I always wanted to pull jury duty, but moved around too much. Lived at my current property for coming up on 10 years. Still no Jury Duty. Wife got one a while back. She used the age thing to turn it down.

I have been called several times. Murder, unlawful possession by felon, and child custody case are the ones I've served on. It is very difficult for me to see responses of "not going to serve", "not signed for, never got it" , etc. These kind of responses scare me. I wonder how long our form of government and way of life can survive. Our constitution allows trial by jury. It is part of our great country's heritage. Serving on a jury is a civic duty. For folks that circumvent the system to avoid serving, I have but one comment, that is I sure hope you are never in the situation where you have to set in front of a jury, whether criminal or civil.

Well said.

Something else a lot of folks don't consider............ Most of us here lean right, and we love to whine about how those woke leftards are destroying our nation. Well............ take a look a what those woke leftards are doing to our justice system. Case in point:

We had a group of three democrats from the big city come to our town on a robbery spree. They hit a restaurant during the lunch rush, split up, and relieved the employees and the 21 customers of their valuables, after cleaning out the cash register. These three good citizens absolutely terrorized the victims; at one point one of them (the ringleader) had the barrel of his pistol shoved up the nose of a 12 year old kid as he threatened to blow his head off if the parents didn't give up ALL of their valuables immediately (and thank God daddy didn't pull out a gun and start blazing away -- he'd have gotten a lot of innocent folks shot). These three good citizens came out the side door shooting. Fortunately, they didn't kill any innocents, but they did kill two cars. Anyway, we got them rounded up, miraculously without violating the civil rights of anyone with a protected skin color, and hauled their government-supported a$$es to jail. Two of the three pleaded out; one for forty years and the other one for thirty-something. The ringleader told his court-appointed attorney that he was fighting the case. Well.... the jury had several radical left snowflakes impanelled. Even though we had seized his cellular phone and obtained a warrant for a phone dump, revealing numerous social media posts by the ringleader flashing cash, waving his (illegally obtained & possessed) pistol, and boasting about committing numerous takeover robberies, those snowflakes on the jury felt that the ringleader -- the worst of the three, by a large margin -- was possessed of redeemable social value, and gave him 7 1/2 years. If anybody cares, he's already out and pushing his new crew to lucrative new heights. And to all of you fine citizens who complain about the woketards destroying society, as you lie your way out of jury duty and boast about it: Thank you.

What a crock

There's a bit of a conundrum in this. If people who really don't want to serve on jury duty get empaneled, they may have strong incentive to go along with a bad jury decision just to get it over with quickly. If I'm ever before a jury, either as a party or as counsel, I'd hope that every one of them was truly willing to be there and give an honestly deliberated decision.

Also, for what it's worth, I've been called for jury duty a few times in my life. For one of them, I was deployed at the time for Desert Storm (to this day I assume that was a valid reason not to appear), and for two others, I was currently enrolled in college. But of the other times, I've only once been selected for a panel, and on that particular day every case pled out.

There's a bit of a conundrum in this. If people who really don't want to serve on jury duty get empaneled, they may have strong incentive to go along with a bad jury decision just to get it over with quickly. If I'm ever before a jury, either as a party or as counsel, I'd hope that every one of them was truly willing to be there and give an honestly deliberated decision.


This^^^^

And if you don't want to serve for no other reason than you just don't want to serve then I certainly don't want you on the jury either. Any little thing could serve to annoy someone who is already annoyed and then take it out on or hold against my client. And I mean anything, like you don't like my briefcase, tie, shoes, voice or a myriad of other things that have nothing to do with matter being tried.

Id rather figure out a way to pass drug tests or how to cheat my taxes

Hypothetically of course

Well, that's one perspective. The problem with it is that a jury comprised of reasonable people is an essential part of the justice process, and the truth is that most people would rather be doing something other than jury duty. But just because I'd rather be fishing doesn't mean that I can't -- or won't -- assess the evidence and reach a rational conclusion. It seems to me that more and more people see jury duty as a monumental waste of time rather than as an essential component of what should be the best justice system in the world. And I'm sure you aren't going to tell us that all of your juries have been comprised exclusively of people who desire to be jurors. Jury duty is a responsibility we all share, as a vital component of our freedom. Unfortunately, threads like this one, which can be found on just about every kind of internet forum, help foster the attitude that anyone with any sense should lie his way out of jury duty. To be sure, there are people who should not be jurors. But the fact that a person would rather be doing something other than jury duty means that you could lose your case because that person doesn't like your attire sound like a pretty weak copout. I'd have a hard time -- actually, a very hard time -- swallowing the notion that a rational, intelligent person would convict a person that they don't believe is guilty just because they don't like the defense attorney's shoes. Do you really believe that, or is that just another attorney excuse? It sure sounds like an excuse, and a pretty pathetic one at that.

Years ago I was working night shift patrol for a small city. We had two officers assigned to each shift, so at least four nights a week there was only one patrolman on duty. Obviously, we did not have a "DWI task force". One of the nights that both of us were on we made a DWI arrest. The defendant was driving over 100mph on the interstate, and actually increased speed when he exited onto the service road. My partner and I chased him, lights and sirens, to a service station where he pulled up to the pumps to fuel his pickup, trying to pretend we weren't really there. He was very drunk and did not take kindly to being arrested. He retained one of those big city DWI specialist attorneys. For three days this attorney went on and on, trying to get us to "admit" we were really working "DWI Interdiction" and that we were concealing the truth from the jury when we denied it. I guess it was supposed to be the old toaster oven defense. It was one of the most redundantly stupid trials I've ever experienced, and I was surprised that the court allowed it to drag on for three days. Anyway, the jury found him guilty. Several weeks later a woman approached me and stated that she had been the jury foreman on that trial, and she remembered me from the trial. She told me that they had all been disgusted by the defense attorney's antics, and that his trial strategy had been an insult to their intelligence. She said that they had no doubt that the defendant was guilty, but said that they would have convicted him anyway just to punish the attorney for wasting three days of everybody's time asking the same stupid questions over and over. So, do you think they convicted the defendant because they didn't like his attorney's "briefcase, tie, shoes, voice or a myriad of other things that have nothing to do with matter being tried", or because the attorney did a pathetic job while wasting three days of of everybody's lives? I'll bet I know what that attorney would say.................

I haven't yet received a jury summons down here in Cameron County. I'm 74 years old, and could claim the age exemption, but I would not do so as long as I can get around and dementia hasn't set in (hopefully still many years away). My biggest problem with the process was that where I was living and working, the jury pool fills out cards which include one's occupation, and as a cop I knew that I was never going to be a juror in a case where the defendant had an attorney. I have been seated on a jury in JP court, where the defendant represented himself, but in virtually all County Court and District Court cases the parties will be represented by counsel, and no cop will be selected as a juror.

I got laughed at by 300 people last time I got called to jury duty because I can't hear ...... I won't be back!

you make very good points to which I agree...but I don't believe you have any experience with civil cases. yes, noone wants to go to jury duty, but the majority of the jurors take the oath seriously and do their best to follow the court's instructions and perform their duty to the best of their ability. I was speaking to the people, like many of the posters on this and other forums, that see jury duty as a personal affront and that can affect the outcome of a trial in the same manner as one that has a preconceived notion of what the outcome should be before it even starts or a predjudice against each of the participants. We all have biases but most can set them aside to listen and consider all the facts before making a dedision. It is the ones that cannot or refuse to do so that I was speaking of.

I have lost my fair share of cases and like most attonrneys I know acknowledte and accept that the decision was most likely the correct one. I don't make the facts and I don't make excuses, but if you don't believe the examples I gave could happen, you are fooling yourself.

They must never have liked my answers on the questionnaire, as I haven’t been selected.
“I get all my news from the TFF Bunker…and this is a true statement” might not be what they are looking for.

Every time I get a summons and answer their questionnaire and state I am retired military I seem to get exempted. I guess the defense attorneys don't want military guys not feeling sorry for their clients. I'd love to serve on a big time trial just to piss the LIBs off.

You reproduced? Please tell us she is smarter than you are.

This response is much more rational than, "And if you don't want to serve for no other reason than you just don't want to serve then I certainly don't want you on the jury either. Any little thing could serve to annoy someone who is already annoyed and then take it out on or hold against my client. And I mean anything, like you don't like my briefcase, tie, shoes, voice or a myriad of other things that have nothing to do with matter being tried." I'll concede that your first statement probably didn't come out the way you intended it to.