Jury Duty

[goob3r]

I am a full time university student. I am living 2 hours away from my parents home and I received a Jury Duty letter at my parents address. My dad opened it for me and it says i must fill it out and sign within 5 days. This letter is 2 hours away and I dont currently have a vehicle. What the heck do i do? I cannot get home to sign the letter and i cannot go home for Jury Duty. I am a full time student. This would screw me over

This doesn't sound like a summons, it sounds like the sheet you have to fill out to be put in the pool.

[CheapScotsman]

You may have a kernel of knowledge of the system, but, if so, very little which you flaunt by your arrogant statement that judges are incompetent when it comes to sentencing. To imply one knows better what a particular sentence should be from the facts you've heard here or in the news, is arrogance in it's finest form. When you compare your so-called knowledge of the system to the years of education, the years of experience, the absolute firm grip judges have on sentencing laws and guidelines and precedent...most importantly the fact that they have heard ALL of the evidence, not just the sensational bits reported in the press and have witnessed the demeanor of the witness in a given trial....to think anyone is in a position to say a sentencing decision by a judge renders him incompetent is, yes arrogant to the nth degree.

Arrogance implies something about my own abilities relative to somebody elses. I never said I could do a better job just that judges ability to do a good job in sentencing borders incompentency.

And if you think they have such an "absolute firm grip" after such exalted years of study then why do so many of their "decisions" get changed on appeal? Yeah, a real firm grip. If that level of wishy washy existed in the engineering fields; there would be disasters.

It is that ignorance and arrogance that makes you unable to comprehend the system and to ignore the fact that YES judges do have a vast education, both scholarly and through experience. Education is always a good thing, I don't understand your hate-on for those who have it, or your what sounds like enraged disrespect for those who do.

I have lots of respect for professionals who study hard both during school and during their careers. I don't have lots of sympathy for those who don't do a good job ... Most judges do a great job during the trial then screw it up in sentencing ...

I can assure you that lawyers and judges could care less whether as a profession they are favourably viewed, popularity is inconsequential, doing good work is all that matters. Besides most recognize that those popularity contest outcomes are based on the vast lack of knowledge most people have about what really goes on in the system. So....meh....rail all you like, it falls on deaf ears. Nobody went to law school to be popular.

well, people dont' think they do good work and while they aren't there to win a popularity contest, the legal system is a public institution ... slowly but surely being brought into contempt and disrepute not by the public that put them there but by their own arrogance and elitism .... The average person doesn't understand. We dont' have vast knowledge ... right.

False information is always dangerous. And your advice I call naive is just that because it just doesn't work.

Yes, I know what will get one out of jury duty but it would be entirely unethical for me to suggest. I don't believe people should try to get out of jury duty. If they have a valid reason for not being able to do their duty, they will be excused. But the way you've suggested, besides being unethical, WON'T work.

Why won't it work? Come on, stop being a lawyer, tell me why it won't work.

If I actually got the point of being called onto a jury, I am doing to do my darndest to get out; I am not interested in wasting my time on a corrupt system; so if you don't have any better ideas; I'll use the best one I have ... and if it doesn't work, I'll use Jury Nullification in the trial and/or ensure the jury vote is not unanimous ...

Judges don't pick jurors, they have no say in who gets picked, nor should they. The Crown and defense lawyers pick the jurors. Only in very extreme cases are these lawyers able to ask questions beyond name and occupation, I can tell you they will never be allowed to ask if a potential juror knows about jury nullification (and really, in these days, who doesn't?) A judge's only role when presiding over jury selection is nothing more that of a referee, if you will, there to ensure the rules of jury selection are followed...in some rare instances to rule (before a jury panel is even brought in) if and what questions beyond name, age and occupation will be allowed to be asked.

sigh ... thanks for telling me something I already knew.

I absoultey do not believe that 'you have seen a number of times' (except perhaps on TV) a potential juror raise their hand to ask the judge a question...lol. And I suggest you actually go watch a jury selection if you really want to understand that process. This isn't school, or a question and answer period. Potential jurors are not there to 'learn' anything, they are potential because this process is for the lawyers to learn what little they can about them to enable them to decide who to pick. In fact giving a juror the opportunity to question anybody, especially a judge, would taint the process and end up with the jury panel being dismissed and a whole new panel being called. Any any judge who intervened in the process to entertain questions from the jury would likely be recused for tainting the jury.

Well, you can believe whatever you want. I've seen people raise their hands and the judge say "yes?" ... "how long will this trial take" type questions. Can't see why asking the question "what is Jury Nullification" won't get one of the lawyers to reject you.

No I don't consider myself an expert at anything, but I do recognize expertise when I see it, and I see it in our judges everyday. I don't see it in you.

Nobody said I was an expert. but I know incompetence.

[Nikita]

Arrogance implies something about my own abilities relative to somebody elses. I never said I could do a better job just that judges ability to do a good job in sentencing borders incompentency.

To say someone is incomptent clearly implies others, yourself included, could do a better job. Else what else are they incompetent relative to?

And if you think they have such an "absolute firm grip" after such exalted years of study then why do so many of their "decisions" get changed on appeal? Yeah, a real firm grip. If that level of wishy washy existed in the engineering fields; there would be disasters.

Because *newsflash* Appeal courts only review the process, not the evidence and not whether the judge was right or wrong. Appeal courts give great deference to decisions made by trial court judges for the primary reason that they are the ones who witnessed the demeanor of the witnesses, etc. Their only concern is that the process in which the trial judge ran the trial and the sentencing hearing was fair. You will never see an appeal court change a trial judge's decision just because they think she or he was wrong, or because the appeal court judges would have done otherwise, only if the trial judge made a legal error in the process and even then only if that error caused actual prejudice to the accused.

I have lots of respect for professionals who study hard both during school and during their careers. I don't have lots of sympathy for those who don't do a good job ... Most judges do a great job during the trial then screw it up in sentencing ...

Since you insist on repeating that judges screw up sentencing, perhaps you could give an example, cite a source, name a case where a judge did just that. And I don't mean one where you simply think it was wrong or disagreed, because as I've said your opinion means relatively little if you haven't tried the case, heard the evidence and understand the rules of evidence and the rules of sentencing.

well, people dont' think they do good work and while they aren't there to win a popularity contest, the legal system is a public institution ... slowly but surely being brought into contempt and disrepute not by the public that put them there but by their own arrogance and elitism .... The average person doesn't understand. We dont' have vast knowledge ... right.

That's your opinion. In my experience the majority of people do NOT believe the legal system is being brought into contempt or disrepute and in fact more people than not have immense respect for our system (sometimes even moreso than I believe is warranted, much like they do law enforcement) and our judges. But, hey, if you have sources that prove me wrong, feel free to quote them. Credible sources would be preferred.

Why won't it work? Come on, stop being a lawyer, tell me why it won't work.

If I actually got the point of being called onto a jury, I am doing to do my darndest to get out; I am not interested in wasting my time on a corrupt system; so if you don't have any better ideas; I'll use the best one I have ... and if it doesn't work, I'll use Jury Nullification in the trial and/or ensure the jury vote is not unanimous ...

sigh ... thanks for telling me something I already knew.

I already answered that question. It won't work because you can't raise your hand and ask questions during jury selection. This isn't school, it's a court of law. And if you already know that, why are you posing the question??

Well, you can believe whatever you want. I've seen people raise their hands and the judge say "yes?" ... "how long will this trial take" type questions. Can't see why asking the question "what is Jury Nullification" won't get one of the lawyers to reject you.

Nobody said I was an expert. but I know incompetence.

Fine, whatever.... I know you didn't see any such thing, not in this country. Continuing to insist you saw this tells me very clearly that you're incompetent at one thing...telling the truth.

[CheapScotsman]

Since you insist on repeating that judges screw up sentencing, perhaps you could give an example, cite a source, name a case where a judge did just that. And I don't mean one where you simply think it was wrong or disagreed, because as I've said your opinion means relatively little if you haven't tried the case, heard the evidence and understand the rules of evidence and the rules of sentencing.

Sure, here you go: http://www.madd.ca/english/news/stories/n20070403.htm

Notice how the appeal court overrode the SENTENCE of the original judge, despite years of extensive study, vast accumulations of knowledge and arcane demonstrations of experience, the judge (gasp) made an error. Shock, say it isn't so ... I'll let you go find the 100s more that occur on a annual basis.

And, yes, its a good thing we have appeal court cause the number of times these judges screw up, its good to have SOMEBODY trying to fix it although I'm not confidant that, half the time, the appeals court just doesn't make the situation worse.

That's your opinion. In my experience the majority of people do NOT believe the legal system is being brought into contempt or disrepute and in fact more people than not have immense respect for our system (sometimes even moreso than I believe is warranted, much like they do law enforcement) and our judges. But, hey, if you have sources that prove me wrong, feel free to quote them. Credible sources would be preferred.

Is a poll from the Department of Justice good enough for you?
http://justicecanada.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2001/rr01-1a.pdf

From Page 10 ... a much smaller proportion of Canadians has a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court of Canada (Table 9). The current level of 20% is down eight points from 1988. Confidence in the provincial court system is even lower, with 12% of Canadians saying they have a lot of confidence in this particular institution. Support for judges (11%), and lawyers (7%) continue to drop as well.

From Page 14 ... Canadians' confidence in the various components of the criminal justice system has remained relatively unchanged over the past few years. The public also has a poor opinion of various criminal justice system personnel. Parole boards, lawyers and judges elicit the least, and the local police and RCMP elicit the most confidence from the public.

From the survey above, I wouldn't say the "some" column corresponds to "immense" ... the only ones I could find that were more recent cost $ and I'll let you pay for it to refute the justice departments own results above.

I already answered that question. It won't work because you can't raise your hand and ask questions during jury selection. This isn't school, it's a court of law. And if you already know that, why are you posing the question??

Really?? ... Do they shackle potential jurors hands behind their backs? I can't raise my hand ??? wow ... didn't know that jury selection was that brutal in Ontario. I think we do it differently here in BC.

Fine, whatever.... I know you didn't see any such thing, not in this country. Continuing to insist you saw this tells me very clearly that you're incompetent at one thing...telling the truth.

Well, Its been years since I've been called for Jury duty but I guess you have been far and wide with a long historical background (part of that vast knowledge and study and training and expertise shtick) and seen how it is done ...

[Shojin]

Question - my cousin got a jury summons letter recently to appear for the selection process. He has vacation starting about a week after the appearance date which was booked earlier this year, well before he received the letter. This could potentially be a problem if he gets picked for a trial and ends up 'on call' for 2 weeks.

What are the chances he can get a postponement? Should he write/fax in for a postponement ahead of the date, or appear on the day with all his proof in hand?

He called the courthouse and the not so helpful clerk told him to just show up on the day and 'see what happens'.

ps. Apologies for bumping an old thread but I figure it's better than creating a new one.

[Takami]

Since we have a few people who have some knowledge in this field, I was wondering what makes someone a good candidate for Jury Duty.

I know that the concept of a Jury is for the defendant to be judged by his/her peers. I also hear that a Juror should never have a belief system that is directly in conflict with the the court's beliefs or the defendant's actions. That is why policemen and priests cannot be in a Jury.

So I am guessing that if a high school drop out is being charged for robbing a wealthy family's home, then the Jury will not be made up of doctors, engineers, wealthy businessmen with high status/education and wealth?

edit: ohh shet, I didn't notice this is an old thread

[RenegadeX]

Question - my cousin got a jury summons letter recently to appear for the selection process. He has vacation starting about a week after the appearance date which was booked earlier this year, well before he received the letter. This could potentially be a problem if he gets picked for a trial and ends up 'on call' for 2 weeks.

What are the chances he can get a postponement? Should he write/fax in for a postponement ahead of the date, or appear on the day with all his proof in hand?

He called the courthouse and the not so helpful clerk told him to just show up on the day and 'see what happens'.

ps. Apologies for bumping an old thread but I figure it's better than creating a new one.

Please see this thread on Jury Duty: http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/s...8592&p=4000596
(the first 2 pages are crap, so I'm linking to Page 3, where I started my multi-page detailed personal account of the Jury Selection process. In Post#49, you'll see that someone else was in a similar situation to your cousin and I share what we were told would have been the proper way to deal with it, and get out of serving.

If I was your cousin, I'd phone again..

Since we have a few people who have some knowledge in this field, I was wondering what makes someone a good candidate for Jury Duty.

The above linked thread should also contain all you need to know.

[cgtlky]

Too bad Op is a student if Op is working you just show a copy of the jury letter to your employer and you still get paid even you are choosen to be a jury or not.

[felix]

I was in university 2.5 hours away when I had received a jury duty letter back home. I'm not sure what they did but they told them I was at school out of town and busy with exams (which was true). This was many years ago though.

[nickinto]

I am a full time university student. I am living 2 hours away from my parents home and I received a Jury Duty letter at my parents address. My dad opened it for me and it says i must fill it out and sign within 5 days. This letter is 2 hours away and I dont currently have a vehicle. What the heck do i do? I cannot get home to sign the letter and i cannot go home for Jury Duty. I am a full time student. This would screw me over

Justin, hate to break it to you...

[iluvmikeharris]

Homer Simpson: Getting out of jury duty is easy. The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.