Jury Duty

[cherrypoptart]

I'm just curious about any thoughts on jury duty in general but I also do have one question that I can't seem to find the answer to.

Those jury qualification questionnaires seem to ask a lot of very personal questions. Do prospective jurors have the right to not answer any of the questions?

Here's an example:

file:///C:/Users/dl/Downloads/JURY-QUALIFICATION-QUESTIONNAIRE-20190128.pdf

This one gives you the option of saying "I prefer not to answer this question now, but wish to answer it in court on the record." That seems like an odd way to put it. What if you prefer not to answer it now but wish to also not answer it in court on the record?

Can you bring a lawyer with you to court as a prospective juror and would it do you any good?

Here are a couple of the questions:

"44. If you are currently married or living as a domestic partner or with a significant other person,
state your spouse’s, partner's, or person's occupation.
________________________________________________________________
45. If you are currently married or living as a domestic partner or with a significant other person,
state that person's highest level of education and any degrees or certifications that person has
earned."


What if you don't have that person's permission to divulge their personal information? Maybe you don't need it legally, but you could need it not to violate their trust and cause problems in the relationship. Or you could just know they don't like you talking about them and want to respect their wishes, or whatever.

It's also noted that, "The responses to these questions may be subject to public disclosure." You can ask that they be kept private but there's no guarantees, and it's all going into a computer database anyway so there's no guarantee of privacy even if they do guarantee you privacy.
 
Of course the accused has the Constitutional right to a trial by jury. Nobody denies that. But do the potential jurors have any rights and if so what are they?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I will say one thing and correct me if I'm wrong. You hear a lot about swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as far as anyone on the stand goes but the jurors don't get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as a basis on which to make their decision. Information is withheld from them as a matter of course. Every judge and every lawyer lies to every jury. If you consider lying by omission to be lying, then they all lie because they all leave out information they feel would influence the jury in a way they feel is inappropriate. They all also start out by lying if they don't mention the power the jury has of jury nullification. If as a juror you so much as look up the definition of a word in a dictionary or search for information online about a term you can go to prison for contempt. You can't visit the crime scene. You probably can't look up information about the defendant such as their online presence though, and here's another thing to consider about your privacy as a juror, the lawyers on the case are encouraged to look up everything they can about you, all of your Facebook posts and everything you "liked". It's even recommended that if you are trying to get on a jury you scrub your social media presence of everything that might keep you off. Maybe it's just me but all of this seems very peculiar. It seems like the justice system takes the defendant's Constitutional right to a jury as open season to in many ways abuse innocent people through the dangerous and intrusive jury process and if those innocent people do have rights they aren't being informed of them and if they don't have rights such as the right not to betray their spouse's confidences and personal information then maybe they should.

[Grant]

Just print out the above OP, read it in front of the Judge, and I swear you'll never have to worry about jury duty. 

[TheDrake]

If you're TRYING to get on a jury, I would suggest that you are already eliminated. The only reason to try to get on a jury would be an agenda. The nature of that agenda is unclear, and could be anything. Being willing to serve is a good thing, but attempting to do it implies that you think you need to fix something.

Peremptory challenge is necessary, and to use it correctly to eliminate potential bias requires the gathering of information. Of course a prospective juror can refuse to answer a question, and they will be dismissed. Is your spouse's occupation some kind of mystery? Maybe if they are in the CIA? I don't see how that would possibly be revealing something that wasn't relatively public - and already known to the government if they are paying taxes.

[msquared]

What are you trying to hide?

My wife has served on 2 juries in the past 5-6 years (was just on one last month). She enjoyed her time even though it was a bit of a pain in the rear end.

I have not been called for at least 10 years. Not sure why.

[cherrypoptart]

Well hypothetically speaking, let's say if your husband never graduated from high school is that something he wants you to tell everyone on the public record? Or is that something you can say is not really any of anyone's business? Maybe your family doesn't even know that.

[cherrypoptart]

I also thought it amusing that in some other counties they do say something like the information on the forms is confidential and will only, "only", be revealed to the judge, the lawyers, the defendant, and maybe a few others. Oh, so "only" the supposed rapist murderer or whatever type of criminal he is will see my information? Was that supposed to be reassuring?

[msquared]

I think the identities of the jurors is secret, so there is no way for them to know who you are. They may know your spouse never graduated HS but they do not know who you are (name, address, etc). So what does it matter?

[Tom]

A juror's identity is not functionally secret. The vulnerability of jurors to the accused (and any of the accused's allies) is a widely recognized problem.

[Wayward Son]

I'm curious which state you are in.  I don't recall there being a standard question about spouse's occupation in California.

However, I do recall being asked whether they were with law enforcement, along with a number of other relatives, during vior dire.

[cherrypoptart]

The Texas questionnaire for my county isn't as intrusive as the Ohio one, but all of this isn't just about me, but the whole system in general.

[cherrypoptart]

The big thing though is the Constitution grants the right to a jury trial but the problem is the government takes that to mean that they can treat innocent upstanding law abiding citizens worse than something you accidentally step in at the dog park.

If it's required that shouldn't mean you get abused by the system. It should mean that you get treated very well. Our government has it totally backwards. For instance, the jurors should get designated parking, not the judges or staff. Or even an Uber/Lyft to and from. The jurors should be compensated reasonably for their time and trouble too and treated like valued human beings instead of people who since they have no choice in the matter don't deserve to be treated well or with respect, or even like adults.

Here's some people thinking about going in the right direction:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Ad-Hoc-Workgroup-on-Post-Pandemic-Initiatives_Improving-the-Juror-Experience-Report.pdf

increasing juror per diems;
expanding the use of online juror questionnaires and hardship forms;
staggering juror reporting times; and
developing and spreading best practices for virtual jury selection processes.

And you have this judge who at least is going against the grain that says as a juror you're going to get treated badly and we don't care at all.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/baked_cookies_and_no_sidebars_rule_are_part_of_federal_judges_jury_centric

[Wayward Son]

Having served on a jury a couple of times, I'm for everything you listed there! 

Alas, who is going to pay for all those perks?    Would you be willing to raise your taxes for additional, designated parking for jurors?  Especially since, to have a large jury pool to choose from, there are typically 20 - 50 more potential jurors called in than might be needed any day.  That's a lot of extra parking to build.  And if it's in a downtown area of a big city, foggetaboutit.

If you want inexpensive government, somebody has to bear the costs.

[cherrypoptart]

I'm thinking that juries shouldn't be going downtown anyway, not unless they already live downtown. There should be satellite courthouses and the jurors are chosen partly based on how close they live to their satellite courthouse. That's more environmentally friendly anyway. If the judges and the lawyers maybe have to travel around a bit more, then so be it. We used to have traveling judges anyway.

Also politicians should absolutely NOT be exempt from jury duty. In fact, they should be forced to serve at least once a year, kind of like a continuing education qualification such as you see for teachers and real estate agents and many other professions. That would be the surest and fastest way to see improvements in the system.

[TheDrake]

I think you missed the fact that in your scheme, all the defendants living downtown will have to hitch a ride to the suburbs.

What is this all about anyway? Upset that the conspiracy minded anti government people aren't getting a chance to put people away?

I doubt you suddenly got up in arms over the principle of questions asked, based on everything you wrote. Since anyone can refuse to answer and get sent home, why is that not enough for you? What ill is done to the justice system?

[cherrypoptart]

"Since anyone can refuse to answer and get sent home, why is that not enough for you?"

Well that's what I'm asking. Are you sure about that?

They certainly don't give you the impression that's an option for you. All I see is that you are required to answer the questions and answer them honestly.

Okay I'll level. I'm not even the one who got the summons. My son got the summons and the more I look into all this the more concerning it is. There was a guy who missed his jury duty and ended up in jail for 10 days. There was a woman who looked up the Pinkerton principle or something on the internet during her time as a juror and was convicted of contempt of court for it, dodged jail time but had to do community service. On the questionnaire you're filling out an official legal document where not being accurate on your part can get you convicted of a crime and yet nowhere do they recommend that you get legal advice of your own.

The can is getting kicked down the road though because he got rescheduled from October to December and by then we'll have moved to another county and the first thing I'll make sure gets done is the official address change goes through for our driver's licenses. But it's probably going to happen again sometime and I need to get him ready and let him know what his options are.

As for me, I've always dodged it, mostly legally as far as I know. I was in the military and then I was a student and then I kept my driver's license address at my parent's house which I considered my permanent address as I moved around every couple of years although you're technically not supposed to do that, maybe. But I've still got my old bedroom at my parent's house and get a lot of mail there, but when I'd get a jury duty summons I could also say I don't actually reside in the county right now. One option seems to be to stay a student. It's always good to keep learning and if you want to get out of jury duty, or even the hassle of the process, that may be an option in some counties. Get a summons, register for an online class maybe even as an audit, and then, actually take and finish the class and even get your student I.D. like at a nearby community college, start getting your student discounts, and Bob's your uncle.

Another thing I didn't like seeing of course is their mask policy. Now it's optional. That means I have the option of wearing a mask to protect everyone from me and they have the option of not caring if I or in this case someone in my family gets infected and then brings it back to everyone else in the household. I don't go into any place for long so I don't mind wearing an N100 with goggles for 20 minutes or whatever, but jury duty? That's all day long. The goggles fog up after a few minutes. I don't see him or me for that matter being safe in that environment. Long covid is definitely a thing and jury duty shouldn't be a death sentence or even mess up your health like there is the very substantial risk of happening now.

There's also just the whole jury duty thing which I've always found fascinating. Maybe after Covid I'll give it a try. Oh, another problem though for me and my son and probably everyone in my family is we aren't on a jury duty daytime type schedule. We sleep whenever we want to and wake up whenever too. For us jury duty could very well be like someone who works 9 to 5 being forced to one day get up at midnight and then go to a courthouse for 8 hours. There's no consideration for night owls or people who work nights. I probably shouldn't mention that because for us it's privileged problems but that guy who went to prison for 10 days for sleeping in means you can't take it lightly and the consequences of messing up can be way out of proportion to the "crime".

But the questions are bothersome too. I hate being asked what I do for a living since I pretty much don't do anything. I don't tell people how much I make since that's a violation of my security protocols. In the time of social engineering, identity theft, frauds and scams everywhere including jury duty scams, the lack of consideration for privacy of citizens is concerning. But if it's accurate that we don't have to actually answer the questions, that would be something. I wonder how that plays out in real life. You take your form down there and get up in front of the judge and say that you refuse to answer any of these questions. So she can't hold you in contempt of court for that?

Some people also say despite what the summons says you can just toss it. Mail gets lost all the time and unless it's a certified letter that you signed for there's no proof that you ever got it. I wonder if anyone has ever lost when they put that to the test, like got an arrest warrant put out on them as the summons threatens.

[TheDrake]

Thank you for your response. It is somewhat difficult to know what you're allowed to do in every jurisdiction, or if a judge might overreach and charge you with contempt even if it isn't standard practice.

The man in question who got jailed failed to appear after having been selected to be on the jury, meaning that he burned up an alternate juror and they waited for an hour to start trial. I don't know that ten days is appropriate for that, but it was Florida so who knows. You absolutely have to appear, but if it's just for the jury pool, I think almost always they just expect a few no shows. They will be getting back to you, but probably not with charges.

It is certainly possible to face penalties, same as refusing to answer census questions and for similar reasons. They're going to leave it ambiguous at best, because otherwise anyone who didn't want to do it would skip it by not answering.

Personally, I wonder if there should be a compulsion at all. An all volunteer jury would filter for people with a sense of civic duty, but also filter out people who have to work two jobs. There are vanishingly few cases where the government can actively force you to do something, especially when you must present yourself in person.

[cherrypoptart]

I'll also say that although this isn't my county or state, this happened.

Can I be assigned to a court location closer to my residence?
No. Jurors are summoned by pools. When a trial court needs jurors, we assign a pool(s) to the court(s). Pools are assigned by the need of the court, which depends on the length and nature of the trial. All jurors within a specific pool need to stay in that assigned pool.

http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/general-jury-faq.shtml

When I do my auto and property taxes I go to a courthouse that's a pretty easy drive from where I live and I see a jury room there but the summons my son got was to a courthouse way, way, way farther away so that's a slap in the face to Mother Earth and is exacerbating climate change for anyone not doing a six hour bicycle ride over there, not that there would be any way to do that safely anyways.

That's the type of insult having politicians serve on juries would help. And this is just for the voir dire, so maybe have the jurors who live close to one courthouse go there for that and if the judge and lawyers need to travel a little bit more that morning then so be it. Better a few of them go out of their way than 30 or more potential jurors. But of course they don't see it like that. They have the power and you don't so you are at their mercy and sadly, they're the government so they have none.

That's another interesting thing about the jury system. It's similar to the postal system and the Veterans' Administration. You see how you get treated when the government runs things. You get treated like that thing you accidentally stepped in at the dog park, and you have no to little recourse, and the little recourse you do have is useless and nobody cares.

[msquared]

Read the Runaway Jury by John Grisham.

My wife did not have any of the experiences you mention. The food was decent and parking was paid for. She had to go downtown but that was not much of a problem.

[cherrypoptart]

"An all volunteer jury would filter for people with a sense of civic duty."

I agree that's something that should be looked into. The Constitution says you have the right to a trial by jury. It doesn't say that people can't volunteer for it. The same thing with the draft. The government has the right to draft you but most people agree that's not the best way to do it if you don't have to because a volunteer army is generally considered preferable.

It was interesting that in that link that was the next issue after the courthouse location.

"Can I volunteer for jury service?
No. California Code of Civil Procedure states, "All persons selected for jury service shall be selected at random, from a source or sources inclusive of a representative cross selection of the population of the area served by the court."

-----------------------------------------------

Well that's their California Code but it isn't the U.S. Constitution so there's no reason why it can't be changed relatively easily.

A lot more should be done with remote jury service too, for the environment as well as all of the practical and convenient reasons.

[cherrypoptart]

"Read the Runaway Jury by John Grisham."

I will check that out. I do like me some John Grisham but haven't read him in a while. I did like The Firm, both the book and movie, the same with A Time To Kill.

One scary movie that could freak a juror out is "The Juror" with Demi Moore and Alec Baldwin. I won't give any spoilers but that's the nightmare scenario.

I just looked it up and apparently a lot of people didn't like it. I did, took it too much to heart perhaps, and think it stuck with me. Maybe that's the original source of my jury duty anxiety.

[NobleHunter]

The idea of a volunteer jury is great but I don't think it could be made to work. Maybe I'm too cynical but so many of the reasons people would want to volunteer for jury duty would be bad ones.

[cherrypoptart]

The Catch-22, like the only person you want to rule you is the one who doesn't want to be a ruler, the people you want on jury duty are the ones who don't want to be there. I wonder about that though. I could see some people being upset about being there and messing things up. I suppose you try to weed them out so you end up with the people who don't particularly want to be there but hopefully aren't seething with rage either. That's kind of an odd setup though if a perfect representation for our type of government. Just bad enough to get the job done middlingly with the atmosphere of compromise so that almost nobody is really happy about it.