if you where forced to be in a jury what type of case would you want mostly?
143430
Having served on a murder jury already, I would choose to be on a case where there's a parking dispute or someone didn't pay their rent. Murder is hard. If you have the power to send someone to death, it is not as fun as it might seem.
1009752
None of us has time! but... it is your civic duty to participate now and again!  There are specific criteria that will relieve you of jury duty, but you still need to show up and allow the judge to review your petition/request and dismiss you legally.  As far as trying to act like a @#$ a..hole in the courtroom and prejudice your responses, be careful-you can be held in contempt and perjury in a courtroom is very expensive!!
105843
depends on your judge
154798
If you don't have a jury the verdict is up to the judge, and the judge only.  If you have a jury, you have a more diverse group of people deciding your fate.  Some see it as more of an oppertuinity for a guilty or innocent verdict depending on the case.
1133439
State and federal statutory laws or rules of procedure.\n\nIn a criminal case, federal law and most states' laws provide for a 12-member jury.  The Supreme Court, however, has held that a state could provide that you can be convicted by a vote of 9 out of 12 jurors; this is not unconstitutional.  (Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) 406 U.S. 356, 359 [92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152].)  It has also held that a state could provide that you can be convicted by a vote of 6 out of 6 jurors.  (Williams v. Florida (1970) 399 U.S. 78 [90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446].)\n\nIt follows that a jury as small as six must be okay in a civil case.  Accordingly, in a federal civil case, you may have as few as six jurors.  Some states have likewise set a minimum somewhere below 12, or have allowed nonunanimous verdicts (e.g., in California, you get 12 jurors, but you can win by a 9-to-3 vote).
532146
Obstruction of justice.  It depends on the situation.
654530
Fully Informed Jury Association. Their mission is to inform jurors of their rights and responsibilities if they are called for duty. \n\nIf you are called for Jury Duty:\n\nDon't worry! Be happy! Look at jury service as an opportunity to "do good" for yourself and others. It's your chance to help the justice system deliver justice, which is absolutely essential to a free society.\n\nAlso, you can do more "political good" as a juror than in practically any other way as a citizen: your vote on the verdict is also a measure of public opinion on the law itself--an opinion which our lawmakers are likely to take seriously. Short of being elected to office yourself, you may never otherwise have a more powerful impact on the rules we live by than you will as a trial juror.\n\nHowever, unless you are fully informed of your powers as a juror, you may be manipulated by the less powerful players in the courtroom into delivering the verdict they want, instead of what justice would require. That is why this was written--to give you information that you're not likely to receive from the attorneys, or even from the judge.\n\nJustice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so here are some "words to the wise" about how to make it through voir dire, the jury selection process: You may feel that answering some of the questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If you refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving! So, from voir dire to verdict, let your conscience be your guide.\n\nNothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct" the jury at all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law, but you may also do your own thinking. Keep in mind that no juror's oath is enforceable, and that you may regard all "instructions" as advice.\n\nUnderstanding the full context in which an illegal act was committed is essential to deciding whether the defendant acted rightly or wrongly. Strict application of the law may produce a guilty verdict, but what about justice? If the jurors agree that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused did act as charged, then "context becomes everything" in reaching a verdict you can live with. Credit or blame for the verdict will go to you, so be sure to ask the judge how you can pose questions to witnesses, so that you can learn the complete context, should the lawyers fail to bring it out. \n\nWhen they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being applied for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled out as "an example" in order to demonstrate government muscle? Were the defendant's constitutional rights violated during the arrest? Much of today's "crime wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that a verdict of guilty would give the government too much power, or help keep a bad law alive, just remember that you can refuse to apply any law that violates your conscience.\n\nProsecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the defendant "must be guilty of something". But one of the great mistakes a jury can make is to betray both truth and conscience by compromising. If you believe the defendant is not guilty of anything, then vote "not guilty" on all counts.\n\nYou can't be punished for vo
1016093
Are you the defendant?  If you have 4 criminal cases going against you at the same time, I think it's time someone locked your ass up!!!
939286
It really depends on the severity of the case, your criminal history, and what state or locale you are in.
137000
You may motion the judge to do that.  It will be up to the judge on the case.
550082
Depends on what type of murder you want to talk about.
156267
You can author your own legal loop-holes. We all live our lives with "good faith" intentions.\n No one wants to spend time in a courtroom.
834672
If your in a court that has a high conviction rate if it goes to jury trial and the state evidence against you is enough to prove it was you then I would get a lawyer and possible get a reduced charge to pled guilty to before I just plead Guilty. If you plead guilty and goto jail APPEAL right away they might stay the charges and you wont serve until you loose the APPEAL. Get a cheap lawyer who doesnt have alot of cases to defend that is familar with the court in which your being charged, they can talk to the judge and prosocution to try and work something out so you dont serve time.
1054740
I suppose if you're going to find anyone here to agree with you wholeheartedly, it would be someone in my line of work.\n\nBut I don't think I can.\n\nCriminals, worthless as they are, are still present in this country.  As such, they are entitled to all the same protections and privileges you and I are by virtue of being present in this country.\n\nThe issue is that they use those protections far more often than you and I do, because they're out doing the very things you've talked about, where you and I aren't.\n\nYou and I have the right to take legal action against someone who causes us harm, either directly or indirectly.  Whether or not what we're doing at the time was legal or had merit is an issue to be weighed by a judge or jury.  If you or I broke into someone's house, got trapped in a garage and had to eat dog food, a judge or jury would decide what we were due, just as a judge or jury would decide what we were due if we were walking down the street and got hit by a drunk driver.\n\nI don't think it would be fair to tell people that just because of what they were doing, they're not entitled to anything because of the bad thing that happened to them.  If it were, prostitutes (regardless of how you feel about them), could not file criminal charges against someone who beat them, raped them, or killed them.  Using the logic you might want to apply to these kinds of situations, the prostitute was breaking the law (same as the burglar), so she shouldn't be afforded any legal protections (same as the burglar).  \n\nThe law is very dynamic....what might be considered illegal today, under a certain set of circumstances, might not be considered illegal tomorrow, under a slightly different set of circumstances.  Civil judges and juries have enough to decide about a case like you're talking about without having to also decide if what the plaintiff was doing at the time was a violation of criminal law as well (after all, that's why we have criminal courts).  What the plaintiff was doing at the time of the "injury" is certainly relevant and I'm fairly sure a judge or jury is allowed to consider it in some manner, but to tell people they can't sue someone just because what they were doing might have been against the law, or because we as a society don't like what they were doing, doesn't seem to be a good idea.\n\nLook - you're absolutely right when it comes to criminals taking advantage of the law in some cases.  But those cases, I suspect, are few and far between (but like anything else, they make the news because they are spectacular), and I'm certain they are the exception, not the rule.  And of course, we don't know what the criminal plaintiff has received as compensation... could be a judge or jury decided that one dollar was enough in some of these cases.  \n\nBut...no matter the awards, I think it's important to recognize that criminals don't, "have so many rights"...they have the same rights as law-abiding citizens do, and that's probably how it should be (but I'll repeat: they use them WAY more than the rest of us do).  Let the judge or the jury decide what someone's case is worth, don't just say they don't have a case because we don't like what they were doing at the time.
603718
Every state has it's own rules.  I've served on juries in TX and MO.  Neither paid very much, certainly a fraction of my regular pay.\n\nMy company allowed me to choose if I wanted to keep the jury pay or turn it over to them.  If I turned it over to the company I would be paid my regular salary regardless of the length of the trial.  If I kept it, I would be put on vacation until my vacation pay ran out and then on unpaid leave of absense for the remainder of the time.  As the jury pay was only about 10% of my regular salary, I signed the check over to the company.\n\nMost states have laws that will protect your job if you are serving on a jury.  It's generally left up to the employer as to how to handle the pay issue.  Many larger companies are like mine, but not all of my fellow jurors were so lucky.  As they say, Freedom isn't Free!
168813
Broad term, be more specific to the case
240859
Depends on the job whether or not you get paid for jury duty period.  If others in your company do I would think you would