Have you ever served on a jury?
599417
It can be interesting, but most importantly it's \nyour civic duty. I'm glad to see some people aren't \ndeathly afraid of it.
148252
Ive never been on jury duty but from what i've heard it involves total concentration on the case presented before you. That means you are away from family, friends, tv, radio, even religion (your bible)...basically anything from the outside world that can influence your decision. Your role is to hear all the evidence brought by both sides of the law and give a totally unbiased opinion. Being a sequestered juror is a very important thing! It will probably be very hard at first, but hopefully by the end u will feel fulfilled as a citizen. Think about it this way, if your life/death hung on jurors, wouldn't you want them to care and thier decision to be fair? Good luck!
579016
Every six months the Clerk of Court will send out a minimum of 600 names informing citizens that they have been selected for Jury Duty for a 6 month period.  When a case comes up in the courts that a jury is needed, the Clerk of Courts will send out a number of letters... for a very well publicized murder case, 120 jurors may be called to report to the Court House for duty... and of those 120 jurors the attorneys have the right to challenge each and every juror.  For Civil cases there may only be 60 or 30 jurors called to report to the Court House for a Civil Trial.  \n\nThere are two sizes of juries...  for most trial cases there is a 12 person jury... and some clients may opt to have a 6 person jury... or they may opt to have the Judge render the verdict...  But yes, for a Criminal trial there is a large number of jurors called to report for jury duty.
151339
to make a difference...and to get called in for jury duty! Ha!
970233
No. There's a reason that you have to be an adult to serve on a jury. Teens, in general, don't possess the rational and mature thought necessary to make objective decisions based on the evidence, and tend to go more with what their emotions are telling them, which cannot be done in a court case. \n\nMore life experience and maturity is required when making decisions that will affect someones entire life.
1092547
I have been there. My ex-wife accused me of abuse..the part she didn't tell was she had a boy friend and she wanted lot's of $$$$.\nThank God she didn't win..it was thrown out of court..I wish I had it on video tape. She became confused in her story. I could have got some very serious time in jail. I could have sued the hell out of her..but I let it go
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
282180
Sure have and it wasn't the best experience in my life I can tell you that. Was being charged with two felonies. Could have faced 20 yrs in prison. Both charges were dropped though. \nA shout out to all the girls in Unit M, county jail........J/K.
1076193
My God, youre an idiot. Trial by Jury means that you are not at the mercy of an impersonal judicial system, you have 12 your peers deciding on your fate. It's an imperfect system but the best one available to us. You shoudl treat your civic privilidges as a sacred duty, one many soldiers have died for to provide to you.\n\n Juries are selected form the roles of registered voters. Just dont vote anymore. With your lack of intelligence you shouldnt be allowed to vote anyway.\nWith your attitude, I sincerely hope you are mistakenly arrested someday and shot even though you did nothing wrong.
549632
yes.im from ok too. though i havent served jury duty.
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!
406520
every time a new wittiness is called switch seats with another juror...\n\nsit with your back to the judge for an hour...\n\nsit in the audience for a day to see how the court room looks from another prospective..\n\norder pizza and have it delivered an hour after the trial starts...\n\ntake a cell phone call...\n\ntake a walkie-talkie call...\n\nhit on the defense attorney or paralegals...\n\npretend you have torrents...\n\nthe next day pretend you have amnesia...\n\neat asparagus, kimchee, wings, and beer for dinner so \n\neveryone can enjoy the a*s flute....\n\nshow up with a cooler of beer and a portable grill...(grillin n chillin)..\n\nread a news paper while the trial is going on...\n\nkeep asking the judge, witnesses, and attorneys questions...\n\nlisten to your Ipod...\n\nwatch a movie...\n\nevery time an attorney asks a question jump to your feet and shout 'AMEN!' and 'CAN I GET A WITNESS!!' switch attorneys every day...\n\ntell the judge you have a drug habit and need to be paid three times more than the other jurors...\n\nkeep giving the bailiff notes for everyone in the court telling them neat things like, their car just got towed, their house is on fire, they have just been kidnapped, there is a bomb in the building(works best for the Muslim trials), there is a stain on their pants, there is something in their teeth...
1041361
I arrested this girl once that actually primped in the mirror before they took her mugshot.  Lots of eyes rolling in the jail that night.  ha ha\n\nOf course, all the way there she asked, "why are you doing this to me?"  Like I make her decisions.  Kids these days... no responsibility.
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
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
1102693
Technically, you can be sued for anything, valid or not.  Legally, I think there's not a jury in the land that would hold you accountable.
642050
At this point, I find it hard to believe the judge would toss the jury and start over.  \n\nThat being said, some defendants and defense attorneys feel that certain crimes are better judged by a judge rather than a jury as the judge is more like to follow the law rather than allow his emotions to rule over his logic.  An example is one accused of a sex crime (especially against a child).  Juries have often disregarded exculpatory evidence in such cases.