Skip to comments.New Wrinkle On Avoiding Jury Duty
Posted on 04/30/2009 9:54:52 AM PDT by DFG
There are probably better ways to avoid jury duty than the approach recently taken by a Montana man. After Erik Slye, 36, received a jury notice earlier this year, he filed a notarized affidavit seeking to be excused from serving on a District Court panel in Gallatin County. Slye's caustic affidavit, which he prepared with help from his wife Jennifer, can be found below.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesmokinggun.com ...
They obviously don’t want me on a jury because over the many years that I have been called (many times) I always show up. I have only been selected once.
I would love to serve on the jury!
I always show up for jury duty when summoned. And when it is time to fill out the form, I always write something like: "I am a strong believer in the doctrine of jury nullification, and will not hesitate to educate my fellow jurors on their responsibilities regarding same."
I've been called many times, but have never actually been selected to serve on one.
0 and his accomplices in the Kongress are taking care of that right now.
I wore my “Read my Lipstick” button prominently when I was waiting in the jury pool last September; I wasn’t picked, either!
Aye, arrrrrrrr, matey...
Think about it though, isn’t that why we had the O.J. verdict? Competent people didn’t get seated on the jury, and look what we got. It’s important that FReepers participate as much as possible, to avoid this very thing.
Unless you have rewritten the constitution, all people have a right to go to court.
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine
The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States
Jury nullification? That’s when the jury shows its moxie and tells the judge the law is wrong, and not the accused?
Which would prove this man's point that the justice system is "crap."
Hamilton County, Indiana to me as a juror last year and I am registered. Maybe it is just you area
I think this guy’s an idiot, and has an idiot for a wife/lawyer. The judge would have been well within his rights to fine and possiblly jail the guy for contempt for using language like that.
The last time I went in for jury duty, the defendant was accused of murdering his drug dealer in a deal gone bad. The defense attorney asked, row by row, “If someone is found guilty of murder, would you be unable to consider probation?” The first row, not a hand went up. The second row, not a hand went up except mine. Instantly. The sheep were all looking around, and suddenly people in both rows said, “Oh, I couldn’t consider it!” and raised theirs.
I was, as you might imagine, cut. If it was self-defense or an accident that would somehow warrant probation, I would not be ruling to convict! If someone is guilty of murder, then no. There is a price to pay beyond talking to your probation officer every month.
There was a flaming gay guy in the pool who made it completely obvious he was trying to be cut. He kept repeating, “My conception of God as a spiritual deity will not allow me to sit in judgment of my fellow man. My conception of God as a spiritual deity will not allow me to sit in judgment of my fellow man.” He then stood up and said, “I’m going to the bathroom now.” The judge said, “Sir, we will have a break in ten minutes. I need you to wait, because if you leave, I have to dismiss everybody.” “Well, do what you have to, but I’m going to the bathroom!” He didn’t return from the break.
The next time I got a jury notice, there was an article in the paper featuring quotes from several judges saying, “80% of those summoned don’t even bother to show up. There’s no penalty. We don’t have the manpower to enforce it. We’re thinking of giving out free coffee and having a free internet cafe to encourage people to show up.” I’m thinking that article was a good way to get closer to 90%.
I do, and found it interesting, and have described the experience on here in the past. Some of it was quite funny.
We had a case in Superior Court involving a street thug drug dealer. The County goes to extremes to make sure the jurors come from as far away as possible, so many had very long travels and were quite angry. The thug tried giving the jury Attitude Looks to intimidate them.
Very carefully, a little blued-haired old lady who doubtless resented the long bus ride caught his eye and very discretely drew her finger across her throat.
He decided to plead Guilty and we all went home that day.
But as in the OJ case, the Defense struggles in the selection process to make certain idiots and trash are on the jury. I think it's called "Peremtory Challenge".
Exactly. I would love to serve on a jury, but I would have to lie during voir dire, even if only by omission, in order to get seated.
Luckily, I have only been called for jury duty once. In spite of being a witness for the state in an attempted murder trial and being asked about it three times ... I had to wait all day for the judge to dismiss me.
It was a case involving two young thugs fighting with the police - apparently.(they were very hush-hush about details of the case) Their lawyer asked a very interesting old guy if he could find her clients innocent if she proved it beyond any reasonable doubt. He pointed at the two thugs slouching in their chairs, laughing and smiling, and answered “No. They wouldn’t be sitting there if they were totally innocent!”
He was dismissed instantly. The two thugs snapped to attention and everyone had a good laugh. It wasn’t worth ten bucks though.
I agree with you brother...I just got kick off a murder trial jury after they spent 30 minutes questioning me on how I determine facts...(I do R&D Failure Analysis on military systems)
They didn’t want someone who would objectively determine truth...they wanted someone who would accept subjective opinion as fact.
I went into this event thinking to myself “I’m going to do this to the letter and spirit of the law” I did...and I got kicked the hell out!
Yes, I realize the defense played hardball and eliminated as many people with functioning brains as they could. The prosecutors didn’t do us any favors either. This case was really screwed up.
BTW, your granny story was great. Love it.
If the crook had any brains, he could have told the court what he saw, and the juror would have been removed. The signal of a predetermined verdict, would be cause for removal IMO. It could also be cause for court action if the judge were vindictive. The juror promised to keep an open mind and make a determination based on the evidence.
I like what she did, so don’t think this is a slam at her. It showed spunk and the guy got just what he deserved for the implied threat transmitted through his glare.
I’m tough on criminals, but I think I could weigh the evidence and give a fair verdict.
Would you vote to convict someone of violating an unConsitutional law? Why do you need a Founder to tell you that Congress and the President can easily overstep their authority and that you may be the only one to prevent an injustice because of it?
Defense attorneys don’t want people who can weigh the evidence; they want people swayed by emotion. I have a background as an engineer in addition to being an FFL, so no jury duty for me.
They shouldn't have to look very hard, 70 million voted for Zero.
Of course they don’t want engineers. They want people who watch daytime TV.
I’d like to be on a jury. If charged, I’d like someone intelligent, informed, freedom-loving and inquisitive on my jury. Only serves right to return the favor, if preemptively.
Funny thing is, whenever I’ve been called it has been immediately after moving out of the county in question.
You too? I like to get a book by Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Rush or any other conseravtive writer. So far, that has me batting 100% for getting the boot after the first round.
So you don’t believe in the jury system!
So you don’t believe in the jury system!
Where did I say that?
Dang it... ;-)
On most mornings I watch the call-in program on C-Span and I shake my head that some of those callers vote and serve on juries. I trust you feel exceptionally comfortable having such people interpreting the constitution and highly complex statutes. I find it amusing that the same people who howl about judges making laws and are so comfortable with jury nullification.
Oh I don't know. If you do then obviously some one has to serve on juries. People who serve don't have to like it they do it because they realize some one has to. I would not say I'm proud to pay my taxes I try to avoid all that I legally can but I do pay them. I don't go out of my way to get on a jury but if I do I serve. Some one has to do both these things.
You must be a lot of fun to go out counting dog's balls wrinkles with.
I am among those who would NEVER convict somebody of violating an unConstitutional law infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
The system we have is certainly broken and has been for quite some time. But it will not be made better by having jurors willing to follow Congress, the President, or the trial court judge instead of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
You didn't answer my question: Would you vote to convict someone of violating an unConsitutional law?
Folks, as conservatives we need to perform our jury duty.
What if the accused concerns a second amendment issue?
What if the subject is an effort to take a persons home to give it to a developer?
What if the case is about an acorn worker registering fake voters?
Jury duty is where the law and the citizenship of “we the people” reach nexus.
The final decision is not left to lawyers or judges. It is left to the citizens. The only way around that is for the parties to select to settle or select a judge trial.
I am simplifying.
However, jury duty is just as valuable as voting. (well voting outside of chicago)
What the man wrote was no cruder than what you hear on prime time commercial TV every night.
The Jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay , 1st Chief Justice USSC 1789 “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” . Samuel Chase, USSC, 1796 “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, USSC 1902 “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, USSC 1941 “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of it’s prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge.” . US v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)
“It is left, therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty.”
You do realize we have to pay that!
I have picked and been on juries. Each case is different.
You just never know what the lawyers are looking for OR if their “freebie” challenges will be used up before they get to you. The prosecutor may want a white male (despite race not being allowed) and the defense attorney may have used up their preemptions.
In a civil case, one lawyer may want someone who owned his own business or somebody who would be sympathetic to a charge of reverse racism.
Ummmmmmm. You sure sound like one. It may have been crude, but I don't think most people are going to want to be hauled down to court, so I dont think this kind of thing will become a trend, if thats what youre worrying about.
Should I ever be in need of a jury, I would prefer that it not be composed of libtards.
Accordingly I do nothing, when summoned, to dissuade lawyers from seating me on the panel.
I've been summoned twice and served twice. I'd gladly do it again.
I’ve been called at least 6x in life - always served...never seated. The attorneys typically prefer the less educated and experienced.
1) I agree with you that juries are grotesquely underpaid.
2) When I had a severe schedule conflict with a jury summons, I had no trouble at all getting it delayed; the bureaucrat was quite cooperative in finding an alternative date that fit my schedule. I’ll note that I was polite and prompt in addressing the matter. Common decency goes a long way in preventing pointless conflict.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.