I got excused from jury duty today!

[Brigid]

They didn't want me!

Was it because I know that "reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt" and what an "accomplice" is? Or was it because I mentioned MSNBC on my questionnaire when asked what news sources I watch or read regularly? Or do they not want paralegal students on juries?

[brooklynite]

1. My guess is the paralegal student angle sunk you...

My wife's a ;awyer and she's never been on a jury.

[COLGATE4]

6. I'm a lawyer and have served on a jury.

Not necessarily excluded from jury pools, at least in Michigan.

[TlalocW]

2. Or is it because

you yelled, "It's 2 in the afternoon! What the hell are you still doing in your bathrobe?" at the judge?

TlalocW

[Brigid]

11. Nope.

[DawgHouse]

23. <snort!> nt

[Lint Head]

3. You didn't show up naked did you?

[Brigid]

10. Umm . . .

No.

[helpmetohelpyou]

4. Too bad , they need people on juries who can think for them selves

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. They don't generally want smart people, and you're smart.

As a paralegal student, you know what's going on, and they don't want that. They want a "tabula rasa" as a juror, someone they can mold to see things their way.

[COLGATE4]

7. I think it's more probable because (s)he is a

student. The lawyers trying the case might not want a law (or paralegal) student on the jury, fearing that there's a risk that (s)he might convey imprecise or inaccurate information about legal issues to other jury members.

[AngryAmish]

12. You want someone who agrees with you already.

It is virtually impossible to change someone's mind. You want those people who seem like they will agree with you om the jury and to get people who will not agree with you to disqualify themselves. If they wont disqualify tehselves then you use a premptory challenge.

[Brigid]

15. They must allow a lot of peremptory challenges in this state.

They were going through prospective jurors like water.

[AngryAmish]

17. It depends.

Every trial is different.

[elleng]

8. Could be the paralegal thing,

they don't want one juror whom others may think of as 'expert,' but I, an attorney, did serve on a jury, Federal court, very interesting, and the chair selected by others was a legal secretary (I think.)

AND even tho we all wanted to find the guy guilty, we concluded the govt failed to make its case against the creep who took advantage of funds provided for injuries after 9/11.

[Brigid]

13. Expert? Not me.

I haven't even taken criminal law yet, and watching lots of "Law & Order" most definitely does NOT count.

[elleng]

19. Not relevant,

in the selection process.

[AngryAmish]

16. I once had 2 judges in one venire!

We went back with the judge and decided they would have undue influence and excuse for cause. I would have kept them but decided not to poison the trial judge.

[elleng]

21. Good idea!

[etherealtruth]

9. Wooo hoooo

You did your duty and showed up .... As a para legal it may have been interesting to actually serve, though

[CTyankee]

14. I reluctantly opted out due to my age (over 72). My caregiver responsibilities preclude it.

My state gives me the option. Earlier I had eagerly tried to serve but was rejected (my son is a prosecutor and the defense challenged me, even tho my son is a very liberal guy, but of course they don't know that). I had also worked for very liberal causes.

[KamaAina]

18. Did you click the "I am not able to serve at this time" link?

Or did you get the "We're sorry, that jury is already full" message?

[Brigid]

22. Last time I got DU jury duty . . .

I did get the "jury is full" message.

[Paper Roses]

20. I have been excused from Jury duty twice. Here's why!

I've been called many times and have waited all day to be called from the pool and brought to the hall where the judge asks general questions of the potential jurors.
Many times, after spending about six hours waiting and finally being sent home, I was finally called to the main hall with the pool.

The following happened twice. The general audience was asked questions about many things, one of them was " would you take the word of the police over that of the defendant?"
The last time was 2 years ago. The same thing happened about 5 years ago.

We were asked to raise hands if we said 'yes' to this statement, but not to speak out loud. Of the--maybe 50 people in the room--, I was one of two people who were excused. Don't know what happened after I left thew hall.

After events of the last year or so, I wonder what I would do if called again and asked this same question.

BTW, At 72, I doubt I will be called again but this question has come to mind a lot as of late.