• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jury Service

geni said:
There are certian relgions where the follower will find the defendent inocent whatever so the pragmatic aproach is to keep them off juries.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but that could also be true of certain non-religious beliefs.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
That may be the reason the exemption was introduced. However it most certainly is possible to get replacement medical staff at short notice (and with jury service the "normal" notice is apparently three weeks or more). Locum doctors (who do exactly this) are an essential feature of the NHS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_the_doctor/doctorslocum.shtml
Click to expand...

Hence my qualification "not on short notice for a few days". Locums certainly exist, but they are generally arranged well in advance and are often in place for months. It's not at all the same as the situation with supply teachers. I've never even heard of a locum being brought in to cover holidays or sick leave. Possibly this is a difference between GPs and hospital doctors, but you're certainly not going to find a replacement for a consultant surgeon for a few days within a couple of weeks.
 
grunion said:
Doctor's exclusions are not solely (or even primarily) due to the inconvenience it would cause them or their patients. The reason these professions are generally banned from jury duty is because they are widely considered "experts" by the public, and attorneys and judges fear that their opinions would therefore have more weight in the jury room than that of a teacher, farmer or accountant, in effect subverting the essential democracy of the whole notion of jury duty.
Click to expand...

At least in Scotland, they are not banned, they simply have the right not to participate. If they wish to serve on a jury, then they can.

If they were banned (or where they are banned) then this would seem a plausible explanation of how that came about.
 
My notice for US District Court also states full time college students can have their service deferred to after graduation. Alas not the case for me so I get to show up next week.
 
Cuddles said:
Hence my qualification "not on short notice for a few days". Locums certainly exist, but they are generally arranged well in advance and are often in place for months. It's not at all the same as the situation with supply teachers. I've never even heard of a locum being brought in to cover holidays or sick leave. Possibly this is a difference between GPs and hospital doctors, but you're certainly not going to find a replacement for a consultant surgeon for a few days within a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Sorry was reading your qualification wrongly as implying it would take a few days to get coverage, not as referring to getting coverage for a few days.

I am no expert in the field, and agree that there would be a big difference between replacing a consultant surgeon and a GP (who seem to have had no problem at all in finding people to cover their out of hours responsibilities).

If I had to guess, I would suspect that the exemption was introduced back in the days when the local GP had a much larger role in health care and there was much less in the way of replacement/support services to fall back on. At a further guess, this was widened to include "similar professions" to cover some specific examples that were not doctors but were essentially similar (maybe midwifes?) and at a subsequent date a list of those "similar professions" was included to get us to where we are now.

Still not sure how vets got in - is it worse to potentially have some animals die due to the absence of a vet than to have crops rot in the field because the farmer is on jury service or kids get a worse education because they have been taught by a succession of supply teachers?
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
When I was called for jury duty, one of the first questions on my questionaire asked me if I was related to a police officer.
Click to expand...

In what degree?

There are certainly, at least, some guidelines in some instances based on one's relatives. I was called up for a coroner's court jury a few years ago and was perfectly happy to serve, but there was a "tell us anything else that may be relevant" clause in the letter, so I informed the relevant authorities that my father (by then retired) had previously been a Deputy Coroner. On these grounds I was judged ineligible for coroner's court jury service, a decision I've never quite understood the reason for. While there are, no doubt, certain people who shouldn't be allowed to serve on juries, I find it hard to understand exactly why I'm one of them.

Actually, I can think of one or two, but they're more to do with pedantry than ancestry.

Dave
 
I live in a relatively small county, and have been called at least 4 times in 10 years.

They plead out once, so I didn't even have to show up, then I got dismissed because they had more than enough to fill the jury pool, and twice to get to be questioned by the attorneys.

Neither time did I get actually selected to serve.

Having seen two real juries picked, I think lawyers are not looking for people 'like me'. I have opinions, that I often find difficult to keep to myself, shall we say.

I don't think attorneys want strong minded people on a jury. I think they want clay, that they can mold, 'listeners', willing to absorb a version of the story.

I always tell people if you don't wnat to serve, then speak up during the questioning...
 
This is totally non-sourced:

I thought the professions exemptions came about because they were professionals and therefore not considered to be the "peers" of the people they would have to decide about? And I think most of the exemptions by profession in England & Wales were ended by Blunkett? (ETA: Exemptions ended link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/21/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation)
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
This is totally non-sourced:

I thought the professions exemptions came about because they were professionals and therefore not considered to be the "peers" of the people they would have to decide about?
Click to expand...

What if you had a murderous vet?
 
Dave Rogers said:
In what degree?

There are certainly, at least, some guidelines in some instances based on one's relatives. I was called up for a coroner's court jury a few years ago and was perfectly happy to serve, but there was a "tell us anything else that may be relevant" clause in the letter, so I informed the relevant authorities that my father (by then retired) had previously been a Deputy Coroner. On these grounds I was judged ineligible for coroner's court jury service, a decision I've never quite understood the reason for. While there are, no doubt, certain people who shouldn't be allowed to serve on juries, I find it hard to understand exactly why I'm one of them.

Actually, I can think of one or two, but they're more to do with pedantry than ancestry.

Dave
Click to expand...


I actually do have a former police officer in my family but, in my case, it would also have absolutely nothing to do wth anything.

My mother's sister's husband is a former cop but I've met my Uncle Andrew only as a very small child and have no memory of him. I know my aunt and his daughter, my cousin, very well but since my mother's relationship with him is very bad and he and my aunt was estranged from him for a very long time, I only know him from stories and photos. He's supposed to be a very unpleasant person.

So when they asked me about relatives in law enforcement, I answered that I didn't have any.

I was knocked off from jury selection in a civil trial presumably because the person suing was Navy yard electrician who had gotten asbestos poisoning and I disclosed that my father is an electrician. I also mentioned that I had actually heard of asbestos poisoning.

Even my dad was befuddled when I told him I could have been rejected cause of it: "What does that have to do with the trial?"

I was very disappointed about not being selected. I'd love to sit on the jury of a civil or criminal trial; I must be the only person in America that actually wants to be called.
 
casebro said:
Here in America, nobody smart enough to participate on this forum is ever allowed to sit on a jury. The defense will exclude us.
Click to expand...

So I thought. With law enforcement experience (albiet not much and long ago), research scientist cred, etc, I figured I'd get laughed out of the jury pool.

Nope, wound up doing two weeks on a civil trial.

The report of same is here, somewhere, someplace.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
I was very disappointed about not being selected. I'd love to sit on the jury of a civil or criminal trial; I must be the only person in America that actually wants to be called.
Click to expand...

Evidently you're not the only one. I've seen people lie to stay on the panel. In one case, several years ago, they were asking each panelist "Have you or a relative ever witnessed or been a victim of a crime?" I've lived in relatively low-crime areas most of my life, but over a lifetime, it still adds up. I was working up a list - car was stolen, robbed at gunpoint, my brother's business was broken into a few times, a credit card fraud problem, a few minor thefts, etc - and that's just the 'victim' part.

One of the other panelists, a few seats ahead of me - 69 years old, lived in Compton CA his whole life (yes, THAT Compton) - "Have you or a relative ever witnessed or been a victim of a crime?" He thought for a moment, then said, "Nope."

(okay, maybe I'm too cynical, but . . .)
 
Most U.S. states have made a real effort over the last 10-20 years to try to get more representative juries. A lot of "professional" exemptions have been eliminated, and in general judges are very reluctant to excuse people for cause based on normal work demands. And most judges are also wise to the tricks people use to try to get themselves booted, though I suppose if you're willing to lie blatantly enough under oath you probably will manage to get dinged.

Within the last year, both the mayor of Los Angeles and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court have served on juries.

I'm not saying that it's all sunshine and roses and equality, but it's just not the case in most jurisdictions I'm aware of that "only dumb people serve on juries."

It's also a tad simplistic to suggest that one side's lawyers wants to get rid of the smart jurors while the other side wants to keep them. I suppose it might be different in criminal cases, especially if there's a "three strikes" law at issue, but generally cases don't go to a jury if they're so obvious that only a dumb juror could find for a particular side.

What you really want is a smart juror who is sympathetic to the arguments and themes you intend to present. Then you not only have a good chance at that juror's vote, but also at having them persuade others in the jury room.
 
casebro said:
And if I was a defendant, I wouldn't want to be judged by people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Click to expand...

For me, it would depend on whether I was actually guilty ;)

casebro said:
In California, there are no professional exclusions. Except that no defense lawyer would permit most of those listed above on his jury.
Click to expand...

Odd things happen. I was on a jury in a criminal trial, and we had a police officer as an alternate. Everyone was a little surprised by it, but the defense atty was had used most of her dismissals and whoever was after the cop (I don't remember the specifics anymore) looked even worse for the defense.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Maybe so, but that could also be true of certain non-religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Which is why any juror who admits to being familiar with groups such as the Fully Informed Jury Association are routinely dismissed; and can even be found in contempt of court for failing to volunteer their support of or association with these groups, regardless of whether they're ever actually asked about such.
 
Tanja said:
Regarding people with mental health problems being excluded if they need to seek medical treatment regularly - would it not be logical to exclude anyone who needs to attend medical treatment very regularly (for physical or mental ilness alike), as this could easily interfere with the schedule of the trial? If a trial is expected to last more than a couple of days, then I presume the trial would need to be adjourned if a juror needs to make a regular visit to the doctor, which would be quite inconvenient for the court.
Click to expand...
This may be true; but I think it far more likely that they're excluded because people with that degree of mental illness are far less likely than average to be able to adequately judge the facts in a case, and come to a rational conclusion.
 
I've always wanted to serve on a jury, but I've never been asked - it's so unfair.

Although, come to think of it, all the really interesting trials in Northern Ireland (and across the border too) are held in our 'special' non-jury courts...
 
I suspect a vet exclusion is due to the agricultural work--cows and things--more than for house pets. Britain did used to be a very agricultural sort of place, and a dead cow is a pretty serious thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom