In Calif., not known for being an inexpensive place to live, the compensation to the juror is $15/day, which may barely cover the cost of parking if one drives to the downtown courthouse.</p>
<p>
The reality is that it’s a bigger sacrifice for some people than for others. In cnp55’s case it’s a big sacrifice. In my case it’s less of a sacrifice since my company will pay me for the duty up to a fixed time (and the courts usually accommodate that time) and my company’s big enough to absorb the cost much more readily than a small business, and it’s even less of a financial sacrifice for many other people - retired people, homemakers who aren’t caring for kids, unemployed for any reason, college students on summer break who aren’t working, etc.</p>
<p>Most courts already make some accommodations and even at that still manage to have far more people report to jury duty than are actually needed and in some cases, as posted by some on this thread, people have either never been called or have been called only a few times in 30 years. Given this large pool of people it’s not unreasonable to accommodate small business owners, and IMO all businesses, by not requiring them to pay their employees for something like jury duty. California doesn’t force it and neither should Connecticut. People will still get to have the jury of their peers and the system stay intact.</p>
<p>It’s a big deal for me too. I have my own business and I work on commission. If I don’t work, no money is made. I cannot hire anyone to do my job. I have never been chosen to be on a jury, probably because my job involves having doing business with pretty much every attorney in town. If I am chosen for a long trial, however, I will lose money and it could be very significant money. If I were to be called to be on a jury like the Casey Anthony trial, it could literally be the end of my business. I always put on my form that it would be a hardship to be on a long trial but I have no idea if they would pay attention to that or not.</p>
<p>^^ At the jury pools I’ve been called for I think they’d generally excuse someone like you who’d clearly have a loss of income if you had to serve. This is based on what the admins stated to the jury pool and me overhearing the people requesting to be excused. And again, realistically, there are still plenty of people left in the pool after the people who’d suffer financial loss are excused so it’s a reasonable compromise.</p>
<p>I have found my county to be very amenable to scheduling jury duty for a convenient time. I had a couple of family emergencies that caused me to ask for postponements. Finally, they told me to tell them when I could serve. I was able to do it between Thanksgiving and Christmas, when my business is slow.</p>
<p>Can’t you get the timing changed? Here in NY, the courts seem sympathetic to people in your situation who ask to serve at a particular time. I always ask for the last 2 weeks of August or the week between Christmas and New Year’s. Both of these are times when most people don’t want to serve–particularly Christmas. They are also times when work is usually slow for me. </p>
<p>I don’t get “assigned” those times. I ask for a postponement and say that I’ll take those times. So far, it’s worked. </p>
<p>So, if I were you, I’d stop by the courthouse and explain the situation. Don’t try to get out of it–just say that having the two of you do it back to back is too tough. Maybe you can get a postponement.</p>
<p>That last week of the year is also probably the time when judges and lawyers are most likely to be on vacation. So it may be less likely that there will be a trial then for jurors to be chosen for.</p>
<p>Also in CA. I’ve only been called once, and ended up sitting on the jury. It was fascinating.</p>
<p>Re the story of the jury who deliberated for 18 minutes: Our judge cautioned us several times against taking a vote at the beginning of deliberations. The conversation in the jury room, based on evidence in the courtroom, is supposed to be an integral part of the decision process. Once people are on record, it’s harder for them to be persuaded by other jurors to see it differently. </p>
<p>After the verdict was read and we were dismissed, we had a chance to talk to the attorneys. We asked them what they were looking for in jury selection, and both said the same thing: After dismissing jurors who had obvious bias, they were just looking for people who seemed like they would be open to listening to their arguments.</p>
<p>I don’t know how widespread this is, but Sacramento County seems to make an effort to make jury service as un-burdensome as possible. We have a one-day, one-trial system. You report on Day 1. If by the end of the day, you’re not seated on a jury, or involved in jury selection, your service is complete. If you are seated, your service is complete when that trial is finished, no matter how short the trial is. OTOH, it is VERY difficult to be excused from appearing, and I’m sure that judges can see right through people who deliberately say outrageous things in hopes of being dismissed.</p>