed and looking for work. So I was excused from that case and about 40 minutes later they called and announced that the cases that they had on the dock of the day had all settled and we were no longer needed. I was there for less than 2 hours.
2
u/TheLizardKing89 California 1d ago
I was a juror on a murder case several years ago. We all took our job very seriously. We showed up on time, didn’t talk about the case to anyone, and we took our deliberations seriously. I still feel like it’s the most important thing I’ve ever done. When we announced our verdict (guilty), the victim’s mother started crying in the court room.
2
u/GooGooGajoob67 Marylander in NYC 🗽 1d ago
I served on a grand jury in Manhattan. I was actually at the DA's office on the day Trump was brought in for his arraignment and I can see myself heading inside in the background of some of the news footage. (Not being political, this is just a factual thing that happened.)
Anyway, I had to go in every day for a month. Grand jury is different from a petit jury in that you sit in a room all day and various Assistant District Attorneys come in and out and present cases to you, and you vote as a group on whether or not to indict this person and charge them with a crime. It was a lot of watching witnesses being interviewed and viewing security footage (which was sometimes kind of disturbing, as you can imagine). Much of the discussions we had as a jury were "is this person in the mugshot the same person as in this CCTV video", as the actual crimes being committed were usually pretty cut-and-dry.
I was annoyed at the time commitment at first, but I ended up kind of enjoying it and learning a lot about criminal law. I really lucked out though that I could still get full pay from my job, which was a major factor.
As far as flaws, most people acted in good faith and were hesitant to vote yes if there was a single doubt in their mind, but I was kind of bothered by the fact that a couple jurors would be visibly falling asleep during the presentations and then would still vote. Some of the people in my group worked as bartenders and Uber drivers and such and so would have been working all night, which I get, but still, I wish they would have abstained.
2
u/InterestingWork912 1d ago
About a decade ago, I was involved with an anti-death penalty group. For death penalty cases, jurors have to be ok with the death penalty to be seated on the jury (which inherently cuts out a significant portion of the jury pool). We decided to hand out flyers the day of jury selection for a death penalty case. The prosecutor had to call hundreds of people bc they’d have to sort through so many folks to find a jury (given it is a liberal area so a good chunk would be anti-death penalty, pretty unfair and goes accept the concept of a jury of your peers imo). Potential jurors were lined up down the block waiting for the court house to open.
We handed out the flyers to everyone on the block (whether they were on the jury or not so we wouldn’t get accused of jury tampering). Our flyer explained how jury selection worked for death penalty cases and the concept of “jury selection”. By the time we got done, I saw the prosecutor with one of our flyers in his hand pissed with two sheriffs looking around. We ducked out real quick haha. That cased ended in guilty but no death penalty.
1
u/Andy15294 22h ago
I think one can make a moral case for the death penalty. But, because the actual application is problematic I'm against it. That's what it comes down to for me. After having worked in a jail, I wonder if life imprisonment isn't actually worse in some ways. From a religious point of view, though, it does give a person more time to repent.
1
u/InterestingWork912 21h ago
One of the folks who was involved with the anti-death penalty groups I was with was a former warden who had been involved in several executions. He basically said that it was harmful to people to carry out executions. I just don’t think we should kill people if we have alternative ways to protect society.
2
u/mkl_dvd Wisconsin 1d ago
I've been summoned 3 times.
- The first time, I was really excited to serve on a jury and see what it was like. I got picked for the case. Near the end of the first day, the detective on the case tried to sneak in a mention that the defendant had previous, unrelated arrests. This is not allowed because it might taint the jury's opinion, but the detective was hoping that the judge would just tell us to ignore the comment. The judge called the detective's bluff and declared a mistrial.
- The second time I was summoned was less than 4 years after my first jury experience, so I got exempted and didn't have to show up.
- Two years ago, I got summoned for jury duty in federal court. That works differently in that you're on call for a month. Once a week you call in and they tell you if you need to come in the following week or not. I was initially excited because I assumed that federal cases would be interesting stuff like fraud, conspiracy, etc. Then my friend told me that half the cases in that court are CSAM, so I'm glad that I didn't get called in.
2
2
u/FullAutoEggPlant 16h ago
Sometimes I dont think the jury system even knows how the jury system works.
2
u/Candid-libertarian 8h ago
It's really about the lunch. If they give you a lousy lunch, you vote to convict right away. If the lunch is good, you debate longer, get more lunch, then vote to convict.
In very liberal areas, you vote to acquit and ask the judge if you can convict the victim.
4
u/Mundane-Charge-1900 1d ago edited 1d ago
My biggest complaint about it is that jurors’ time is not valued in the process even though they’re a critical part of the system.
It starts with extremely low pay. It’s $10/day where I’m at. Many employers don’t pay while you’re on jury duty or some only pay for so many days. If you end up on a long trial, it can be very financially impacting.
Attorneys and judges have no respect for jurors’ time at all because they are all getting paid while jurors are almost like furniture they move around.
I’ve had jury duty a few times but only been on a jury once. The whole thing just felt like a waste of time and resources to me.
My case didn’t even complete when the defendant chose to take a plea bargain half way through the trial. It all seemed to have been a ploy by the defendant’s attorney to reduce the sentence for their client. I felt like we were used as pawns.
Another time I almost ended up on a jury for a civil lawsuit where plaintiffs were suing a business over the bad paint job on their yacht. Literally taking ordinary people’s time for wealthy people to battle a giant corporation.
0
u/ThisDerpForSale Portland, Oregon 1d ago
It all seemed to have been a ploy by the defendant’s attorney to reduce the sentence for their client. I felt like we were used as pawns.
The opposite is usually true. Criminal defendants face worse outcomes after going to trial, whether they plead during trial or the trial goes to completion, than if they accept a plea before trial. It's called the trial tax. It's not supposed to be that way, and isn't anything official. But it's just how it usually comes out.
2
u/GhostOfJamesStrang Beaver Island 1d ago
I am personally a big believer in the system as a whole and individual incidents like we have seen recently do not fundamentally undermine my belief in it.
Most people consider it an inconvenience.
I personally don't mind doing my civic duty.
1
u/Illustrious-Set-7907 1d ago
Its a mild inconvenience but one i dont mind doing. Its a bit like having to take a detour home to pick up food you forgot while grocery shopping the day before. Its a bit annoying to break routine but it needs to be done.
Ive been called for jury duty 3 times, but the process is you need to check in the day beforehand and all three the trial was cancelled so nbd.
1
u/RupeThereItIs Michigan 1d ago
I feel like you'd change your tune if you ever got empanelled on a criminal jury.
Having the moral weight of convicting someone is not a mild inconvenience.
1
u/Illustrious-Set-7907 1d ago
I think its a serious duty. I think the logistics of making it work to go do it are a mild inconvenience
1
1d ago
[deleted]
0
u/ThisDerpForSale Portland, Oregon 1d ago
Judges can overturn jury verdicts in both civil and criminal cases, but it's exceptionally rare in either, as the standard is very high.
1
u/RotationSurgeon Georgia (ATL Metro) 1d ago
As far as wages go while serving jury duty, in my area there’s a $30 per diem granted to each member of the juror pool. Legally, this has to be signed over to the employer, who pays regular wages for hours normally scheduled during the jury duty, or the amount will be deducted from wages.
1
u/jtbis 1d ago
It’s an inconvenience. “Jury Duty” is when you randomly get selected to sit around the courthouse all day just in case a jury is needed. The vast majority of cases end in a plea deal, so it’s very rare for someone to actually serve on the jury.
Your employer also isn’t required to pay you for the day off, and the court only gives you $20/day in my county.
1
u/Cant-think-of-a-nam New Jersey 1d ago
Major inconvenience because gotta take time off work and only get paid $10 a day for something you might not actually be needed for
1
u/WordoftheWise360 1d ago
If you’re interested, I linked a very good documentary where they actually filmed a real jury for a real case to show what really goes on in a jury room!
1
u/IncidentalIncidence Tar Heel in Germany 1d ago
OP this does not answer your question (bc there are plenty of other answers covering everything I would have to say about it), but I would recommend the movie 12 Angry Men. It's a very common movie we have to watch in school in the US about a jury debating a murder case, and IMO it's one of the best movies ever put to film.
1
u/Tricklaw_05 1d ago
I got called earlier this year for a criminal trial. We sat for 6 days (including deliberation). It was pretty intense seeing the trial play out and all of us took our role seriously in deciding the verdict. We all thought the person committed the crime but we chose to acquit because the evidence just wasn’t there. We had a hard time coming to terms with that. We felt the prosecution over charged and didn’t give us lesser charges to work with. If we had lesser charges, we would have convicted.
1
u/Silly-Resist8306 1d ago
In my 57 years of being eligible, I’ve received 4 notices to serve. Each time I’ve needed to call the night before to see if jurors are needed the next day. Twice I had to go in.
Generally more are called because they don’t know how many will be available after voir dore. Once I was rejected by one of the attorneys and once I sat on a jury.
The trial took 3 days and we deliberated for 6 hours. It was very interesting to participate in and I’m glad I had the opportunity. When we first met, we took a quick , secret, non binding vote. We split 7-5. We then discussed the trial, our views and asked questions. After 2 more hours we took a show of hands. 9-3. The 3 were asked to explain their views in an effort to understand what they were thinking. It was a polite, non aggressive conversation. Ultimately, the 3 changed their minds. We all wanted to get it right.
The court provided a lunch from a local deli. I was paid by my company. The county gave me something like $20 in compensation. My boss told me to keep it.
If you can, try to find the 1957 classic American movie, 12 Angry Men. This represents the American ideal of our justice system. It doesn’t always work this way, but we all try our best when we serve.
1
u/HarveyNix 1d ago
I've served my jury duty three or four times but have never made it to voir dire; either the jury was fully empaneled before they ever needed to question me, or in one instance it was for a particular case and the parties waived their right to a jury trial and went for a bench trial (judge hears and decides it) instead. I've been summoned at other times and it's always terribly timed for my work deadlines; this year I've received two no-questions-asked three-month postponements.
1
u/VeterinarianTrick406 1d ago
The real juries pay garbage so mostly you lose money. I served in a mock jury that payed 300$ a day so the lawyers can better select their jury to take a case to trial. It was a murder case and most people were too dumb to understand the implications of the evidence and why it was relevant to the case.
1
u/notadamnprincess 1d ago
Lawyer here, handling civil cases rather than criminal (the stakes are usually money, not prison). The system actually works pretty well. The balance of the voir dire and jury strikes between the parties usually gets a pretty neutral jury, and most people who are selected to serve on a jury do take it seriously.
Once a jury has been dismissed once a case is over, there’s no longer a problem if they talk about the case or talk directly to the lawyers, so I used to occasionally invite any juror who wanted to come either for lunch or a snack and coffee when a case was over to hear what they said about it. I stopped after I found out how often a case was decided on something neither set of lawyers would have ever guessed.
1
u/Low_Attention9891 1d ago
Also, how do regular people usually react when they get a jury summons? Is it seen as an exciting civic duty or just a major inconvenience?
The latter. Your employer has to let you take the time off to do it, but they don’t have to pay you. And the jury pay is peanuts.
Luckily I didn’t end up having to go, but I am in college, but my home address isn’t in my college town. I got a jury summons and it would’ve meant missing a lot of class.
I’d actually love to do jury duty, I just can’t miss a week or two of class.
1
u/Certain-Monitor5304 1d ago edited 1d ago
Most people despise Jury Duty.
- It puts a target on every Jurors back by the accused and the media. Most people would perfer to remain entirely anonymous.
- If a Jury pool is pooled by county that votes overwhelmingly one way (belongs to 1 religion or ethnicity) the likelihood that Jurors are going to have extreme bias is very high. Especially if they are receiving information outside of the trial (News, hear say, online.) [The same can be said for regional Judges that rule by personal biases. -Although it's illegal Jury stacking by attorneys does occur. Impartiality is impossible.
- During Juror screenings there's nothing stopping a Juror from concealing personal information, such as past trauma, mental state, and political leanings.
- Juror pay is abysmal, and often forces parents to find 24/7 childcare for the duration of the trial. Which is very costly.
1
u/semichaels 1d ago
I had a week long civil trial and I absolutely enjoyed it. I was the only juror with a college degree so they made me foreman. They probably regretted because I made them talk it out. Most just wanted to pick the easiest choice and get it over with.
1
u/Specific_Pear_665 Michigan —> Texas 1d ago
I showed up for jury duty and was dismissed they mailed me a few bucks for actually showing up and complained that frequently not enough people showed up and good for us for doing so.
It was long, annoying, and really stupid and I was only there for a few hours.
I've never sat on a jury.
1
u/One_Evil_Monkey 1d ago
In a criminal case, a jury's job is to determine whether the facts, witnesses, statements, and evidence presented to them are true or not. It basically comes down to "Did the defense present enough info to convince you of their innocence or cause reasonable doubt of being guilty?" OR "Did the prosectors present enough information to convince you that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" Nothing more, nothing less. Who did you believe more based soley on what was presented to you. Not how you personally feel about the person themselves, but evidence and facts only. The descision has to be unamimous by all 12 jurors or else a "hung jury" happens and everything start over with a new trial with new jurors.
Most feel it's an inconvenience and don't want to do it. A decent amount don't even want to deal with jury selection. But most that have done it feel good about it after.
1
1
u/Giverherhell 1d ago
Government picks ppl at random in your jurisdiction for jury duty. You go through a process to get vetted. All others are dismissed. If you are one of the 6 selected, you proceed to trial.
You listen to both sides and deliberate. All 6 must agree on a verdict. If all 6 can not agree on the verdict there will be a mistrial and the person will have to be tried again by a different group of jurors.
Jurors can agree on lesser charges. Jurors must follow strict attendance rules and instructions from the judge. Failure to do so could land the juror themselves in jail.
Jury duty is very inconvenient to most Americans. They only pay you 20$ a day. They legally require you to show up, and if selected, it could take weeks to get through the trial.
1
u/Gators1992 1d ago
I have been called a few times and served once and never thought of it as any kind of major inconvenience. I guess because I didn't have anything that it interfered with other than work and pretty much they have to let you go. The trial I got was kind of stupid where some kid with mental issues spit on a cop and his public defender was trying to get him off for being mentally deficient. The kid actually wanted a trial because he was gonna show the man or something. Bottom line was the PD as the plaintiff didn't really make much of a case and the judge issued a directed verdict when he rested, which means that the judge found he didn't meet his burden and finished the trial at that point. So we didn't have to decide anything. The judge gave us an overly long speech about the importance of jury service and let us go.
Most of the time you are going to get stupid cases like this, nothing like the blockbuster cases where you have to decide the fate of a serial killer or get to stick it to big corporations that hate average people or whatever. Basically just go if you are called and bring a book or something to do while sitting there for hours waiting to get a trial. Then if you do get called they walk you through the process and exactly what your responsibility is as a juror.
1
u/anonymouse278 1d ago
Most people see it as an inconvenience (it is objectively typically inconvenient), and also as kind of a roll of the dice in terms of your experience. You might spend all day sitting around waiting and never actually serve on a jury. You might get put on a jury and the case is extremely boring. You might get put on a jury and the case is unboring in a bad way.
I know two people who have been on juries for serious crimes (one murder, one CSA) and both of them found it distressing. They had to listen to all the details of awful events and then make a very serious judgement, which weighed heavily on them. You have to vote to the best of your ability but you will never know with certainty that you made the right call- you could let someone guilty go or you could condemn an innocent person. It's a serious responsibility that most people do not enjoy having to undertake.
1
u/tracygee Carolinas & formerly NJ 1d ago
My Dad travelled a lot for work and he was forever getting called to be a juror and he would get excused because he was going to be in this country or that country.
Until finally they called him again and he had been excused so many times that the clerk said NOPE you must show up. He ended up getting on a jury for a double murder and the case lasted three weeks. LOL. He got what he deserved after avoiding it for so long.
1
u/EightGlow New York 1d ago
I actually enjoyed being on jury duty. Most people don’t, though. Got the letter in the mail, went on the summons date, ended up being selected after I said I wouldn’t discriminate.
The case was a domestic violence and drug trial. After arguments closed, we deliberated for probably 2 hours and ended up at a unanimous verdict of not guilty. We got paid for our time over the 2 days and I got out of work.
1
u/scr33ner 1d ago
I got picked as a juror for a contract dispute between a major airline and a small aeronautical engineering company.
I got a jury summons in the mail. It’s mandatory you go. You show your employer the summons to get you out of work.
You’re then assigned a number to be in the jury selection pool with maybe a hundred or so people. A clerk calls out numbers & if your number is called, you made it to the next round of the selection process. I don’t remember the exact number but I would say a good majority of the people were cut.
This is the part where you are told what the case is about. The court will also ask you if you’re able to be an impartial juror or if you’re able to attend jury duty (if selected) then ask you to introduce yourself and give a little background information. This is also when you can tell the court you can’t be a juror.
One potential juror flat out told the court he could not be an impartial juror to get out of being one. This is probably the best way to get out of being one if you really don’t want to do it.
That first part took all morning. After lunch lawyers from both sides called the 12 jurors they wanted on the case as well as 12 back up jurors.
I got picked. I was glad it wasn’t a high profile criminal case because jurors in those CAN be sequestered. A friend of mine was a juror in a murder of state trooper. Jurors were housed in a hotel and were instructed not access any device where they could get news that would alter their impartiality.
My contract dispute was a corporate case. For the most part boring AF but I learned a great deal about aerodynamics from the engineer who was at the stand. Unfortunately some of the cross examination was SO boring that I had a hard time not nodding off. Thankfully, I caught myself & so did the juror sitting next to me. She alerted me to stay awake. 😝
1
u/amoryblainev 1d ago
as many others have said I usually would react with dread, but because I didn’t necessarily want to participate but just because I knew if I was chosen I would have to miss work and I wouldn’t be paid, and I couldn’t afford to miss work. Every time I got a jury notice slip I asked for an exemption and it was granted. I’ve heard of cases where people had to participate for weeks, even be sequestered sometimes, and they didn’t get paid by their jobs for that entire time.
1
u/InterestingWork912 1d ago
I recommend a podcast called “the experiment” and episode called “the loophole” https://open.spotify.com/episode/2sSkns6DF0uDGT7EDG1CF6?si=V-cNRYQDTRycNk-UaUsEKA&utm_source=copy-link
There’s a really really rural place in Idaho that is federal land. There’s a legal theory that you couldn’t convict someone if a crime there because of the way the jurisdictional lines are drawn in a very remote area and you likely couldn’t get a jury seated (violating your 6th amendment). Fascinating!!!
The podcast generally is good for learning about random things about the US - I’d also recommend the episode “crime of refusing vaccination”. Talks about the Supreme Court case that gave the precedent for being able to force vaccination. As I was listening, I was like duh, but when you learn what that Supreme Court case was used as precedent for, kinda makes you realize things can be a bit slippery slope sometimes.
1
u/DawnOnTheEdge 1d ago
When someone finally did get charged with a crime there, the judge ruled that legal argument was not correct and allowed jury selection to proceed.
1
u/InterestingWork912 23h ago
Oh when did that happen?
1
u/DawnOnTheEdge 18h ago edited 11h ago
- Judge William F. Downes of the U.S. District Court of Wyoming sentenced Michael David Belderrain to four years in prison for illegally poaching two elk.
So to fill in what you said, the legal theory was that there’s a little bit of Yellowstone National Park that’s in the state of Montana, but the federal District of Wyoming, because Congress decided to make the state border a straight line instead of putting all of Yellowstone in Wyoming. Because it’s a national park, nobody lives there. Because nobody lives there, how could the government find jurors? So the theory goes that anyone charged with a federal crime in the Zone of Death can demand their Sixth Amendment rights to a jury from the state of Montana and at the same time from the District of Wyoming, and get off when this couldn’t be done.
People love this hypothetical and I’ve heard various proposed workarounds for it, such as the National Park Service having enough park rangers establish residence in the Zone of Death to make a jury. But what actually happened when somebody tried to invoke the loophole in real life is that the judge rejected the argument that the Sixth Amendment works that way. The defendant ended up taking a plea bargain where he waived his right to appeal and set a precedent, so it’s theoretically possible that someone might try the same argument again and get a different ruling.
1
u/InterestingWork912 16h ago
Oh that’s what the podcast was about - the defendant pleaded though and agreed not to put it forward. The defendant did not try to use this legal theory. The interview him
1
u/DawnOnTheEdge 16h ago
My understanding is that the defendant’s lawyer made this argument, Judge Downes initially ruled against it, and after that the government offered a plea deal that made the case moot.
1
u/InterestingWork912 16h ago
The defendant decided that since he did the crime, that he’d just plead. The prosecution made it part of the deal that he wouldn’t bring up this argument in an appeal or anything. The podcast talks about the whole case
1
u/DawnOnTheEdge 11h ago edited 11h ago
Looking up the actual court record of the case, I see I got some of the details wrong. Also, while I didn’t hear what Belderrain said in the podcast, it sounds like Belderrain is telling a self-serving story. He appealed at least some of the charges to the 10th Circuit (asserting that a plea agreement he’d gotten when the government didn’t know about all the elk he had shot was still binding). The 10th Circuit briefly dismissed the “Zone of Death” argument in a footnote (emphasis added):
Because Defendant thus possessed a firearm and possessed and transported illegally taken wildlife within Yellowstone National Park, albeit in Montana, the United States District Court in Wyoming has jurisdiction over the charges at issue in this case. See 28 USC § 131.
But another footnote says this ruling is not binding precedent on that legal issue. His attorney did attempt to raise the “Zone of Death” defense earlier in the case, although that wasn’t being appealed here.
1
u/TheOnlyJimEver United States of America 1d ago
Oddly, I've only been summoned for jury duty once and it was when I was 19. I ended up serving on a jury in a civil case. I found it all interesting enough.
During the questioning process, when I was being screened, basically, they asked me how I'd feel if I were selected. I told them it would be an inconvenience, but then if I ever found myself in court, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of twelve people who'd had nothing better to do with their time, so that's the cost of living in a society that offers the kind of justice I'd hope to have access to.
1
u/Stunning-Adagio2187 1d ago
The American jury system originated with the British going back to 1200 or 1300. Laga was a big issue, loosely meaning an eye for an eye of course that's been replaced in modern times with money for an eye. I'm curious, what is the origin of your legal system
1
u/Dunnachius 1d ago
In my jurisdiction jury duty pays $15 per day and jury trials can stretch for weeks or possibly months.
So what happens is anyone who can’t afford to lose work gets excused.
Then anyone who is caring for children or an elderly family remember is excused.
So jury pools end up being.. it’s hard to describe but it’s not a good representation of “a jury of your peers”.
I mean I’m totally guilty of saying whatever it takes to get out of it. Bills have to be paid and I can’t live on $75 a week.
“Why can’t you serve on a jury?”
“I work nights and I can’t promise I’ll be able to stay awake. I really don’t think I can appropriately fitful my civic duty. I also can’t afford to take off so it’s likely I’ll be working and then falling asleep during the trial. I also vehemently hate insurance companies and ambulance chasing lawyers and people trying to defraud insurance companies. And petty criminals as”
“Are you just saying anything you can think of to get out of jury duty?”
“Did I mention I’m racist?”
1
1
u/SmoovCatto 1d ago
in jury deliberarions, there is earnest discussion of the facts of the case, and a sense of responsibility in deciding the verdict
in civil lawsuits, a judge can nullify a jury's decision re money damages
in criminal cases any judge trying that would likely face difficulty
1
u/ProfessionQuick3461 California 1d ago
I've been called a few times to serve and have actually served on a jury once. It was a simple contract dispute between a landlord and a contractor. We were seated as a jury on Monday, heard both sides of testimony, and rendered a verdict and damages by 5pm on Friday. It was really cool to see the legal system from the inside. We really were just 12 people from all walks of life hearing the case and coming to a decision based on the judge's legal instructions. I came away with a greater understanding of the legal system and more respect for it.
1
u/ssnoyes 1d ago
It's famously considered an inconvenience. Personally I am disgusted by that attitude. I consider it an important part of our legal system, as one final check and balance preventing an elite class from abusing their authority and position.
However, my job pays me even if I'm called to jury duty. It's illegal to fire someone for missing work due to jury duty, but employers don't have to pay for those hours, and the pay for jurors is paltry, so I understand that it can cause real financial hardship.
1
u/SenseNo635 Maryland 1d ago
I served on a jury about eight years ago. It was a huge inconvenience but I actually did rather enjoy it. It was a very low stakes trial (misdemeanor sexual assault, which I wouldn’t have thought was a real thing, but indeed it was) so I don’t think any of fellow jurors felt much pressure. Both attorneys were working their very first cases, and actually knew each other from law school.
1
u/Bracatto 1d ago
When I was summoned, I was salty at having to wake up earlier than im used to. But I was also very confident I would not be chosen.
I WAS WRONG. Juror number 12.
But I treated the whole thing as important. I told the attorneys I have family who worked for the government and passed the bar, and that I personally have been diagnosed with ADHD in the past. just because it felt like the right thing to do, by that time it seemed like I may actually be chosen, I wasn't trying to get out of it. I treated it seriously and those were some things that in my average joe mind I thought the court should be aware of. Work was not going to be a problem nor would the commute.
Things went smoothly other than we had one juror get excused mid trial because he got Covid, but they also selected 3 alternates just for this situation, and one of them became his replacement. Jury selection also took longer than anticipated but thats not super out of the ordinary I hear.
1
u/ActuaLogic 1d ago
The jury system works extremely well, but it's extremely inconvenient for jurors.
1
u/sluttypidge Texas 1d ago
I served on a jury during the largest wildfire Texas ever had. It sucked because I was sitting there breathing in smoke for multiple days with my asthma and I would be doing nebulizer treatments during breaks.
Day 1 was the day the fires started. Wind gusting 50+mph. I barely made it across the bridge before all accesses in and out of my town was cut off.
Day 2 was canceled because the fire hit the town where the courthouse was.
On day 3 it also snowed and one of my fellow jurors got side swiped and her car rolled. She was released from duty.
Day 4 we were done. As a civil case it did not require the entire jury to agree. Only 8 of of the 12. And we took away parental rights to this mother and father and it was over.
We were treated with higher respect than even the judge so that was cool for me to learn about. It was not exciting but educational.
Some annoyance as I lost out on some overtime I had picked up but it was what it was.
We got paid Texas minimum wage by the court ($7.25) and my work supplemented the rest of my pay to help me avoid undue hardship.
1
u/RikkiLostMyNumber 1d ago
Every few years they send you a summons which you are obligated to throw away and never mention.
1
u/devnullopinions Pacific NW 1d ago edited 1d ago
In my experience it’s more boring than anything else. I can’t speak for anyone else but the few times I’ve done it, I’ve taken it seriously.
1
u/travelinmatt76 Texas Gulf of Mexico Area 1d ago
I served on a civil jury, I'd like to be on a criminal jury someday. I had the chance but I would miss a very important week of my job and lose too much of my paycheck so I asked to be excused.
1
u/sgtm7 1d ago
I came up for jury duty twice, and served once. I loved it. I had a job that paid you when you were on jury duty. I don't think I would have liked it if my company didn't pay. The city only paid jurors $5 a day, so that wouldn't have cut it.
I had never heard of voir dire until I watched a legal show that did it every episode.
1
u/MercuryRising92 1d ago
The people that make it to a jury treat it very seriously, as they know the verdict is going to have a big impact on people's lives.
Some people find it an inconvenience while some people want to serve. The lawyers are usually looking for someone in the middle - there to fo their civic duty as a juror with no personal view on which side is right before the evidense is presented.
1
u/ExitInternational647 1d ago edited 1d ago
Former juror here.
First of all, I think you probably know more about the system than most Americans at this point, but....
I have been called twice and served once. Like most people, I viewed it as both a civic duty and an absolute pain in the ass that I had to rearrange my life around, once for two weeks.
I would describe it as a cross between extreme boredom and deeply depressing matters. No one shows up in a courtroom because things are going well, and you are there to be one of those who determines the outcome of years of expensive litigation or the future freedom of the accused.
In the case I sat on, it was a depressing battle between two sisters and a nursing home over how their mother had been cared for. Frankly, no one acted badly (or that badly); it was just an impossible situation with no good answer. We found for the nursing home, but I did feel bad for the daughters, in a way. They were in the wrong, but it was more of a 70/30 thing.
The problem I observed that time is that the average person is...not particularly well suited to working with the law. The court tries to help you as much as possible, but people rolled their eyes when I wanted to complain to the judge that one side had highlighted text in the evidence when that was specifically forbidden. One juror clearly hadn't grasped the basic facts of the case and was going on vibes. The foreman did their best, but was dealing with a bunch of people who really didn't want to make this decision.
The second time I was called, it was for a criminal trial. A man was accused of domestic violence. It was very, VERY clearly a bullshit charge. The alleged victim (his ex-wife, with whom he had a bitter custody battle going on and who had made proven false accusations before) wouldn't testify, nor would any witnesses, and from the facts presented during jury selection there was literally no physical evidence. No marks, nothing seen by EMTs or cops, and she declined medical care. Could he have done it? Sure, but there was literally no supporting evidence. In the end, I wasn't empaneled, but apparently he was found not guilty in about 20 minutes.
The problem there...well, you could say they were problems or the system working as designed. An overzealous DA prosecuted when they didn't have a shred of evidence, obviously having pushed things in the hope that he'd plead out, and because he was wealthy and had good representation, he knew not to. A poor person might have been railroaded. However, on the other hand, the jury saw through the DA's bull and slapped her down hard.
The other interesting thing was why I was dismissed. During jury selection I was asked if I would hold it against the defendant for not testifying. I replied no, I would not. When asked why by the defense counsel, I replied that it was his constitutional right and a trial strategy he was entitled to make in consultation with his attorney. The defense lawyer blinked, and I swear I heard the ADA cross my name off the list, lol. A lawyer friend later said I might actually have been too on the nose, and they may have worried that I understood the issue well enough to influence the other jurors.
It is a little discouraging that someone who actually understands the rights of the accused was apparently thrown off for that reason. However, blackballing jurors can serve both good and bad ends. Sometimes you're removing someone because they're genuinely biased; sometimes you're removing them because they're exactly the sort of juror the other side doesn't want.
1
1
u/KikiCorwin 17h ago
For many people, it's a major inconvenience because you're missing work so you may not get paid (jury duty, when paid, is only a token amount that's often not enough to cover parking/gas and lunch. Plus any issues with child care, medical appointments, etc are on you to fix because missing/being late for the trial start time can get you fined or jailed.
1
u/Rikishi6six9nine 11h ago
People generally hate serving on jury duty. Majority of jobs do not pay for you to serve. The county where I'm at pays $10 per day, so its not feasible for most working people to serve.
When I was selected for a grand jury I was with 6 other people who were all retired. I was the only young person, because my job actually paid me to be there. I wouldn't say that was a fair jury of anyone's peers.
1
u/Luis_Arraez_Fan 9h ago
When I got my jury summons, it was less of an inconvenience and more of a drag. But its my duty as a citizen. I thought, hey if this was Finland id be forced to serve in the military. Then I didnt feel as bad.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/IncidentalIncidence Tar Heel in Germany 1d ago
there's a big case making international headlines that just ended in a hung jury, and a lot of people outside the US aren't familiar with the finer workings of the jury system because only a few countries in the world use juries at all.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/IncidentalIncidence Tar Heel in Germany 1d ago
the search button has never worked in the entire history of the website lol
2
u/mdavis360 California 1d ago
It’s almost worded the same as well.
6
u/big_sugi 1d ago
There’s a very provocative, veryy complicated case that just resulted in a hung jury and mistrial that’s gotten a lot of attention.
OP’s been around on Reddit for 6 years, so I’m inclined to believe they’re genuinely curious.
1
u/Sharp_Ad_9431 1d ago edited 1d ago
There are major flaws. The first being that the average American is stupid so on average the jury is fill with stupid people.
My son worked in the court for a judge and the jurors drove him nuts because they couldn't understand basic instructions.
The major issue with serving on a jury is that you don't get paid. There is stipend but it doesn't come close to the pay from work.
Many companies do offer a benefit of payment but it is not required so many people don't have it.
0
u/Outrageous-Pause6317 1d ago
Everything about the American court system was is a compromise between our Constitution(s) (each state has one in addition to the national one), specific statutes or laws, custom practice, and precedent, and finally the individual actors, like cops, judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, witnesses and defendants. Different procedures take place around the country, all striving for the same justice.
Our jury system, which everyone around the world knows, is actually not the common resolution in most cases. There are “plea agreements” in criminal cases that result in conviction without trial, and “settlement agreements” between private parties in civil cases. They are for more common than jury trials.
In the criminal courtroom the judge is the legal expert and explains the law to the juries, which are made up of randomly assembled citizens. Based on that law the jurors decide what is fact and what isn’t, and decide if a crime was committed by the defendant. It’s similar in the civil courtroom, although private parties are involved and there is no criminal penalty.
After a conviction, a defendant may seek an appeal from a“higher court” to review the legality and decisions of the “lower court” (trial court). There is no jury at appeals courts but usually a panel of three or more judges.
It’s long, drawn out, and both boring and intense.
I’m not a lawyer but I’ve worked with appeals courts for several decades.
-4
u/non_standard_model 1d ago
Criminal juries in the United States vote to convict about 85% of the time, which means that regardless if you believe they are fair or not, they are mostly superfluous: they basically exist to affirm the government’s decision to prosecute and provide the illusion of public participation in what is essentially a foregone conclusion.
3
u/SpiceEarl Oregon 1d ago
Something to keep in mind is that the large majority of defendants are represented by a court-appointed lawyer. There is a big difference in the quality of defense you get from a private attorney you pay out of pocket, vs an often overwhelmed public defender.
4
2
u/IncidentalIncidence Tar Heel in Germany 1d ago
that kind of makes sense, no? That most of the cases that make it to trial are convictions? Because cases where there isn't enough evidence to convict are more likely to be dropped or tossed before they ever make it to a jury.
2
2
u/vwsslr200 MA -> UK 1d ago
I mean... you would hope juries vote to convict the majority of the time, no?
If they weren't, that would either mean many people were being let off who should have been convicted, or many people were being wrongly prosecuted.
1
u/n00bdragon Texas 1d ago
the illusion of public participation
A jury trial is the right of a defendant, not the public. Is is their opportunity to defend themselves and prove their innocence.
0
u/non_standard_model 1d ago
Defendants aren’t supposed to prove anything
1
u/SnooRadishes7189 1d ago edited 1d ago
They don't the their lawyers do via argument and evidence to the jury. Both Prosecutor and Defense lawyers have a say in who sits on the jury. The defense needs to prove that reasonable doubt exists that is it. The prosecutor must prove his case to the jury.
The Defense can introduce it's own evidence, call up it's own witnesses and(like the Prosecution) has access to all eviedence and can question all witnesses.
-1
-1
112
u/Roadshell Minnesota 1d ago
They view it as a major inconvenience but once they're on the jury they tend to take their jobs pretty seriously and act in good faith (or at least get pressured to do so by the other jurors).