Jury duty "requirement"?

[azasadny]

Pardon my ignorance, but are we REQUIRED to serve on a jury? Where is the law that makes jury duty mandatory?

BARNSTABLE, Massachusetts (AP) -- A Cape Cod man who claimed he was homophobic, racist and a habitual liar to avoid jury duty earned an angry rebuke from a judge on Monday, who referred the case to prosecutors for possible charges.

Daniel Ellis' excuses to try to get out of jury duty didn't sit well with the judge.

"In 32 years of service in courtrooms, as a prosecutor, as a defense attorney and now as a judge, I have quite frankly never confronted such a brazen situation of an individual attempting to avoid juror service," Barnstable Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson told Daniel Ellis, according to a preliminary court transcript of the exchange.

Ellis, of Falmouth, had been called to court with about 60 other potential jurors for possible service on a 23-member grand jury.

On a questionnaire that all potential jurors fill out, Ellis wrote that he didn't like homosexuals and blacks. He then echoed those sentiments in an interview with Nickerson.

"You say on your form that you're not a fan of homosexuals," Nickerson said.

"That I'm a racist," Ellis interrupted.

"I'm frequently found to be a liar, too. I can't really help it," Ellis added.

"I'm sorry?" Nickerson said.

"I said I'm frequently found to be a liar," Ellis replied.

"So, are you lying to me now?" Nickerson asked.

"Well, I don't know. I might be," was the response.

Ellis then admitted he really didn't want to serve on a jury.

"I have the distinct impression that you're intentionally trying to avoid jury service," Nickerson said.

"That's true," Ellis answered.

Nickerson ordered Ellis taken into custody. He was released later Monday morning.

Ellis could face perjury and other charges

[legion]

I don't think there is anything at the federal level, but there may well be something there at the state or local level.

[LakeCleElum]

Most jurisdictions have laws that require you to respond to a jury notice. However, if you are not personally served or sign for the notice, they cannot prove you received it. I've never heard of anyone charged with not showing in my area. YMMV.

[Rick Lee]

I had federal jury duty last year and this judge was a severe HARD A$S on anyone who tried to get out of it. The case was a RICO Act on an M-13 gangbanger, which I knew plenty about, working at a news agency and reading the Wash. Post daily. There about 80 potential jurors. First question by the judge was: "Does anyone here personally know anyone in the FBI? If so, please stand." Half the room stood. You get an idea of the jury pool around northern VA. Anyway, one guy there had just dropped his wife off for back surgery that morning and she was going to be in a wheel chair for months. Too bad. He couldn't leave. A few folks whose names were called didn't show up. Judge sent US Marshalls to go find them and told us they were looking at three days in jail and $1000 on contempt. This guy had such a hard on for jurors. He told us all about how he helped write the state law that required everyone, except the governor (despite his objections to that provision) to be eligible for jury duty. I was the last person they dismissed that day. The defendant was guilty as sin, looking at lethal injection and eventually pleaded guilty for the reduced sentence of life without parole at the tender age of 23.

[Rick Lee]

Oh, and they sent my jury duty notice to my old address a good nine mos. after I had moved and changed my driver's license address, which is how they update voter registrations, which is how they choose jurors. I got the notice about 10 days before I was to appear. And skipping it would have been a very bad decision.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

It is your civic duty. Do it.

[304065]

Yes, you are required, unless you qualify for one of the exemptions, which are few in number and are related to genuine hardship.

The right of Trial by Jury is articulated in Article III of the Constitution. In order to have a Jury you must have jurors, which is left up to the states. In Michigan, it's the Judicature Act of 1961, I believe. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dhdk24j13ztmn155fuozls55))/mileg.aspx?page=MCLIndex&objectname=mcl-236-1961-13

The success of our legal system depends on intelligent people serving on juries as the finder of fact. When smart people don't participate it leads to bad outcomes.

[Dantilla]

I served once, and had fun. A simple one-day trial.

As we were led back to deliberate, I got myself elected jury foreman in about 90 seconds. Within twenty minutes or so, everybody agreed with me.

The most fun, however, was after we were dismissed, and the defense attorney wanted to ask some questions of us. I said I'd be happy to. He came across a bit slimy, and I wanted to give him an earful.

After everybody else had left, there was no one but me and the two attorneys. I critiqued both of their arguments, point by point. Pretty much raked them both over the coals, and they both took notes! They appreciated the constructive criticism.

Hopefully they are better attorneys today becuas of it.

[cstreit]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
It is your civic duty. Do it.

+1 believe me, if I were on a jury trial, I'd prefer people that wanted to be there... ...but it IS your duty as a citizen of this country.

I did get out of jury duty once. A lawyer was suing another lawyer because he slipped on the sidewalk outside the dudes house and hurt (not broke, not sprained, but hurt) his arm. I told the judge "Honestly unless they intend to show malicious intent I'd be really hard pressed to be objective in this situation."

[legion]

Originally posted by john_cramer
The success of our legal system depends on intelligent people serving on juries as the finder of fact. When smart people don't participate it leads to bad outcomes.

Yep, too often juries are made up of people too dumb to think up a good excuse for getting out of it. You wonder where multi-million dollar damages for spilled coffee and O.J. Simpson verdicts come from?

[KFC911]

Originally posted by john_cramer
...The success of our legal system depends on intelligent people serving on juries as the finder of fact....

Our legal system is doomed

[Hugh R]

I remember when OJ was on trial (the first one) and a Los Angeles radio talk show host made and announcement that OJ would be freed because he was reading the USA Today and a survey showed that 1 in 10 adults in America believes Elvis is still alive. 1 in 10... you only need one juror in 12 on a criminal case to get a hung jury. My favorite quote from one of the OJ jurors afterwards was something along the line of "hey, once you throw out the blood and DNA stuff what else have you got?"

[Porsche-O-Phile]

It's a cross-section of the public-at-large. Yes, the public really is that stupid.

George Carlin put it best (one of my favorite quotes): "Consider how stupid the average person is, then just think - half of them are even stupider than THAT!!!"

Scary.

[Moses]

Originally posted by john_cramer
The success of our legal system depends on intelligent people serving on juries as the finder of fact. When smart people don't participate it leads to bad outcomes.

Why do judges have the right to issue "directed verdicts"?
Why are judges allowed to "set aside" a juries verdict?

Seems like the whole process is a charade. The jurys verdict is only valid, it seems, if the judge concurs.

[Rick Lee]

Yes Moses, but you know a judge setting aside a verdict makes for a very nice appeal. And I'm only aware of it happening in cases where there was clear jury tampering or jury nullification, in which cases I think it's just fine.

[KFC911]

I don't know where I read/heard it, but I sort of like the idea of "professional jurors" or something along those lines. The concept that a cross section of the general population (i.e. "one's peers") will have the intelligence, education and experience, etc. to sort through the bs, and provide justice is fundamentally flawed imo and needs to be readdressed. It's a HUGE responsibility (done correctly), and frankly, many in the general population are simply not up to the task.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
I'm only aware of it happening in cases where there was clear jury tampering or jury nullification, in which cases I think it's just fine.

I believe "jury nullification" is an essential component of our trial system. It is our final protection against government abuse of power.

Before the civil war, it was illegal to harbor runaway slaves in the border states. Participants in the underground railroad were frequently arrested, tried, and found NOT GUILTY despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

Jurys should not only judge the factual elements of a case, but whether the law was appropriately applied and whether or not the law itself is reasonable.

[gr8fl4porsche]

I was on a medical malpractice case. We eventually found the doctor innocent. One of the jurors said she agreed the doctor was not negligent but wanted to award the plaintiff money anyway.

I would only want a jury trial if I was guilty.

[Moses]

Remember Ellie Nessler, the woman who shot and killed the man who molested her son? She was sent to prison by a sympathetic jury after the judge specifically admonished them NOT to render a not guilty verdict. In my opinion the judge should have been charged with obstruction of justice and the jury should have been able to free Ellie Nessler if they thought the law had been applied wrongly.

[cashflyer]

Moses, I agree with jury nullification but it rarely happens. You have situations like the Nessler case, plus you have uninformed juries, and I have even read stories of action groups being told that they could not inform the jury of their option for nullification.

Why? Because "the system" is run by "the man".

Give power to the people?? WTF?