On May 25, 9:04 am, Brian <z...@cbgb.net> wrote:
> I have been summoned for jury duty (Clark County, NV) , and I'm not
> sure how to handle it. I feel a moral compulsion and a genuine desire
> to serve, but I also feel morally obligated to be honest with myself
> that I'm not really cut out for it. I think the bottom line is that I
> wouldn't want someone like me in the jury box if I were on trial.
Then you need to tell that to the judge and the lawyers, when you (individually, or as part of the entire prospective jury pool) are questioned under oath during the selection process for a particular case, at the beginning of the case.
I'm assuming you don't know how that process works or you wouldn't be so anxious about this. Getting called for jury duty just means you have to show up and sign in on the appointed day, and sit there with all the other prospective jurors until you get called to hear a particular case. If you don't get called, you have fulfilled your civic duty by just sitting there being available (bring a novel or something, it can get boring). In some jurisdictions, all they require is that you be available by telephone to be "on call" in case you are needed, and you don't even have to go down to the courthouse and sit in the stuffy room decorated in frog-puke green and ancient naugahyde.
If you DO in fact get called to show up at the courtroom for a particular case, you still haven't been selected to sit on an actual jury yet; you have to go thru a process called "voir dire", a fancy Legal French word for "telling the truth." The judge and, sometimes, the lawyers for the parties will question the prospective jurors under oath, either individually or by asking questions to the whole group and requiring you to raise your hand if the answer is "yes", to find out if you have any reasons, biases or prejudices that might make you a less-than-desirable candidate to sit on that particular jury. Note, that doesn't mean you're a bad person, or "prejudiced" in the sense of being a bigot; it just recognizes that everyone has a place they're coming from when they consider an issue, and e.g. someone who works for an insurance company may not be the best, most neutral person to have on a jury where an insurance company is one of the parties.
And one of the questions they almost always ask of the prospective jurors during voir dire is, "Do you have any medical or other condition that might make it difficult for you to sit thru a X-day trial, listen to all the evidence and render a verdict?" E.g. a hearing problem, sight problem, sudden sleep syndrome, need for frequent bathroom breaks, whatever. It is up to the juror who may have such a condition to raise his hand when asked, go up to the bench where he can reveal his situation privately to the judge and the lawyers for the parties (they're usually smart enough to make the initial questions broad and general and non-embarrassing, so as not to make someone have to blurt out in front of 50 of their friends and neighbors that e.g. they need Depends, which would tend to keep people from revealing the kind of information the judge and lawyers need to know). At that point, if your situation genuinely interferes with your ability to act as a juror, the judge will probably excuse you "for cause" and you are then free to go, having served your duty by showing up and being questioned.
Even if you are not dismissed "for cause", both of the lawyers will now know of your situation, and it is very likely one or the other of them will strike your name from the jury panel using one of their "peremptory" strikes, since they probably don't want someone who can't pay attention to what their witnesses are saying either. So the chances are very slim that you will actually be selected to sit on a jury and hear a case. Assuming, of course, you honestly reveal your situation at the appropriate time, when asked during voir dire. It does NOT help to pipe up and tell everyone, after you have been seated on a jury and the other, non-selected panelists have all been dismissed, "Oh, by the way, I have a medical condition that prevents me from paying attention to the evidence." At that point, you have created a major dilemma for the parties and the judge; they will have no choice but to dismiss you, but they will be stuck with a short jury panel (if the parties agree to go ahead anyway) or the judge may have to declare a mistrial and start over again with voir dire of a whole new prospective jury panel. If it's a criminal trial, that may require a dismissal of the charges, if the jury you sit on has already started to hear the evidence, due to the constitutional prohibition on "double jeopardy".
> This isn't a situation where I want to find an excuse to weasel my
> way out of jury duty. I just don't know if I have any business performing
> it.
Then you would be derelict in your duty if you didn't mention it at the appropriate time. The judge can't decide to let you go ahead and be on a jury, or to dismiss you, unless he has all the facts and you answer his questions honestly.
> So, if I find myself in a jury box, and the judge asks me if I feel I
> can do a good job of being a juror, or whatever all is asked in juror
> selection, I just don't know what to say. I don't want to
> inadvertently lie and say yes when answer is realistically no.
Why on earth is this even a problem for you? Unless your dithering is a symptom of your condition?
It's simple: "just say no" if asked that question. Actually, they'll probably phrase the question so that anything other than the default answer requires an affirmative, not a negative response, so you will have to "just say yes" to the question, "Does anyone think they might have any reason why they would NOT be able to do a good job of being a juror?" Of course, you'll be asked to explain your answer in more detail, in a private bench conference, and then the judge can decide whether your situation is something that would require your dismissal for cause.
What I can tell you is, I surely wouldn't want someone who obsesses over whether he might "inadvertently lie" about something so basic, sitting on _my_ jury.
> But also I don't want to come off as someone who is trying to cook
> up an excuse.
You won't. Especially if you obsess like this over the questions when you are at the bench, my guess is they will be just as anxious to get you off their jury as you will be to avoid doing the wrong thing. If there's one thing both sides want a jury to be, it's to be decisive, able to come to a decision. It doesn't serve anyone's case if the jury is deadlocked and frozen by anxiety and the judge has to declare a mistrial and start all over again.
> It has been 30 years at least since I have been tested for
> anything. I have a few records of very sketchy teacher evaluations and
> documentation showing how often I was assigned to EH classrooms. But
> nothing really all that tangible and certainly nothing up to date.
You don't need to bring any documentation with you. Your testimony under oath during voir dire is enough to "prove" whatever condition it is you want the court to know about. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment