what you crazy cats won't do to avoid jury service.
The quote of the day:
"McDonald's is everywhere!"
"That's what scares me."
Running news:
Hey, a girl's gotta recover.
You people have no shame. You are pretty darn crafty, all right. Herewith I provide a guide to what some of you have done (or just think you'll do) to get out of jury duty.
Good Excuses
It seems that the government does a pretty good job accomodating people's hardships--if you're self-employed, if you have job conflicts...
Scott the Canadian informs us that
I had no trouble escaping jury duty: I had a class scheduled for the day of selection (just a little part-time computer skills upgrade thing) which I was planning to cancel anyway, but when I told them it was for an important certificate program and sent them the schedule, they excused me.
Scott also mentioned having himself removed from the voter rolls, and he hasn't been called since. At least in California, this won't work--jurors are called from the ID rolls (driver's license, state ID), because so many people were avoiding registering to vote in order to avoid jury duty. So go ahead: register to vote.
My mother-in-law says:
[On the jury summons was] a space to respond if you think you are not able to serve. In this I have written the following excuses: several preschool children living with me - the only speech pathologist at the hospital where I worked - and others, I am sure, but I can't recall them (maybe I should have pleaded limited memory skills).This procdure was terminated a number of years ago. Now everyone must go and the weeding out occurs in the court house.
Bad Excuses
My father told me about one guy who, during voir dire, said, "If the police caught him, the guy's probably guilty."
This will get you off the jury so fast your head will spin.
Of course, you'll have to admit that you're a bad American in that you don't believe in the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing. However, I don't think most of my fellow citizens--even in LA, that well-known bastion of civil rights abuses--believe that the accused are not guilty. Hey, even Newt Gingrich said something to that effect.
"You talkin' to me?"
Definitely popular: just ignore the summons. If they can't prove you got it, they can't fine you, arrest you, or (worst of all) make you serve on a jury.
Beth the Lawyer tells me, however, that Los Angeles is changing its attitude a bit on this:
The legal newspaper I read (from San Francisco) has been jumping up and down over the news that LA is going to start enforcing its jury scofflaw fine, which is something like $1500 for no-shows. Possibly it will be different for grand juries, but word is they mean business and you won't be able to call in on the day you're supposed to appear anymore.
So don't do like Diane and postpone on the day you're first supposed to go in, 'kay?
The I-always-carry-this-book Maneuver
I hadn't even considered this, but I got two recommendations for books to carry that would at least place a doubt in one or the other of the lawyer's minds about what kind of juror I'd be.
First: The Bible. Evidently this even works in the Bible Belt, where Pooks lives:
Well, a lawyer told a friend of mine the best way to get out of jury duty was to carry a Bible and read it the entire time.
The lawyer claimed it made no difference whether the attorneys on either side were devout and religious or not, or anybody else involved in the trial.
If you're sitting there reading a Bible, you're a loose cannon. They don't know WHAT you believe, only that you probably believe it pretty fiercely, and also, have no problem accepting things on faith, without concrete proof.
Okay, the Bible, that's a good one. But...John Grisham?
If you want to get off, you could do what I saw one fellow do, display a hardback copy of "The Runaway Jury" by Gresham.
Not even jury duty could get me to pick up one of his books. I tried to read The Firm and on page 3 tossed it across the room for poor writing. My father tossed it across the room because the major plot point revolves around hiding money in Grand Cayman--and as a CPA, he knows quite well that any time "Grand Cayman" shows up in a financial statement, the IRS is all over it. So it was bullshit from page 1.
"Hey, they asked me to be honest"
Strangely, this did not work as well as its proponents thought it would.
Clifton, for example, really went out there, much further than any of my fellow juror candidates did.
I wanted to serve - had that civic duty bug in my ear, and had an employer who paid for jury duty - but was sure this set of answers would get me disqualified nonetheless:
(wordings approximate)
Q: Would you have any problem finding someone guilty of violating the law if there were only one witness?
A: If I didn't believe in the law they violated, I would refuse to convict them.
[confused pause]
Q: What do you mean?
A: For example, I think the current drug laws are completely unjust and unconstitutional, and for those reasons I couldn't convict anyone of a drug violation.
Q: Oh. [more pause] But do you feel the current laws against sexual assault are reasonable?
A: Yes, basically.The judge then used my answer as an example to the other jurors of why it is important to be honest and complete in answering the voir dire questions.
Much to my surprise, I was still one of those chosen to serve on the jury.
Of course, if it had been a drug trial, I'm sure someone would have excused him.
More interesting was the case where my correspondent knew what the case was about, and still answered pretty honestly:
In the voire dire, the prosecutor started with number one and asked each of us, "you don't believe a 5 year old child could be coached to lie, do you?" Each of the first 17 said "no", they didn't think a child could be coached. This, of course, is ridiculous, they certainly CAN be coached, and I broke the train and said it. I then thought, "ahhh, I'm excused for sure".
The defense attorney asked something like "would you consider probation if the defendant was guilty of child abuse"? I said "no, he'd have to do at least some jail time".
I figured I'd made them both mad by not following the lead of their questions, but instead I got selected!
So having unpopular opinions won't necessarily get you out of it. But I think it's always a good idea to be 100% honest during voir dire--I don't think my fellow juror candidates were, honestly, and it disappointed me.
The I-know-more-than-thou Gambit
I took a class in logic at De Anza one quarter, and the professor mentioned that whenever he got called for jury duty, all he had to do was mention his profession as teacher of logical thinking and he was off the jury. Nobody wants a clear thinker in the jury.
Tracing doesn't serve on juries here, of course, because she's a furriner and citizenship is just about the only qualification necessary to be on a jury. However, she did have one interesting tale of a fellow architect:
An architect I know, however, was almost assigned to a case that involved a dispute between two architect ex-partners. He was dismissed on the basis that, well, you know, he might actually *know* something about the context.
Likewise, Julie suggests that I should always mention my extensive education:
Find a way to work in that you went to Stanford - they don't like educated jurors (prosecutors think educated equates with liberal, defense attorneys think you're going to be able to see behind the smoke and mirrors).
Al isn't sure this one will work, but he suggests it anyhow:
I bet one could get disqualified from duty just by mentioning the phrase "jury nullification" during voir dire.
I'd never heard of the FIJA before, but one reader pointed me to the Fully Informed Jury Association, with the admonition
Well, one sure fire way to get out of it is to mention FIJA...and mention that you believe you have the right to judge the law as well as the facts.But of course, we should serve on juries, but I think people would be a lot happier doing so if they were not treated like cattle.
Well: Moo.
"Yeah, that happened to me, but I'll be objective"
I think I tried this a bit during my questioning by mentioning Greg, because the case had to do with violence. Julie went down this path, but only because she was truthful, folks:
Told 'em I was the victim of a mugging (true) but it wouldn't keep me from being objective about the guy (on trial for beating up another guy outside a bar). The defense bumped me from the panel in a huge hurry.
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1998 Diane Patterson
Send comments and questions to diane@spies.com