Jury duty

[EweSeaEff]

My wife, kids and I were talking the other night and the topic of jury duty came up. I'm about to turn 42 and I have NEVER received a jury summons. My wife turned 40 in July and about that time she received her first-ever summons (although, they ended up canceling it or telling her there was no need to show up). I've never committed any crime other than some speeding tickets (the last of which was probably 20 years ago or so). I'm registered to vote and my driver's license is up-to-date with the correct address (and always has been).

I'll probably jinx myself by posting this, but is anyone else in the same boat? I have friends that get called every couple/few years it seems.

 

[Knighted1988]

It is supposed to be random, but I get called every 5 years or so.

 

[goodknightfl]

My wife, kids and I were talking the other night and the topic of jury duty came up. I'm about to turn 42 and I have NEVER received a jury summons. My wife turned 40 in July and about that time she received her first-ever summons (although, they ended up canceling it or telling her there was no need to show up). I've never committed any crime other than some speeding tickets (the last of which was probably 20 years ago or so). I'm registered to vote and my driver's license is up-to-date with the correct address (and always has been).

I'll probably jinx myself by posting this, but is anyone else in the same boat? I have friends that get called every couple/few years it seems.

my wife served 4x before turning 45. I never was brought in until age 43, have been called 5x since them, though I only sat on on jury.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

My wife, kids and I were talking the other night and the topic of jury duty came up. I'm about to turn 42 and I have NEVER received a jury summons. My wife turned 40 in July and about that time she received her first-ever summons (although, they ended up canceling it or telling her there was no need to show up). I've never committed any crime other than some speeding tickets (the last of which was probably 20 years ago or so). I'm registered to vote and my driver's license is up-to-date with the correct address (and always has been).

I'll probably jinx myself by posting this, but is anyone else in the same boat? I have friends that get called every couple/few years it seems.

Unfortunately you missed your jury duty last week. To avoid jail you need to send me visa gift cards to take care of it.

 

[UCFKnightfan08]

I’m 33 and have been called 3 times. Twice I didn’t have to show up and the 3rd I made it into the court room but a deal was made prior to anything actually starting. That was actually pretty sweet because I was out by like 10 or 11.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

44...never did jury duty. Got the letter while at UCF so I got out of it. Never asked again. Probably get picked now.

 

[UCFWayne]

35 and havent been called yet.

 

[btbones]

51 been called 4 or 5 times. Had to show up twice and got picked on one jury . DUI with property damage etc . Guy got hammered and ran into a couple parked cars . Had a former state dui prosecutor as his attorney . Convicted him after a couple hours of deliberation

 

[UCFKnightfan08]

Did everyone that posted “no” get their summons yet?

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Every time I get a summons, I throw that thing right in the garbage where it belongs.

 

[sk8knight]

Every time I get a summons, I throw that thing right in the garbage where it belongs.

I don’t think Florida is ever going to go after people who ignore the summons. There’s enough old or broke people with plenty of time on their hands to fill jury pools to go around.

Although, if you were ever falsely accused of a crime, would you trust your life to a jury full of people that have nothing better to do?

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

I don’t think Florida is ever going to go after people who ignore the summons. There’s enough old or broke people with plenty of time on their hands to fill jury pools to go around.

Although, if you were ever falsely accused of a crime, would you trust your life to a jury full of people that have nothing better to do?

I was kind of half joking with my post. I have a buddy who I hunt with who has been tossing his in the garbage for years. No joke. Never a phone call from the court, a threatening letter—nothing.

 

[Crazyhole]

I was kind of half joking with my post. I have a buddy who I hunt with who has been tossing his in the garbage for years. No joke. Never a phone call from the court, a threatening letter—nothing.

In nebraska, they send the sheriff to find you if you don't show up and he brings you in. They'll hold up the entire jury selection until you're there. I've been called twice and both times this happened, so we all just had to sit there for over an hour.

 

[joshwl2003]

In nebraska, they send the sheriff to find you if you don't show up and he brings you in. They'll hold up the entire jury selection until you're there. I've been called twice and both times this happened, so we all just had to sit there for over an hour.

This is what happens when you live somewhere no one desires to live

 

[UCFBS]

It is supposed to be random, but I get called every 5 years or so.

Sounds about right.

 

[UCFBS]

I don’t think Florida is ever going to go after people who ignore the summons. There’s enough old or broke people with plenty of time on their hands to fill jury pools to go around.
Although, if you were ever falsely accused of a crime, would you trust your life to a jury full of people that have nothing better to do?

Far more than the state, yes.

 

[sk8knight]

Far more than the state, yes.

Maybe, but judges tend to make decisions on rule of law and precedents and care about being overturned. Juries are far more susceptible to emotion and bias. So I guess it depends. Case in point, the officers in the Tony Gray cases in Baltimore chose a bench trial because there was no way they were going to get a fair shake from a jury.

 

[UCFBS]

Maybe, but judges tend to make decisions on rule of law and precedents and care about being overturned.

I think you're looking at this wrong ...

Juries are far more susceptible to emotion and bias. So I guess it depends.

We have juries for that reason. To give everyone a chance to go against such, and free innocent people. And judges can set aside a verdict and overturn the jury in the case of insufficient evidence. That's why our system works so well.

It gives defendants 2 ways, and usually the defendant benefits one way or another.

Case in point, the officers in the Tony Gray cases in Baltimore chose a bench trial because there was no way they were going to get a fair shake from a jury.

As was their right. Defendants usually get the benefit of the doubt in either case.

That's how it should work.

 

[firm_bizzle]

I get called every 2 years. It's not that bad.

 

[cnsaguy]

Been called by the county a handful of times, only called in for voir dire once. Didnt get picked.

Got summoned for Federal Court in 2018. Have to show up in a jacket/suit. Thank god I was never picked cuz those trials can go on forever.

Wife got selected for a grand jury. Once a month for six months. Said she saw some f'ed up things there. She was also there for the Markeith Lloyd indictment.

 

[sk8knight]

I think you're looking at this wrong ...

We have juries for that reason. To give everyone a chance to go against such, and free innocent people. And judges can set aside a verdict and overturn the jury in the case of insufficient evidence. That's why our system works so well.

It gives defendants 2 ways, and usually the defendant benefits one way or another.

As was their right. Defendants usually get the benefit of the doubt in either case.

That's how it should work.

Agree completely.

 

[UCFBS]

Agree completely.

The problem is when people -- let alone the state -- look at the system as 'more options to convict.' That's how it's not supposed to work.

This is what the left is doing to law abiding citizens.

 

[Knighted1988]

^^^
This may be a record in the WC recently. 21 posts before someone made it political.

 

[UCFBS]

^^^
This may be a record in the WC recently. 21 posts before someone made it political.

Huh? Since when has the Constitution and Judicial system been 'political' in the case of an individual American defendant?

This is what the US was founded on! One of the big issues with British law and rule!

I merely pointed out that the purpose of the courts is to prove someone guilty, and they are innocent until then. But now we're seeing an age where people (and it's not just one party) that are making people guilty, until they go to court.

And that includes ...

Wanting to use take the worst of the judge or jury -- for the defendant -- when it's supposed to be the best of the two. I'm tired of Americans thinking it's, "What can we do and how can we use the courts to convict -- or even convict before a trial?!"

That's why we have judges set aside verdicts, and overturn them, in favor of the defendant. And that's why we also have juries who refuse to convict people, despite the evidence and law.

But apparently that's 'political' these days. Just shows how dead American Libertarianism is -- and that's not 'Liberarian' as in political, but the civics we all used to understand and agree to!

It wasn't even debated 40 years ago!

 

[sk8knight]

The problem is when people -- let alone the state -- look at the system as 'more options to convict.' That's how it's not supposed to work.

This is what the left is doing to law abiding citizens.

Or when people look scream for “justice” when what they really want is vengeance.

 

[UCFBS]

Or when people look scream for “justice” when what they really want is vengeance.

I still love the Oregon trial. Jury told the US Federal Government what they thought of their non-sense.

I still totally disagree with the Nevada ranchers on coming to Oregon. It was an issue by, of and for Oregonians. But they got off because the US Government not only prosecuted innocent ranchers, but committed double-jeopardy atop of that.

And yes, now @Knighted1988, that was actually 'politicial post.' But not my prior. My prior was 100% civics.

 

[Crazyhole]

Or when people look scream for “justice” when what they really want is vengeance.

Well they've found their great equalizer in the press and have expanded it to be the true jury trial that matters. Does it really matter if you're found "not guilty" by the court when you've already been prosecuted and found guilty in the court of public opinion? Richard Jewell comes to mind. Carter Page is another. Doesnt really matter if they were found innocent, their names were trashed and there is nothing they can do.

 

[UCFBS]

Richard Jewell comes to mind.

The '90s Congress tearing down the restrictions on media ownership, followed by the Clinton-Reno DoJ, really 'set the tone' for what was to come. The government-media working together, helping one another gain favor in their respective circles, really destroyed a lot of things.

It was bad before they used to work together, but far worse after. Reno herself, before she became AG, rode that fame in the media to the White House. I don't think people realize how bad it's been since, and even Reno started to regret by '97.

The mini-series on Waco did a great job. And now Eastwood's very a-political 'Richard Jewel' movie does as well.

It's sad that the former didn't get enough coverage, and the latter is doing poorly at the box office. Both did a great job of show much the US Media had 'gotten into bed' with the US Government. In fact, there's a brilliant, 'sleight-of-logic' in the latter movie, where it's actually a metaphor, of the US Media 'seducing' the US Government into 'let me help you' type rut that we've had the last 25+ years now.

Carter Page is another. Doesnt really matter if they were found innocent, their names were trashed and there is nothing they can do.

Well, 'rabid defense' of politicians is expected now, so Page is in the middle of that.

But Richard Jewell I'm still scratching my head on. They got the bomber 2 years before his death, yet he died with most Americans still believing he planted the bomb.

I like how Eastwood handled that too, especially with the lack of any press conference by the FBI. It wasn't 'news' anymore that the 'socially awkward' Jewel wasn't a 'person of interest.'

 

[Knighted1988]

The constitution is not political, but the judicial system certainly is. The statement I made was based on:

This is what the left is doing to law abiding citizens.

But continue on...

 

[UCFBS]

The constitution is not political, but the judicial system certainly is.

^^^ Thank you for proving my point.

The statement I made was based on:
This is what the left is doing to law abiding citizens.
But continue on...

People get upset when the judicial system -- by design -- is impartial. The US Media gets upset when it is as well. That's what I was talking about.

I thank our framers for our judicial system, and how it is not used in ways the left wants. Everyone would be screwed. But apparently that's political now.

To think the judicial system shouldn't be used until it convicts someone via any method plausible.

 

[Crazyhole]

The constitution is not political, but the judicial system certainly is. The statement I made was based on:

This is what the left is doing to law abiding citizens.

But continue on...

I'm not sure what to make of that statement. We do have examples of how the judiciary is political but I don't think it's the norm. We all know that RBG is politically biased and will almost certainly come down on the side of the liberal POV on every issue, and the 9th circuit court of appeals probably exceeds her in their bias, but generally speaking we really dont know how any judge at any level is going to come down on any given issue. For a point of reference, which other circuit court is known to repeatedly come down on issues that are consistent with one political ideology? They are almost invisible because they rarely come down with exceedingly controversial rulings. Kagan is now considered a swing vote, as are Roberts and Kavanaugh. Thomas is only considered a "conservative" vote because he is a textualist, but that isn't really a political position. I think in general the judiciary is only considered political because of how confirmation hearings play out, but once the nominees are confirmed they maintain an objective position in general.

 

[EweSeaEff]

^^^
This may be a record in the WC recently. 21 posts before someone made it political.

Hear, hear!