<p>I don’t have any jury duty experience yet and had a question about jury selection that I thought I’d ask on here (especially in light of the Casey Anthony Trial). </p>
<p>Question: In the selection of a jury, are the potential jurors able to find out the topic of the trial beforebeing actually chosen as a juror by the lawyers interviewing them during jury selection? </p>
<p>And if the answer is yes, wouldn’t this make it rather easy for someone assigned to report to jury duty to make up adverse opinions on the spot, in an attempt to be dismissed by the lawyer(s)?</p>
<p>This is how jury selection works (at least in CA). You show up at the courthouse and sit in a huge room with lots of other potential jurors. As cases get ready to choose juries, a certain number of jurors in the auditorium are told to go to Courtroom X.</p>
<p>Only one time did I make it to Courtroom X. Most of the time, there are more potential jurors in the big auditorium than are needed to staff the jury trials starting that day. So the rest of us in the auditorium are dismissed to go home.</p>
<p>When you go up to Courtroom X, the judge will bring the whole pool of potential jurors into the courtroom and tell them about the case and introduce all of the plaintiffs, defendants and lawyers (the one I was on was a civil case). Then 18 people are called to sit in the chairs in the jury box area and are questioned by the attorneys to see if any bias can be detected.</p>
<p>So can someone make up adverse opinions on the spot in an attempt to be dismissed by the lawyers? Sure. In real life, though, it seemed that people answered honestly and completely.</p>
<p>Similar to the above, but on a smaller scale. When I had jury duty decades ago I was called for the pool of potential jurers for a case where someone was trying to get money for some accident. They already knew I was a physician and hadn’t eliminated me. They called on me and I was able to make my statement (from my seat with everyone else) about insurance companies big pockets that people try to get money from et al. I was not chosen. After that morning I said hello to a lawyer whose physician father I knew- if I had made that statement during the trial it may have caused a mistrial. So, I may have had an influence on the jurors chosen, I hope so.</p>
<p>Yes, you do know the case when you are sitting there. They first ask if anyone knows/is related to, etc the people involved in case that slipped by in the info they have on prospective jurors. If I had wanted to be on that case I would not have made my statement. I remember it was near the last of my eligibility and a trial may have gone over the time into our planned vacation…</p>
<p>I once served on a murder trial. We honestly did the best we could to understand what was presented. We asked a few questions of the judge as we deliberated. We were given very specific things to consider by the judge, almost a checklist of “Did you find ___”. We found the guy guilty.</p>
<p>A family member of the defendant shouted at me down the corridor as I left. If I had been able to hear the real version an innocent man would not be going to prison, or something like that. I stopped and stared and this person went on and on about what we were not allowed to hear, and everyone knew who’d really done it. At that point I turned and fled. If everyone knew who’d done it what didn’t anyone say so?</p>
<p>There is a lot wrong with our system of justice but there is a lot right too. We do the best we can and hope it’s right. I have lots of empathy for the jury.</p>
<p>I do, too. I have served on several juries. In each case, I have found that the jurors try extremely hard to follow the judge’s instructions regarding the law, the charges, and the evidence (or lack thereof). It is easy for the rest of us who are barraged with all the media reports during these big trials to find fault with the jury. </p>
<p>And yes, those who do not want to serve on a jury can certainly figure out what to say during the questioning of potential jurors in order to have themselves excused.</p>
<p>A few years ago, I was in the jury pool for a criminal case. We were not told the nature of the case, but from the questions that were asked during voir dire, the type of crime (robbery) and some of the factors that would come up during the trial (there seemed to have been some type of questionable action by a police officer, and someone was injured during the incident) became fairly evident.</p>
<p>One of the questions asked of the panel was “Have you ever been the victim of a crime?” I had to ask the judge whether or not I should say yes. Several years earlier, a car registered to my husband had been stolen while in my possession. The judge asked whether it was a carjacking or whether the car was stolen while I wasn’t in it. It was the latter. The judge then told me that my husband was the victim, not me, because it was his car, and that the correct answer to the question was no. </p>
<p>I thought that this exchange might lead to me being rejected for the jury by the prosecution. In fact, it led to me being rejected by the defense. Go figure.</p>
<p>I was called twice for jury duty, but dismissed both times without actually sitting on a jury. What I always wonder is this – are juries allowed to take notes? In movies and on TV, you see those 12 people sitting there, listening to a lot of information for hours – are they supposed to be able to keep it all straight from memory?</p>
<p>Actually class brings up a great point “are jurors allowed to take notes” it honestly depends on the state, as well as the judge. Most do allow the taking of notes, however there are those that do not.</p>
<p>If anyone is looking for an interesting career Scientific Jury Selection is the process where a person is paid to scientifically analyze the potential jurors so that your side can strike those who you believe will be pre disposed to not going your way. It is a fascinating subject, and a great paying career
.</p>
<p>Everyone always says that they will do this but I’ve been a prosecutor for close to eleven years now and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it happen. It’s one thing to joke in real-life about how you’ll brag about being a racist; it’s quite another thing to stand up in court in view of a judge and a bunch of strangers and say something that stupid. As someone said above, almost everyone will be honest and straightforward. People who are desperate to get off do sometimes make excuses but I can’t recall a single instance where someone tried to make up opinions on the spot to get out of jury duty. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Usually you can take notes, but even if you can’t, the judge will furnish the jurors with transcripts (or readings of transcripts) and any recordings that might be available, as well as copies of the government’s and the defense’s exhibits. No one expects the jury to memorize the entirety of three or four days worth of testimony. </p>
<p>If you do take notes, don’t let it consume all of your attention. Notes can be very helpful but, like in a college class, the focus should be more on comprehension of the material presented rather than a rote transcription of every sound anyone in the room makes. That’s what the stenographer is for, after all!</p>
<p>Good luck with your jury duty, and I hope it doesn’t go too badly!</p>
<p>I finally went in for the cattle call . They had Kuerig coffe makers and a sort of Barista to keep us busy until we were called . When I was finally called , I explained that I was going to Italy for my 25th anniversary ,and would not be there . I was called second to last of the 40 or so people waiting . The judge said " I did YOU favor keeping you here today ,so you wouldn’t have to do a shorter trial ! " I went back to wait . It was 1 o’ clock . A few minutes later we were all dismissed ,as other juries were selected already . Not too bad a day !</p>
<p>I’ve been on two jury selections but wasn’t chosen either time. In the first one it was a construction accident. I told them I was an architect, they told me to go away.</p>
<p>The second time it was for the Martha Stewart case. Interestingly, they never actually said that was what it was. I had to go into a huge room with 300+ people and fill out a 36 page form. There were general questions, but also very specific ones. For example, there were questions about whether I knew specific people (I think the guy she was accused of having gotten insider trading info from), but I didn’t recognize the name. By the time they started asking whether I’d ever read her magazine, or owned any of her line of stuff, I’d figured out whose trial it was. It would have been interesting, but I am glad I wasn’t picked since that was a fairly lengthy trial.</p>
<p>On the selection - in Ca, as ellemenope stated, a pool of 45-60 or so are brought into the courtroom and 13 or so (depending) are instructed to sit in the jury box. Those people will be the jury unless dismissed by the judge or lawyer. After this seating but before the lawyer questioning the judge explains the nature of the case. Some people with obvious conflicts (like if they know the defendant) are dismissed by the judge. When people are dismissed from the jury box everyone plays musical chairs and more people from that pool of 45-60 or so go take their place in the jury box.</p>
<p>
I don’t think it’s bias so much as whether or not the lawyer thinks the juror would be useful or not for their case including the ability of the lawyer to sway the juror. It seems that both lawyers want to have a juror who they can sway to their side of the case - i.e. I don’t think either of them are that keen on having a juror who thinks logically and critically (like an engineer for example). I’ve been surprised at some of the people who have been left in the jury box despite indicating clear biases while others, like me, are rejected out of hand perhaps because of their profession (engineer in my case) and less obvious demeanor such as body language towards the lawyer.</p>
<p>
I agree with the prosecutor above - a lot of people talk about doing this in hallway conversations but I don’t think very many actually do it once they’re in the courtroom facing the lawyers, judge, and just the actual environment of the courtroom. I know I wouldn’t make anything up to get out of the duty even if I want out of it. I certainly wouldn’t lie to achieve it.</p>
<p>It’s all an incredibly inefficient system biased in favor of the courts and lawyers with little consideration for the juror’s time. The last few times I’ve been called I calculated that one had only around an 18% chance of actually ending up on a jury of the ones called for duty. This will vary of course but it illustrates how inefficient the system is.</p>
<p>Also in CA. The last time I was called in it was actually very clear that some potential jurors were giving answers in an attempt to get thrown off the panel. One fellow in particular would raise his hand for every single question asked by the judge, and then give a long meandering discussion about the real meaning of each question. I was sitting right in back of him, and after the third hand-raising, I felt an almost uncontrollable urge to throttle him. </p>
<p>Me, I give honest pithy answers and I still get thrown off. :)</p>
<p>That’s not all bad, Slithey. I’ve served on a jury once (and am called again for the end of this month). I was surprised how incredibly boring court is. I also found being a juror a lot like what I remember of being an 8-year-old: any time they start to talk about something that might be really interesting, they send you out of the room!</p>
<p>I’m surprised to hear that getting thrown off for intentional comment is so rare. I saw someone dismissed after they said the defendant must have committed some crime or he wouldn’t have been arrested!</p>
<p>My son was just called for jury duty for the first time. He was told that they were selecting jurors for a 9 day + trial. They told him that he’d need to be available until the trial ended and that they are estimating 9 days, but it could go xyz days longer. Topic was not discussed. My son told the judge (lawyers from both sides seemed to be present as well) that he is a student and is currently employed for a summer job that pays by the hour. The judge held him for a few more hours in case he could serve on a one day trial, but it became too late in the day and he was dismissed. Judge dismissed him from needing to serve for the lengthy trial.</p>
<p>I have been called for possible jury service several times but never selected. I feel jury service is my duty as a citizen, so if I got selected I would do my best. In every case except one, I just waited around (or called in) but they didn’t need me.</p>
<p>In one case, however, the opposing lawyers followed a procedure for juror selection which I found somewhat disturbing and offensive. This was apparently a capital case, and a large number of potential jurors were called in.</p>
<p>In this case all the potential jurors were seated in a huge room. Questions were read aloud, and jurors were asked to raise their hand if the question applied. They asked things like, “Has anyone in your family ever been treated for drug abuse?” If you raised your hand, you were asked to describe the details in front of everyone else. Many questions were asked which were of a similar personal nature, with people having to detail their personal situations aloud. </p>
<p>I found this very insensitive, offensive and unnecessary. That’s the only time I encountered anything like that.</p>
I was on a jury at age 20 for a one-day trial, and twice since then I have gone for selection and not been chosen. </p>
<p>On one of those occasions, I was actually in the box, and they asked a number of questions and then asked if anyone had anything they thought might be important but that they wanted to tell the judge and lawyers in private. I did and was taken into another room with the whole cadre. After that I was dismissed. The other time, they had a group picked from the 30+ in the room before they got to me, so I didn’t have to be questioned, but I realized very quickly that I would be dismissed if they DID question me.</p>
<p>To your point skyhook, I think if one had something they rather not discuss in front of a whole room of people, they could ask to see the judge in private. I agree that asking in front of everyone could be a problem.</p>
<p>I’ve been called a couple of times, but never ended up serving. I’m an attorney, and usually but not always, attorneys get kicked off. (They aren’t automatically excluded in New York.)</p>
<p>The funniest experience though was my daughter’s, some years ago now. We’ve lived in the same building her whole life, but have moved apartments within it. The form just asked how long you’d lived at your present address, and she answered the # of years we’ve lived in our current apartment. </p>
<p>She gets called for the pool on a slip and fall case. The defendant is…our building. This is in New York!! What are the odds. She was young and the plaintiff was old. I guess the plaintiff’s lawyer thought young jurors would be good…</p>
<p>When asked if anyone knew any of the defendants, my daughter raised her hand. She said she lived in that building. The attorney asked how long she’d lived there. She said her whole life and he starts cross-examining her, saying the form says she’s only lived there X years. Is she aware of the consequences of perjury? Before she can answer, he then asks if she can avoid the spot where the accident occurred for a week. She says no. He says why not and again starts to cross-examine her. She explains that the spot is between our apartment building and the subway and she goes by it twice a day. To avoid doing that, she would have to walk in the dark at night on an unlighted path to go into the building and that’s just not going to happen. He starts to get mad at her and then realizes that the other jurors are not sympathizing with him–she’s a pretty, young woman and quite small and they don’t think it’s unreasonable that she says she’s not going to walk in the dark around the building to avoid the sidewalk right outside the front door. </p>
<p>But then he says, well, when is the last time you passed by that spot? She says, this morning, on the way to court. He asks if there’s anything wrong with the sidewalk. She says no. It’s fine. He then says when there’s snow though, it’s dangerous right. She can’t believe the guy is asking her this…but, she explains that, except when she’s been away at school, she’s walked on that sidewalk almost every day of her life, and the way it’s constructed, it NEVER gets icey. </p>
<p>Finally, plaintiff’s counsel dismisses my daughter from the panel.</p>