Jury Duty in America

[Lionel Mandrake]

The dreaded letter arrives, informing you that you have been randomly selected for jury duty. You must go to a courthouse up to 20 miles away and report to the jury assembly room. There you will be subjected to pep talks from various bureaucrats, usually including a judge (or a video of a judge). If selected for a jury panel, you and other potential jurors will be herded into a courtroom. You will be told the nature of the case to be tried. Most likely it will be a criminal case (as opposed to a lawsuit). You will be asked questions by lawyers on both sides - the prosecution and the defense. You may also be questioned by the judge. If you show an obvious bias toward one side or the other, you will be excluded from the jury "for cause". Otherwise you may be excluded by what is called a "peremptory challenge" by one side or the other. Each side is allowed a certain number of peremptory challenges, which means they may exclude you from the jury without saying why.

Peremptory challenges are controversial. Many experts have questioned whether they serve any useful purpose, other than to support an industry of jury consultants, who advise the lawyers about whether a particular juror is likely to vote guilty or not guilty. Defense lawyers have been known to brag about how they managed to pick stupid jurors to get their clients off.

You'd think jury selection would be simple and fast, but sometimes it takes longer to select the jury than it does to try the case. That's mainly because of peremptory challenges. It's also because of peremptory challenges that so many people get called for jury duty, and so few are selected for an actual jury. Jurors are paid so little that the courts have no incentive to use their time efficiently.

Things are different in England, where peremptory challenges have been abolished. In England, jury selection is a breeze, and there is no jury selection industry.

Which do you think is better, the English or the American way of picking juries?

[Mike Nelson]

1. England...

...our system allows jury tampering!

[Warpy]

2. England, of course

Our system supposes no victim of a similar crime can possibly be objective. Our system is wrong.

I've always gone home by 10 AM just because I told the truth about my family.

[Live and Learn]

3. England. I find our process extremely distasteful. nt

[Nye Bevan]

4. Peremptory challenges should definitely be abolished.

Obviously they will be misused by lawyers for racist and sexist reasons.

[Jenoch]

5. If a potential juror tells the court they are prejudging the

defendant, either guilty or innocent, before hearing any evidence, you people are ok with that?

[littlewolf]

6. they can be excused for cause. nt

[Jenoch]

8. What if the potential juror is related to an LEO?

What if the person is related to someone convicted of a similar crime? There many reasons that I believe the defense and prosecution should have the right to not have someone on the jury.

[Andy823]

7. The problem is

A vast number of potential jurors use such tactics to get out of serving. They simply don't want to be there so the make things up that will get them out of jury duty.

[littlewolf]

9. yup, I was called for jury duty 3 times

but was never called. But I worked for DOC at the time (Dept. of Corrections)
and I wore my uniform.
one time I knew the individual on trial, he had been released 3 months
earlier.
asked if I knew the individual I said yes, 90 days before I was guarding him.
I was told I could sit back down.
the other 2 times I was called up and questioned but never picked.

[Lionel Mandrake]

10. This is a tricky issue.

Sometimes the potential juror really does not feel able to serve objectively. He or she may have been a crime victim, or have some other experience which makes it difficult to be objective. It is usually embarrassing to admit this in public, but that is an honorable thing to do.

On the other hand, many potential jurors really don't want to serve on a jury and will say anything to be excused. I'm not ok with that.

[alarimer]

11. They also don't want intelligent people on juries

They want people easily swayed by emotion and less willing to be objective.

Also, when you are on a jury, your fellow jurors want to get out of there as soon as possible. They've usually made up their minds before all the evidence was in (contrary to instructions).

I do not feel most people are fit to serve on juries. They know nothing about evidence, about science, or anything that might help them evaluate what both sides are saying.

[Lionel Mandrake]

13. Should jury service be restricted to people who know something about evidence and science?

Following that thought to its logical conclusion, perhaps jury service should be professionalized. In other words, instead of picking citizens at random, maybe we should require people to take some classes and pass a test to prove their competence to serve on a jury, and then pay them a living wage to do so. Such a system would result in fairer trials and better verdicts than we have now. It would also remove involuntary servitude from the jury system.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. What are the benefits of peremptory challenges for the defense

Anything that adds a bit of challenge for the State is fine with me. If this means that the defense gets to make reasonable guesses about juror prejudices, that's fine with me, too.

[Lionel Mandrake]

14. Peremptory challenges can also hurt the defense.

The prosecutor can use peremptory challenges to eliminate jurors likely to vote for acquittal. Jury selection is really a game played between prosecutors and defense lawyers. The result of a trial may depend more on gamesmanship than on the merits of the case.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. Your points are very well taken.

I think you've hit on a key one here, where you say: Jurors are paid so little that the courts have no incentive to use their time efficiently.

This is important. If jurors were paid what they're worth (don't hold your breath!) then a lot of the nonsense that goes on currently would gradually disappear. At least we could hope so.

I admire your well-constructed post!

[Lionel Mandrake]

17. My dear CP,

Thank you for the rec and for your thoughts.

[KentuckyWoman]

16. I wish they'd quit wasting my time.

I get called about every 12 months. Local, state or federal. The federal I had to drive 3 hrs each way one Friday every month for 18 months just to spend a day being called not picked and sent back to the jury room every time. In the middle of that Kentucky wanted me the same Friday in another city and refused to defer....issued a bench warrant for no show in spite of the fact someone from the federal grand jury not only gave me a letter to send with the state jury form but also called.

All this and have never been picked.

[Lionel Mandrake]

18. Wow, that's about the worst jury experience I've ever heard about.

Being issued a warrant for the offense of not being in two places at the same time is ridiculous, but not surprising when it comes from a state bureaucracy. I wish you didn't have to put up with such nonsense.