You can tell the lawyers you don’t want to be selected. They typically don’t want people on the jury that aren’t taking the responsibility seriously
YOU CAN’T HANDLE A SCOOP!
This is only punishing the other jurors stuck there too. Unless they are putting out enough ppm to be noticeable even 15 feet away in an open air room.
A Dozen Eggy Men
12 angry farts
And an ipa
And some asparagus for that reeky pee
I don’t understand you humans.
Why does “everyone else has to suffer” if you are stuck with jury duty?
What are you?
No idea, but pretty certain that i’m not the same species that i read about every day in the news.
A meat Popsicle?
Your fellow jurors are suffering enough, why do you have to make it worse?
I really enjoyed my stint as a juror. Never tried to weasel out of it either.
if you have alot of time on your hands. but in most cases people cant afford to take work off just do it, they lose out on alot of money. and most states pay very little, like a few bucks to 15/day if you are selected. federal might pay more. difference between 5$ and few hundred or more is quite significant.
It’s an important civic duty. For every opportunity to find Luigi did nothing wrong, there is a terrible case.
I had a friend who had a 8 month jury stint over a infamous and grusome child murder. They had to review detailed forensic evidence. He had to go to therapy for panic attacks for years.
I am going to make everyone suffer because I have to participate in society 😇
why is society so shit
I’ve never understand why people always complain about jury duty in particular. I’ve never been called, but I think it sounds like an interesting experience.
Mostly it’s money related. Some people literally cannot afford to attend jury duty because of how little compensation there is for their time; like in my area, if it takes two weeks you get compensated $4.75 an hour compared to a full time job which is $13.50 below minimum wage ($18.25).
I also think it would be cool and would like to attend, but then I wouldn’t be able to pay rent if it goes on too long.
in the west its only 15/day, if you are on the juror pool. and it was 3-4 days, i make more than that in half of a shift.
Yup, here you get minimum wage which is only slightly over federal.
if you are willing to sit a juror pool for like several days straight, where they spends hours questioning each juror of why they can and cannot serve. its really annoying and time consuming, and people have jobs. most of the people in my area can afford to take time off, majority of the juror pool i was in was tech/programmer. its very anxiety inducing if you dont want to be there.
Wait, so you have to take vacation days for jury duty? Your employer doesn’t have to give you leave? That’s fucked up lol. Every time I think the US couldn’t be more fucked than it already is, I get proven wrong lol.
yes and no, it really depends on the EMPLOYER if they want to pay you for it, they allow you to be on JD, but they dont have to pay you. and i read in other states, thier employer may require the “pitiful jury duty pay” as compensation for time off. if you are a federal/city, state worker, either UPS/USPS you are out of luck, they are more likely to choose these jurors because they know they will allow JD for the long haul for these people.
You reminded me of an excellent quote: “the USA is not a first world country. It’s 50 third world countries in a trench coat”.
because they choose 12jurors, 6 alternates because they are much easily swayed to go in one decision or another by prosecutoers, defense attorneys. thats why they rarely choose people in the courst system themselves , or scientists some times. thats why they choose BUmpkins to be jurors. people like rittenhouse got off, because they likely chose jurors that are likely pushovers, or wont speak up.
Yeah do they not legally have to pay you for it in the us or something? That’s messed up
and some employers require the jury duty pay, if you want your full 8hr shift to be paid. it really isnt fair to force employers to pay the jurors thier full usual hours. its the city and state that should pay thier full wage amount for that day. but they dont, they know they cant get by with paying less than 15$/day.
In most (maybe all) states, you do get paid by the state, but it is something hilariously low. In my state it is $20 a day I believe, which is not much above the minimum hourly wage for my area.
ours is 15/day if you are chosen, ive heard people its as low as 5$, and a small pittance for gas/travel expenses. federal court is rarer but they can pay up to 40$/day in some cases.
The assholes in my city don’t even pay you enough to cover parking in the local parking garages they fucking recommend you use, let alone gas or meal expenses, for the day.
the cities make money from revenue of parking tickets, parking fees.
They pay you but it’s like enough for lunch.
It’s because they don’t value your time.
i sat in one last sept, it was very boring and very annoying if you a job. basically the 1st 2 days is roll call like 200+people, and they may or may not take "excuses’ to be excluded from jd. if you are selected you have to sit in a courtroom usually 8am sharp and then sit there for 7+hrs listening to peoples “biases” of why they can or cannot be in the jury(with breaks). they will sus you out if you try the JD nullfication tactic, and they might end up choosing you. its incredibally annoying. this went on for 3-4 days, because people were trying to get out of jury duty( they have to vet every single person they call to the stand. its usually they choose 12 main jurors and 3-6 alternates, the only ones that usually are excused are people who are old(70+), have a disability, or thier jobs require so much time commiment they cant afford to be jury duty. almost everyone in my Jury pool were in tech, so mostly can afford to have time off, only a few one cant speak or understand English clearly(chinese immigrant), one is DEAF or very hearing impaired.lawyers, LEOs are also excluded mostly.
then they go through biases like someone is too emotional, or some is a former lawyer from another country (germany) which she gave the reason why a jury is inefficient, she was excused. 1 chick tried her hardest of being A SJW(organizing/prostesting,etc).
some people cant afford to be in a jury because of money. In a HCOL thats less likely.
Yeah you get to sit in a lobby for 3 hours, then the judge calls you in to tell you to be back in an hour after lunch. The you come back and sit a few more hours until they call you back in to tell you what time to be back the next day
I served in a jury once on a criminal case, we found the defendant not guilty and got to see him be freed. That felt pretty nice to be a part of that.
Nice one! That’s like one of the optimal outcomes for jury duty.
I was exempt from jury duty while serving in the US military, but at one particular base I was stationed at, they put me on a list of potential jury members for any military trials held in the area.
My boss got selected to sit in on a trial, but I never got called. He was super excited about it. He said it was a fascinating case and he couldn’t wait to spill the details once the trial concluded.
To this day, I’ve never been called on. I kinda hope it happens one day. I’m retired now and have nothing better to do.
was he chosen, from what ive gathered they usually reject people that are too excited for jury duty.
I wouldn’t mind doing it. I was actually summoned twice in a two year period, but my stupid ADHD ass neglected to show up because I was really bad at time management back then. They have not summoned me since :(.
Also jury nullification exists, which can be fun.
they are too smart for that, they will keep you in the jury as long as they want just for doing that, or choose you anyways. you have to come up with creative ways of"biases". thats what some of the people did when i sat on a jury in the stands did. they were overexaggerating thier biases, and creating “Stories”
Fartmaxxing.
I’ve only served on jury duty once, and it was kinda fucked up. Child abuse case, and we were all kinda on the fence leaning toward defendant was guilty, but the evidence presented was just absolute dogshit. Lots of reasonable doubts.
Found the dude not guilty on the premise that we’d rather let a guilty piece of shit off the hook than risk convicting someone who’s innocent, but it felt real fuckin icky to give that verdict over what was most likely just a lazy investigation by the cops.
Hope the kid turned out okay… must have absolutely zero faith in the legal system because of that.
You wouldn’t believe the amount of cases we shelve because cops are incompetent. Or maybe you will if you know anything about cops.
A lot of true crime stories start with “the cops did nothing for the first 2 weeks” or “a lot of evidence went missing and the lead detective got busy” or "they said it was just a runaway case until a body showed up. Cops are dumb as dog shit and care only about protecting and serving themselves. Sure there are some good cops but not enough.
i remember seeing one youtube, where a cousin/friend was suspected of murder, but the cops dint question him or did anything. many people in the comments said the cop was likely related so they ended the INVESTIGATIon of the killing.
and LAZY, they wont bother with small petty crimes.
Though it’s important to remember that modern juries expect CSI-level investigations from the cops, where you can simply “enhance” a photo until the suspect is easily identifiable and all criminals coat the crime scene in semen prior to fleeing, so if there’s no clear footage or DNA evidence, a lot of people think that must mean the cops are incompetent.
CSI show exaggerates those things dont really happen in real life at all, they dont have fancy way of detecting blood, footprints, fingerprints, or some microscopic evidence. also fingerprints have been shown to be extremely unreliable as of the latest research.
You did the right thing. It’s also important that cops and prosecutors do their job and stop relying on horrible accusations to be enough to convict anyone they want.
We’re close enough to the French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror as it is. I still think Al Franken really didn’t do anything seriously wrong.
As one of those kids, he’ll probably turn out okay. As a juror, it’s better to let a piece of shit go free than make an innocent person rot in jail.
When the kid grows up I would almost guarantee that he would make the same decision.
it’s better to let a piece of shit go free than make an innocent person rot in jail.
In both cases the piece of shit goes free. Which is somehow really hard for people to understand.
I don’t remember the name, but some lawyer on YouTube explained that exactly the problem you all had, is why he doesn’t struggle defending someone who is “obviously” guilty.
You can’t really know that right of the bat. You need at least some good evidence. Basically he is making sure that all the other people do their job correctly.
Sorry you had to deal with that. It sounds like you did the job properly, as shitty as that is.
This is genius, though personally I’d the eggs into egg salad and add plentiful fried onions.
here we didn’t get to bring our own meals. We weren’t even allowed to go home or keep our phones at all, nor get visitors
thats only if you get selected to be one of the 12 jurors, or alternates. we just sat in the seats waiting to be potentially called in the room.
oh ok. then that’s the same here
“OMG DELICIOUSSSSSS!!!”
Pretty easy to get out of, right? I’m sure no prosecutor would keep you if you stated plainly that you detest cops and would never trust a word that comes out of their snouts. I’ve also heard of people claiming to have biases against all races but their own just to get out of jury duty, although at least once, I’ve heard of a judge asking jurists who made such claims for proof of past statements along those lines or be slapped with contempt of court charges. Not sure proclaiming to be a racist is the direction I would go in, but to each their own, I suppose.
i was in last fall, and people had to come up with long drawn out explanation, convoluted biases. you cant just say it outright now.
Nah, you keep all that secret, manage to get on the jury anyway, then vote not guilty no matter what.
Unless it’s a civil case. Then you just automatically rule in favor of whichever party has less money.
Of course, always go for jury nullification (or be the lone dissenting vote if your state requires a unanimous jury) if you can, but this is for when you aren’t able to put in the time for whatever reason
I’m of the mind that if you’re being criminally tried, your likely guilty. Not always, obviously, but that’s enough to say to get me off any jury.
Jesus. No, man. That is not the right way to think. The consequences of finding an innocent person guilty are not just bad for that person, they are bad for the entire justice system, and the society that it serves.
I get that you are partly saying that to get off jury duty, but I just don’t want to let that slide. The courts are a vital barrier against corrupt cops, sure, but even upstanding honest cops could easily see someone as guilty because of their own unconscious biases or just the bad luck of circumstance making someone look guilty. It happens all the time.
My friend’s dad, now a retired judge, was the second lawyer who defended Lindy Chamberlain, and actually got her released from the bullshit charge of murder.
She was the famous case in Australia where her baby got eaten by a dingo. The cops thought she’d killed her baby, because she was “cold and unemotional” while being questioned. So they just did not look at the evidence properly, her first defence team sucked, and she got found guilty, even though there was tons of evidence that a dingo had indeed just come and grabbed her baby from her tent and dragged it off.
If the cops look at you and get a feeling you are guilty, they will act on that feeling. You need a court, with a process, to try and detach all that human gut instinct away from the actual facts, to find the truth of the matter.
Its true, the cops never do anything wrong, always just assume they did everything by the book.
It’s not like cops would ever lie to close the case or prosecutors would frame someone to get a conviction. Never in my life have I heard about something like that happening.
I’m not going to try and defend my take; i acknowledge it’s a shitty one, and I’ll own it. My original comment was poorly worded, though, when it comes to my stance. "I’m not trying to argue that this is a good or fair way to think. I’m just trying to clarify what I meant in my original comment.
My baseline is that they’re likely guilty, not that I blindly believe they’re guilty simply for being in a court room. I’m suspicious by nature, and the fact that you’re being tried (and that they have enough evidence to bring you to court) doesn’t lend itself to me believing your innocence. This clearly conflicts with the innocent until proven guilty concept, which makes me a poor juror to select.
I also take a lot of stock in evidence - which by its nature points to someone having done a given action. Not necessarily the person on trial, however. My point is that it’s easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative (i.e., innocence).
So it’s more of: I think you probably did this, and I believe what I can see and measure (and those things frequently point to guilty) than you’re guilty before you even take the stand.
If they have good evidence, like CCTV photo or something putting the accused far away from the crime, obviously my stance would change. What I was trying to [poorly] get at in my first comment is my suspicious nature. That pre-disposition makes a bad juror to select. That nature may not be fair, and it’s a character flaw, certainly.
