Have U ever been on a jury, if so how was it?
156828
yes.... long and boring...! yikes... hope you dont have to go through that. plus you have to be part of making a decision and if your not good on decision making then you'll find that you really hate it.
126882
That question is nearly impossible to answer for a number of reasons.  There may be things about you that make you a desirable juror or an undesireable juror.  And experiences differ so widely.\n\nI am an attorney in California and I am 37.  I have been summoned for to jury duty 4 times in state court, but I have never served on a jury.  I've never been summoned for federal court.  My wife is 38.  She has been summoned once for state and once for federal court.  She served on jury in a rape case.\n\nMy dad is 60 and he's served on one jury.  My mom is 58 and never served on a jury.  My sister is 36 and has never been summoned for jury duty.  Who knows how to explain such a wide variety of experiences and what implications that has for you?
367143
hey,\n\nout of personal experience, yes... and i LOVED it lol
575383
YES\n\nFirstly, I'm in Australia, so it's bound to be different.\n\nHaving said that, I could not BELIEVE how immature and racist some of the jurors were on the case I was selected for.  \n\nThey were asian.\n\nI believe that some of the jurors convicted them on that bias.\n\nFortunately for my consiounce = I believe they were guilty as charged.  \n\nBut there should be better screening when jury selection is made.
594869
I thought Id hate Jury Duty but I went for Grand Jury for a month & it was a great experience & they payed me well.It is an honor to be selected. It means that you have a good police record & are an outstanding citizen & at the end they reward you with a certificate to frame.
411765
Rules vary widely from area to area...but I would contact the jury duty people first chance to see if they can re-schedule you.
439838
I was sexually assaulted after my shift was over at a restaurant, by the owner, who was drunk.  A lot went on. I went to the police and reported it, and brought my clothes that I had worn that night.  It was a 3 hour humiliation session.  I was on tape and also written report.  The guy was brought in for questioning, denied everything and basically called me a liar.  The burden of proof was on me.  Since he hired a lawyer quickly, a pal of his who was a former mayor, I had no choice but to drop the case. Unfortunately, I think a lot of women do this. I couldn't put my kids and parents and husband through a long painful trial, and having no real evidence except my testimony.  What goes around comes around, I guess, and he'll get his one of these days.
920314
Yes I have.  Lots of fun.
1014150
If you are just trolling for a "yes" or "no", my answer is “NO”.  \n\nIf you want more, I have included a personal experience for you to read through.  It is lengthy but when you are asked to kill a man, most issues become more complex.\n\nI spent just over six (6) months of my life sitting on a First Degree with Special Circumstances Murder case.  At the time we submitted our verdict it was the longest jury trial in California history.  During that time I came to some conclusions.\n\nA jury evaluates the evidence put before them.  As a juror I cannot investigate, conduct experiments or do any research.  So if an attorney can get the facts introduced into evidence, they are a good attorney.  There are all sorts of maneuvers and gyrations performed outside of the juries hearing.  Some of those maneuvers establish what a jury will be allowed to hear and see about the case.  The better attorney is the one who can successfully argue to include their evidence while excluding their opponents.  And make no mistake they are opponents.  Our judicial system is an adversarial system.  This is the primary reason juries sometimes return verdicts that the rest of us don’t understand.  The general public watches a defendant “tried” in the press, a jury doesn’t have that luxury.  The rules of evidence are different in Superior Court than they are in news media.\n\nThe only reason attorneys are allowed in a court room at all is so the jury can put witnesses answers into some kind of context.  For example, if the answer is "YES", no one can glean any information from that answer unless they know that the question was "ARE YOU STUPID?".  Then and only then can you assign meaning to the answer.\n\nA jury represents the community.  It is not a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.  Even though, in a similar way, the prosecutor also represents the community.\n\nA jury can select what testimony it believes, disbelieves, and it can go so far as to believe part of a witnesses testimony and not believe the rest.  As a juror you may also assign different values to testimony.  We heard from two doctors.  One worked with the victim for hours, the other only minutes.  The longer duration doctor’s testimony weighed more heavily in my verdict than did the short duration doctor.\n\nDepending on the jury you sit on (criminal or civil) you must be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" or convinced by the "preponderance of the evidence" respectively.  Beyond a reasonable doubt sounds simple but if you have never searched your soul, you don't know what it means.  To me it means putting someone in a death chamber and being able to sleep with that decision.  It doesn’t mean he probably did it, he surely did, or he almost certainly did it.  The preponderance of the evidence is simply more than half.  At least that is my feeling at the moment.  I have never sat through a civil trial so I reserve the right to change my mind on this issue.  The Constitution states 'no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process'.  Beyond a reasonable doubt applies to life and liberty as well as property in the form of a fine.  The preponderance of the evidence applies to civil law, i.e. a monetary settlement.\n\nI jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence.  Their verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty",  Guilty is obvious, the prosecutor has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime he or she has been charged with.  Not guilty is not a finding of innocent, it is a finding of "not guilty".  It means the prosecutor has failed to prove beyond a reasonable that the defendant is guilty.  Some places and some people can have a finding of “factually innocent”, but I’m certain exactly how that works.  I would assume the defendant proved beyond a reasonably doubt that someone else did it.  Keep in mind though, t
721517
I have a couple of times. Once because my friend fainted and we couldent get him to wake up, once because my friend almost got shot by this psycho and once when I was like five years old becuase I thought it was fake. Random but yeah.
95476
i have never .. \nand my ex husband wasnt anything like you just described !!\npoor fella . i hope you find a good one next time
280245
1.  usually about $25.00 for the day\n2.  Usually one day, unless you get selected for a trial\n3.  if you are incapacitated or mentally ill or some handicaps \n4.  I think the mentally ill are automatically disqualified, mentally handicapped\n\nTry this website:  http://www.jud.state.ct.us/faq/jury.html
55861
The best is ask him of his trial outcomes of the past. Find out if he's a good trial lawyer. Note that a trial cost lots of money, see if you can't find a lawyer that could get u to cop a good plea. Remember...Justice isnt blind. The Jury has eyes. Also they dont have to prove w/ out a reasonable doubt that your guilty, 12 people just have to think you are. If they think you did it. You did it.
705719
i was at a concert and threw up on 10-12 people... \nvery embarrassing. the police escorted me out...\ni got so many looks.
508377
Grand jury is a big task, therefore work hard and read the following carefully:\n\nA jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law.\n\nIn most criminal justice systems which require a jury, panels are initially selected at random from the adult population of the district served by the court concerned. A person who is serving on (is a member of) a jury is known as a juror.\n\nThe requirements for a jury are fairly universal. The number of jurors must be a specified size (usually twelve or fifteen), and since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often some alternate jurors are nominated, who will also follow the trial (but do not take part in deciding the verdict), as a precaution in case a new juror is needed part way through the trial.\n\nServing on a jury is normally compulsory if a citizen is chosen (exceptions and exclusions vary between jurisdictions and are discussed below). Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other.\n\nThe jurors hear the cases presented by both the defense and prosecution, and in some jurisdictions a summing-up from the judge. They then retire as a group to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some countries their decision making process is private and may not be disclosed, in others it may be discussed but only after the trial has ended.\n\nIn common law countries such as the England and the United States, the role of the jury is the "finder of fact", while the Judge has the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. Occasionally, a jury may find the defendant "not guilty" even though he violated the law if the jury thinks that the law is invalid or unjust. This is commonly referred to as jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the Judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the Judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted.\n\nActual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.\n\nThe concept of a modern jury trial stems back to Magna Carta, which gave English nobles and freemen the right to be tried by a panel of their peers, rather than by summary judgment of the king or other official who often had the utter power to impose his own arbitrary judgment. The concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case. Many ancient cultures had similar concepts, notably ancient Judea whose panel of judges called the Sanhedrin served a similar purpose. The Athenians by 500 BCE had also invented the jury court, with votes by secret ballot. These courts were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing judicial review.\n\nSelection\nA common method for drafting jurors is to draw them at random from electoral rolls (known as allotment or sortition). The most common exclusions are for people whose job in some way precludes them (for instance, teachers, doctors, firefighters, people who themselves work in the criminal justice system), are caring for young children, have an interest in the case, are under the age of 18 years, or who have health problems or serious criminal records. In some jurisdictions in the United States, prior legal education or being a lawyer may also be a reason to
241113
OK, two true stories. \n\nI had to go to court with my son... he had a few kids threatening him so he took a weapon to school with him for protection. When I went to the court house, my friend went with me. She is a single, attractive woman. As we were waiting in the courtroom for the judge to come in, she kept looking around like she was hunting for something. I asked, "Beth, what are you looking for?" She said, "I am checking out the guys, there are some really good looking guys here!" I replied, "Beth, you are in a CRIMINAL court room. WHY whould you be looking for guys HERE???" \n\nThe other story...\n\nI was 8 months pregnant, big as a VW Bug!\nI was going to the pharmacy to get a prescription filled. My neighbor thought she was pregnant so she asked me to pick up a pregnancy test for her since I was going anyway. I got to the pharmacy and put my prescription in. Then I asked the pharmacist, "Which Pregnancy test would be the best one to get for accuracy?" The pharmacist looked at my huge belly and said, "You mean you don't KNOW???" I still giggle at the incredibility on his face and my friends baby girl will be 20 in December!
124222
Has this actually happened to you?