recogitare.com

Do other countries have jury duty?

I just reported for jury duty on Monday. I'll explain how we do things in hte US, or at least in Michigan, but I think it's similar all across the country. I'm wondering if other countries do similar things, or if this is just an American thing.

First, you get a letter in the mail telling you to report for jury duty on a particular day.

The night before, you are supposed to call, and an automated system will tell you to report, or will inform you that you don't have to report. I have received three such summons in my life. In each of the first two summons, the automated system told me not to come in. This time, it said I should report at 8:30 am.

You go to the courthouse, where there's a jurors' wating room. I would guess there were about 100 people in the room. They explain what will happen. At some point, a group of 40 randomly selected jurors are called from the room, and led to a courtroom. 14 randomly selected people from that group of 40 are selected, and they are told to take a seat in the jury box. These are potential jurors. Then, jury selection begins. The prosecutiona and defense attorneys start asking questions about what people do for a living, some of their history, and miscellaneous questions about whether they could be fair. I was not among the 14. After answering a bunch of questions, the attorneys can ask to dismiss some jurors "for cause", and some "peremptory challenges". i.e. no cause is required. The attorneys can just throw people out because they don't like someone on the jury, and they don't have to give a reason. If one of the jurors is dismissed, they go back to the waiting room, and another from the pool of 40 are called to the jury box.

In our case, the defendant was a homeless black woman accused of resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. I think four people were dismissed with peremptory challenges. One was dismissed for cause after he said he had a lot of friends who were police officers, and he said that he could not honestly say that he could give a fair and unbiased judgement on someone accused of assaulting a police officer. I was never called to the jury box to answer questions. The 14 they decided on, 12 jurors and 2 alternates, were left in the room. The rest of us went back to the waiting room.

Not too long after, a group of about 20, including me, were summoned into the hallway, and we were told we were done, and could go home. I think I can expect a check for 15 dollars plus a mileage reimbursement for my half day of service. I have heard of people having to go in every day for a week for this process, and never getting on a jury, but they have to go in until they are dismissed. In my case, I was dismissed just before noon.

One thing that struck me is that among the pool of 40 that went to the courtroom, two were black. Afterwards, I looked it up and the population of the county was 15% black. I wondered what was up with those numbers.

I've been called for jury duty twice. In the first instant I was selected for the jury, in the second I was not. I was happy to perform my civic duty in this way.

In Australia there is no voir dire. Jurors are not cross-examined. When your name is called, each of the lawyers has the opportunity to dismiss you, which they will do without talking to you at all - peremptorally, I guess. If they do not, you are permitted to make a case why you should not serve. Usually only very clear cases are exempted - carers, the self-employed, other people who could demonstrate a real loss of income. As I was working for the Public Service at the time, I got paid leave.

My first case was a case of domestic violence and resisting arrest. The judge asked for a volunteer to be the foreman, and nobody else came forward, so I did. At one point the jury was dismissed from the room so that the lawyers and judge could discuss a fine point of law - in this case it was determined that it is legal to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest. When the case resumed, we determined that the arrest was unlawful, but that the defendant had used unreasonable force to resist it. I stood up and delivered our verdict - two not guiltys and one guilty.

After this the jury was retained for a second case. However, on the second day it was determined that the jury had become compromised and we were dismissed. It turned out that the defendant was known to one of the jurors, who only realised this once the case had already begun. That juror came forward and it was decided to dismiss and re-form the jury. Pity - I had wanted to know where the defendant had stashed the gun. Also, this case was memorable for the fact that someone had to explain to the judge what a "car bra" is.

I was kind of looking forward to being on the jury this time, because I received the summons literally on the day after my last day of work, ever. I wasn't going to lose any money off of it. You occaisonally hear horror stories of people in America being on juries for months at a time, and they are self employed or their employers don't pay them for jury duty.

In this case, I wanted to hear what happened in the case. I know that whenever I hear "resisting arrest" and no other crime, and I suspect, similar to what happened in your case, I would have been looking for a reason to say that the police had issued an unlawful order, so she didn't have to comply. However, I would have gone by the letter of the law, regardless. I just think I would have been trying to find some way to interpret the letter in favor of the defendant. When I see a woman who weighs about 90 pounds accused of assaulting a pair of large men (I saw two cops waiting outside the courtroom, I suspect they were the "victims") I know where my sympathies would lie. However, I do think the law comes first so I would have found guilty if she really did violate the law. The law, in all its majesty, protects young men from assault by middle aged women half their size.

I was hoping I could find a transcript of the trial. A lot of documents were available online, but not a court transcript, so I'm not sure if I could get one, or how.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 5:40 pmI was kind of looking forward to being on the jury this time, because I received the summons literally on the day after my last day of work, ever. I wasn't going to lose any money off of it. You occaisonally hear horror stories of people in America being on juries for months at a time, and they are self employed or their employers don't pay them for jury duty.

Yeah, that's probably the most common reason for someone being exempted here. That or medical issues.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 2:46 am Do other countries have jury duty?

NZ is much the same, as is UK - and Aussie, as Arth notes.

Thank christ we're largely doing away with them here and having judge-only trials in most cases.

Juries are made up of retirees, public servants and bank workers. They have a heavy bias to white male members and the number of insane results tells me they're not fit for purpose.