What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Getting out of jury duty (1 Viewer)

If you really have a problem with serving don't ever respond and then not show up. But unless you signed for the letter they can't prove that you ever received it in the first place. People who moved a lot probably missed notices without even realizing it.
Ehhh I'd be careful with this advice.
So in your experience as a lawyer you've seen people being prosecuted for not acknowledging a jury duty notice?
Rare, but I think I have seen it (years ago) and definitely heard of it. Again, I think it's very jurisdiction specific and may also turn on what you mean by "prosecuted" as it could just be a civil fine or something.
It just seems like a really hard thing to prove. It's not like everyone is responsible for delivering their own mail.
I believe there's a statute in my jurisdiction that mail from the government is sufficient notice for things like this and a legal presumption is created.
If that's true, does that seem fair to you? Presuming that someone got a piece of mail when then might not have?
Life isn't fair, and the reason why we can't take your word on it is because you've already told us that you'll lie about this sort of thing.
What you doing your hard time for? Failed to acknowledge 4 jury duty summons. You got any money on your commissary? Ha ha
 
Jury duty is so weird. My wife has NEVER been summoned. I haven't been summoned in 20 years. There was a 5 year period I was summoned FIVE times. I felt I was going through jury orientation so much it was a factor in my life. I'll tell you how every single situation went.

Lawyer, "So you were an Army Sgt that currently works for the Bureau of Prisons?"

Me, "Yes Sir."

Judge, "You can leave."

Giant waste of time. Ha ha
I’m not sure how many states do it, but Virginia (where I am) has automatic exceptions for certain professions. Corrections officers, for example, are included in that (for the reason that you indicated that will just get turned away when show up anyway). I’m automatically exempt as an attorney. When I get the summons, I just mail back the form checking the box that automatically exempt and don’t have to report.
 
It depends on where you live. Over 20 years I got called for jury duty 8(!) times, plus once for federal court. Every time was awful. My court was downtown so I had to deal with an hour+ of rush-hour traffic each way. The closest I ever got to an actual trial was waiting in line outside a courtroom once (the defendant accepted a plea deal while we were in line). Other than that, it was just sitting in a stuffy room with hundreds of other people all farking day until they finally dismissed us. About 6 -7 years ago I read something that said over 70% of jury summons in my city are ignored and the city can't do anything about it. After that, my last two summonses went straight in the trash. I haven’t looked back since. I’ve done my civic duty more than enough.

This is pretty much exactly me as well. I've been summoned every other year for the past 24 years. 12 times. In a city of 6+ million, I find it very hard to believe that this is random, I believe it's just the fact I show up that they keep sending me a jury duty notice.
And while I don't mind fulfilling my civic duty, I do mind the traffic I need to fight to go downtown, and then I have to pay $20.00 for parking and get reimbursed $6.00. And I can't bring food with me, so if I want to eat, I need to pay for lunch.
Unless the mail is sent certified with return receipt, there is no proof of delivery via the USPS. Just sayin'. And considering the postage due on that type of mail, that will never happen.

The other issue I struggle with internally is "jury of your peers". I'm an FBG, there is rarely a jury required for my peer.

I'll still go if summoned, but I've always fully endorsed the professional jury thesis where they are paid, educated and are more impartial because they are not in a rush to get out of duty, this would be their vocation. Something like 3-4 months rotation.
 
I received a jury duty notice around 5 years ago and forgot all about it. Was cleaning out a drawer last year and found it. Never heard anything about not responding.
 
Jury duty is so weird. My wife has NEVER been summoned. I haven't been summoned in 20 years. There was a 5 year period I was summoned FIVE times. I felt I was going through jury orientation so much it was a factor in my life. I'll tell you how every single situation went.

Lawyer, "So you were an Army Sgt that currently works for the Bureau of Prisons?"

Me, "Yes Sir."

Judge, "You can leave."

Giant waste of time. Ha ha
I’m not sure how many states do it, but Virginia (where I am) has automatic exceptions for certain professions. Corrections officers, for example, are included in that (for the reason that you indicated that will just get turned away when show up anyway). I’m automatically exempt as an attorney. When I get the summons, I just mail back the form checking the box that automatically exempt and don’t have to report.
Ah, that's nice. My state doesn't have that. I once had to sit through the entire morning voir dire session (it was obvious I was just at the end of the list) of a trial where I had previously represented the defendant. Obviously I would have been struck immediately (and I had planned to ask to speak to the court privately if the judge didn't immediately strike me so as to not taint the panel).

I have had some juries though where attorneys wound up serving. I also had some law enforcement that I didn't strike because I believed they would actually be helpful to my case theory. I don't see anything inherently wrong with certain professions serving provided a proper voir dire is conducted.
 
I'll continue to caution anybody from listening to our legal beagles in this thread about ignoring the summons. It may work (heck, it would probably work in a lot of jurisdictions), but it may not, so it's just not worth the risk.
 
I've been summoned twice.

Once in college, once in grad school.

Both times I marked "i'm pursuing higher education" or whatever that box said and that was that for a reason not to go. Which makes sense because I would have had to fly back from out of state.
 
I found it funny that in nj you get paid $5 per day for the 1st 3 days. Why even bother?
In our area you get nothing for the first day and then $15 a day after that plus mileage if over 15 miles. The reason being so many people are there only one day that they figured out it was cheaper to do this.

Also, I get paid my regular salary if I have jury duty but I have to waive the juror payment as part of that process.
 
I'll be finding out in a few hours if I have to report for jury duty next week. Had gotten multiple postponements, but request to postpone was denied this time.

Just noticed this note on the NJ jury service website: "*Please do not report for jury service if you are sick or not feeling well. Please call jury management to reschedule. Thank you."
 
If you are a senior citizen they will excuse you. Not sure why because they are the ones who would usually have time to serve. I have been called twice but never got picked to serve
 
I'll be finding out in a few hours if I have to report for jury duty next week. Had gotten multiple postponements, but request to postpone was denied this time.

Just noticed this note on the NJ jury service website: "*Please do not report for jury service if you are sick or not feeling well. Please call jury management to reschedule. Thank you."
Excused for three more years! Apparently there's not much crime in my area right now.
 
I'll be finding out in a few hours if I have to report for jury duty next week. Had gotten multiple postponements, but request to postpone was denied this time.

Just noticed this note on the NJ jury service website: "*Please do not report for jury service if you are sick or not feeling well. Please call jury management to reschedule. Thank you."
Excused for three more years! Apparently there's not much crime in my area right now.
I guess its also a bit of luck if there are other trials ongoing. There's only a certain number of courtrooms at the courthouse. Might be a good idea to call in sick a few times when you are asked to come in to increase your chances of not being needed.
 
Got called about 10 years ago. I was eager to do my civic duty and participate in the process. It was a medical malpractice case, something related to a bad surgery and a urologist. The defendant was a guy in his late 60s or early 70s.

When the lawyers questioned the jury pool, the plaintiff lawyer asked if anyone had any views on artificially limiting a financial award IF a doctor was found negligent. Like, hey, does anyone have a number in mind that is an artificial cap on an award amount.

So I raised my hand and said yes. He then asked me to explain — which seemed dumb to me. I told him that an award equal to the US GDP, for example, struck me as extreme. And that even the GDP of the City of Chicago, which I estimated at $500B, seemed extreme.

He then said “even though you don’t know anything about the case yet, you could envision a cap on an award?” So I said yes, and briefly explained again.

At some point he told me that I sounded confused and might have misunderstood the question. He reframed it to say that I didn’t need any facts of the case at all for any reason. And we got into a debate about why he was re-wording the question just because he didn’t like the answer.

At that point two other members of the pool raised their hands and said they also had a monetary limit in mind. And it was then that I knew the plaintiff lawyer would kick me out of the pool.

That wasn’t really my goal. I was just answering a simple question. Oh — I also told him that I assumed anyone who interpreted the question like I did would probably also have a cap in mind, because that was only logical.

He really didn’t like me. Good times.
 
I'll throw out there that on one of the trials I was juror for (murder), the verdict was pretty cut and dry based on the evidence presented.

As we walked from the court room to the jury room to begin our deliberations, the grandma id been sitting next to throughout started asking me what I thought- as it was the first time we could discuss the case- but gave me her thought first...

Well... Theres a boy that lives down the hall from me who looks and acts JUST like that boy (the defendant). And this boy is just the sweetest- helps me carry things, holds the door and is such a joy to be around. So that boy (defendant) couldn't possibly be guilty.

I audibly gasped, which scared her. And then explained as non-horrified as I could why the evidence was clearly pointing to a guilty verdict. She changed her mind by the time we got to the jury room.

For those that think it's ok to avoid jury duty... People like that woman is why you're wrong.
 
I think I've told this story in another jury duty thread, but I served on a 3-4 day case once. I got picked because I had to open my big mouth and answered one of the defense attorney's questions.

He had told a story about a couple of crooks in England that got chased by the cops (who I guess don't carry guns?) up a flight of stairs, and when they got to the roof, the cops cornered them and crook #1 told crook #2 (who had a gun) "let 'em have it!"

Defense attorney asked "what's strange about what the crook said?"

I had to be Mr. Smarty Pants and raised my hand and answered "well it could be construed two ways: one, actually give the gun over to the cops and surrender two, shoot them"

The attorney got a wry smile and wrote on his little pad of paper and said "exactly!". I knew right then and there I was gonna get picked.

It was a domestic abuse case and the defendant had been previously convicted of the same crime but the defense attorney tried to frame it as a "have an open mind and consider the 'he said, she said' thing".

It ended up being a hung jury because our jury foreman was a dumba$$ who was apparently a woman-hater.
 
Tell em it's a financial hardship. You don't get paid for the time off. Just got out of a 3 week trial which is still happening. Medical malpractice case with naturally a lot of medical testimony. Just kill me.
This is a contractor position and I get paid hourly....so I wouldn't get paid for any time spent in jury duty. Is this enough to say I was out of work for 3 months and still digging out from that (not true, but could be possible for a non FBG)
You get about $50/day for jury duty 😀 I have been on two juries and felt if I was a defendant or plaintiff, I would hope the jurors were impartial. During the juror selection you could tell who wanted to get tossed as jurors and they did get tossed.
 
Last edited:
Sure there is a ton of
BACKGROUND: I was out of work for 3 months and just started a new job 2 months ago. 2 weeks into it I got a jury duty notification....I called the office and said I just started a new job and couldn't be out of work already so they delayed it for a month. Well that month is up, so I asked for another delay but it was denied. So now I have to report to jury duty selection on Jan 28th.

I really can't be missing work for any long period of time. It's a contract position so it would just be a bad look. And ultimately I just don't want to serve jury duty.

I saw a TikTok of some lawyer saying to get out of it, just literally tell them "I don't want to be here" and I'd get let go. Does this actually work? Outside of coming off as a complete racist, law hating tool (which I'm not willing to do), what are some other tips to guarantee me I don't get picked?
Sure there has been ton of good advice.

Obligatory opening statement - jury duty is important, I would like to do it sometime, feel bad for getting out of it (I also had a work thing I won’t get into).

I got selected in a pool that was to be narrowed down to a handful of people. No work excuse was going to work as I learned from people before me. When they got to me I said I didn’t think I could past get thinking the guy was guilty based on what they had told us so far (he broke a restraining order it sounded like) IIRC they gave the opening and asked a question that led me to speak up. They followed up a bit about how he is on trial and not to be presumed guilty but I stuck with this and was dismissed. I think finding something like this or something that gives you a bias related to the case will do it.

Some day would like to do the process and be on a jury.
 
Don't move to Fulton county Atl, I've been called like three times in the past two years and just got my second in four months. Each time I have to treck into Atl only to be told I wasn't needed...which apparently provides me no relief on being chosen again.
 
Don't move to Fulton county Atl, I've been called like three times in the past two years and just got my second in four months. Each time I have to treck into Atl only to be told I wasn't needed...which apparently provides me no relief on being chosen again.
Wow... That sucks.

I'm pretty sure once I serve here in NYC (Manhattan), I get an 8 year reprieve until the next summons.
 
I've lived in the same place for 25 years and only got called once.
In my near 30 years in the area I have only been called twice. But I am batting 1.000 as I made it to the jury both times. One was a two day trial on DUI that had a twist and the other was a 3 month long murder trial.

The DUI case was a twist because they guy was found asleep (passed out?) in the driver's seat and the cop never actually saw him drive. Unfortunately for the defendant he was at the bottom of a hill and the cop was patrolling the area and the car wasn't there on his way up and was there on his way back down (15 minutes later). His story also didn't match his BAC. He said he was so tired he couldn't drive anymore (it was 11pm) so he pulled over to sleep a bit. But he coudldn't sleep so he decided to pound a 40 oz Corona to help him sleep and it "tasted so good" he had a second 40 oz'er. The guy wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Both attorney's were in their first ever trials so it was a bit fun watching them fumble all over the place. The prosecutor was terrible. The defense attorney was pretty good. If we were ruling on competency of the lawyers the defense wins easy. Unfortunately for him the evidence was just too strong against him that he was screwed no matter what. We deliberated less than an hour.
I'll never make the selection. This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me. Also if the DA overcharges I'm not believing a word out of his/her mouth.
 
I'll throw out there that on one of the trials I was juror for (murder), the verdict was pretty cut and dry based on the evidence presented.

As we walked from the court room to the jury room to begin our deliberations, the grandma id been sitting next to throughout started asking me what I thought- as it was the first time we could discuss the case- but gave me her thought first...

Well... Theres a boy that lives down the hall from me who looks and acts JUST like that boy (the defendant). And this boy is just the sweetest- helps me carry things, holds the door and is such a joy to be around. So that boy (defendant) couldn't possibly be guilty.

I audibly gasped, which scared her. And then explained as non-horrified as I could why the evidence was clearly pointing to a guilty verdict. She changed her mind by the time we got to the jury room.

For those that think it's ok to avoid jury duty... People like that woman is why you're wrong.
It is amazing how different people think or reasons they use for making their decisions.

In my first trial as a member of the jury we deliberated for about 20 minutes before everyone agreed on guilty. It was a DUI case and most of the testimony was surrounding BAC, how it is calculated, how it moves based on drinks and time etc. The expert was very good and made it easy to follow. The defendant's story was that he drove to a spot, pulled over then downed two 40's of beer and that was all he had to drink. By the information provided by the expert what he blew as a BAC and what those 80 oz's of beer would have let to were so far off it was obvious that the defendant's story didn't "hold water" and that he was "wrronggg".

When we started deliberations everyone was talking about how sincere the defendant was and how the cop never saw him drive and making it much more complicated than it had to be. I pointed out that lets walk through the science/facts to see if his story could have happened. Once I did that everyone looked amazed and quickly went to a guilty verdict. Very simple.

In my other jury experience (a murder trial) it was an ugly case where the defendant beat the victim to hell, choked her out three times, and did some other bad things to her. The twist was she didn't die during the attack. She died a week later due to a pulmonary embolism. The jury instructions were quite clear that if we thought the beating led to her embolism that required a guilty verdict. It ended up being a 1st degree murder charge due to it happening in the act of committing a felony (felony murder rule). That was also very clear in the jury instructions. There were something like 10 or 11 charges that we had to find verdicts for. We were fairly unanimous on most of the charges (the guy was essentially caught in the act and then fled so there really wasn't much doubt that he was the right guy). It was just working through the rules/instructions to make sure the prosecution met the burden for each charge. The only charge we had disagreement on was a special circumstances charge that required "intent to kill" the victim.

Our hiccup was that since she died of a PE a week after the beating, did the guy "intend" to kill the victim? Well, he choked her three different times to the point she passed out. My argument saying that showed intent to kill was that in the beating and struggle he couldn't know that if he choked her for x long and then let go she wouldn't die. Then he did it three different times (we know this because of the police report and witness statement from the victim as she remembered that attack and provided that info in the report). So he would choke her to pass out then continue to look for money etc and or other stuff with the victim and then when she came too he did it again and then a third time.

We had two holdouts that said if he intended to kill her then he would have done so. I countered with just because he was bad at it doesn't mean he didn't intend to kill her. No matter what was discussed nobody would change their mind so we were hung for that one count. Didn't matter as the other 10 counts were guilty and gave him life without parole.

I find that many people cannot think logically on their own. So if you can just lay out the facts logically many times you can bring them around. But going in you may get grandma equating the defendant to their sweet neighbor boy who would never do bad things.
 
This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me.
Not based on math. The BAC expert did a good job of outlining how BAC changes over time and how many oz's up the BAC. The BAC he blew could not have occurred based on the quantity of beer he consumed based on his story. He had to have had a lot more prior to getting to his resting spot. It was cut and dried. He was lying as the math would have been impossible to match up based on his story.
 
This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me.
Not based on math. The BAC expert did a good job of outlining how BAC changes over time and how many oz's up the BAC. The BAC he blew could not have occurred based on the quantity of beer he consumed based on his story. He had to have had a lot more prior to getting to his resting spot. It was cut and dried. He was lying as the math would have been impossible to match up based on his story.
Actually surprised it got to that point. Most states have laws that make it a DUI to sleep in a car if you are in control of the keys.
 
This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me.
Not based on math. The BAC expert did a good job of outlining how BAC changes over time and how many oz's up the BAC. The BAC he blew could not have occurred based on the quantity of beer he consumed based on his story. He had to have had a lot more prior to getting to his resting spot. It was cut and dried. He was lying as the math would have been impossible to match up based on his story.
Retrograde analysis. My only issue with it is that it relies on assumptions that may not always be accurate.
 
This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me.
Not based on math. The BAC expert did a good job of outlining how BAC changes over time and how many oz's up the BAC. The BAC he blew could not have occurred based on the quantity of beer he consumed based on his story. He had to have had a lot more prior to getting to his resting spot. It was cut and dried. He was lying as the math would have been impossible to match up based on his story.
Retrograde analysis. My only issue with it is that it relies on assumptions that may not always be accurate.
Zow would love me on the jury. 100% win rate because he'd plead out anything that didn't have reasonable doubt.
 
This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me.
Not based on math. The BAC expert did a good job of outlining how BAC changes over time and how many oz's up the BAC. The BAC he blew could not have occurred based on the quantity of beer he consumed based on his story. He had to have had a lot more prior to getting to his resting spot. It was cut and dried. He was lying as the math would have been impossible to match up based on his story.
Retrograde analysis. My only issue with it is that it relies on assumptions that may not always be accurate.
Zow would love me on the jury. 100% win rate because he'd plead out anything that didn't have reasonable doubt.
I would think typically defense attorneys want jurors that aren't logical and will vote more based on emotion. Now not every prosecution case will have hard facts that logically lead towards guilty verdicts but I would think most of them do so that thinking would be typical. I am sure every case is different and it's not a one size fits all. I mean that's why you would hire Dr. Jason Bull so that he can seat a jury that will be in your favor.
 
This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me.
Not based on math. The BAC expert did a good job of outlining how BAC changes over time and how many oz's up the BAC. The BAC he blew could not have occurred based on the quantity of beer he consumed based on his story. He had to have had a lot more prior to getting to his resting spot. It was cut and dried. He was lying as the math would have been impossible to match up based on his story.
Retrograde analysis. My only issue with it is that it relies on assumptions that may not always be accurate.
Zow would love me on the jury. 100% win rate because he'd plead out anything that didn't have reasonable doubt.
I would think typically defense attorneys want jurors that aren't logical and will vote more based on emotion. Now not every prosecution case will have hard facts that logically lead towards guilty verdicts but I would think most of them do so that thinking would be typical. I am sure every case is different and it's not a one size fits all. I mean that's why you would hire Dr. Jason Bull so that he can seat a jury that will be in your favor.
Eh, sometimes, but not always the case. I'll explain more later.
 
This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me.
Not based on math. The BAC expert did a good job of outlining how BAC changes over time and how many oz's up the BAC. The BAC he blew could not have occurred based on the quantity of beer he consumed based on his story. He had to have had a lot more prior to getting to his resting spot. It was cut and dried. He was lying as the math would have been impossible to match up based on his story.
Retrograde analysis. My only issue with it is that it relies on assumptions that may not always be accurate.
Zow would love me on the jury. 100% win rate because he'd plead out anything that didn't have reasonable doubt.
I would think typically defense attorneys want jurors that aren't logical and will vote more based on emotion. Now not every prosecution case will have hard facts that logically lead towards guilty verdicts but I would think most of them do so that thinking would be typical. I am sure every case is different and it's not a one size fits all. I mean that's why you would hire Dr. Jason Bull so that he can seat a jury that will be in your favor.

Problem is that IMO (and this may be incorrect), DAs only present evidence that supports their case and often suppress evidence that doesn't support their desired outcome. Because of that I would be very skeptical of any of their facts. I'd be a much better candidate for a civl trial. If you're f'ing with someone's freedom, you better have the offense on video to clear my reasonable doubt standard given all I've read about system abuses and people wrongfully locked up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zow
If you're f'ing with someone's freedom, you better have the offense on video to clear my reasonable doubt standard given all I've read about system abuses and people wrongfully locked up.
So essentially you are going to vote not guilty on any criminal trial unless you have video (but how do you know it's not a fake) of the defendant doing the crime? That seems contradictory to your FF takes regarding ADP which is based on a "usually" the case assumption. I am a bit surprised by this.
 
BAC math. The math the expert did is commonly called "retrograde analysis.
That isn't really what the expert did. He didn't work back from the BAC number that the defendant blew. He did an overall explanation of how BAC is calculated and how different alcohol content drinks affect the body and what factors contribute to the "baseline number" being higher or lower than that. Thinks such as food, weight, etc.

He did not specifically state that the defendant had to have X number of drinks within X hours of the test to blow a 0.XX on breathalyzer. In this particular case the guy was so far over the range of what 80 oz's of beer would lead to it was outside the reasonable doubt error band for the equipment and the variables that affect BAC levels.

I get that you can engineer many things when working backwards for something like a retrograde analysis process. Many times you can manipulate the path backwards so I see where that is problematic for these type scenarios. I don't believe that was done here as it seemed to be a straight forward math problem with a range of outcomes. All of which didn't match the guy's story if he was telling the truth.
 
BAC math. The math the expert did is commonly called "retrograde analysis.
That isn't really what the expert did. He didn't work back from the BAC number that the defendant blew. He did an overall explanation of how BAC is calculated and how different alcohol content drinks affect the body and what factors contribute to the "baseline number" being higher or lower than that. Thinks such as food, weight, etc.

He did not specifically state that the defendant had to have X number of drinks within X hours of the test to blow a 0.XX on breathalyzer. In this particular case the guy was so far over the range of what 80 oz's of beer would lead to it was outside the reasonable doubt error band for the equipment and the variables that affect BAC levels.

I get that you can engineer many things when working backwards for something like a retrograde analysis process. Many times you can manipulate the path backwards so I see where that is problematic for these type scenarios. I don't believe that was done here as it seemed to be a straight forward math problem with a range of outcomes. All of which didn't match the guy's story if he was telling the truth.
Oh, gotcha. I misunderstood initially. This sort of expert opinion is not proffered much if at all in my jurisdiction because the way the statute is written doesn't really allow for the type of defense it sounds like the defense went with in your case (that the defendant consumed alcohol after driving).
 
Last edited:
If you live is a state where you can reschedule I was told the best week to try to get is the week of Thanksgiving. They say you have a much higher likelihood of not being called in that week. Too early for that now but if you ever get a summons in the 2nd half of the year it's at least worth a try.
 
This would suffice as reasonable doubt to me.
Not based on math. The BAC expert did a good job of outlining how BAC changes over time and how many oz's up the BAC. The BAC he blew could not have occurred based on the quantity of beer he consumed based on his story. He had to have had a lot more prior to getting to his resting spot. It was cut and dried. He was lying as the math would have been impossible to match up based on his story.
Retrograde analysis. My only issue with it is that it relies on assumptions that may not always be accurate.
Zow would love me on the jury. 100% win rate because he'd plead out anything that didn't have reasonable doubt.
I would think typically defense attorneys want jurors that aren't logical and will vote more based on emotion. Now not every prosecution case will have hard facts that logically lead towards guilty verdicts but I would think most of them do so that thinking would be typical. I am sure every case is different and it's not a one size fits all. I mean that's why you would hire Dr. Jason Bull so that he can seat a jury that will be in your favor.
Eh, sometimes, but not always the case. I'll explain more later.
To add some more detailed thoughts on this:

1. My ideal juror for a case really does depend on the facts and the type of defense I'm presenting. For example, you're not wrong that in some cases where I may have a weak technical defense but I have a sympathetic client I'll want the more emotional juror (e.g. a care provider, a parent, etc.). However, if the facts are bad and my defense is technical, then I want the engineer or the scientist. For example, if I have a child porn case or a dead baby case or something where the emotional person is going to want somebody to "pay" and be horrified by that evidence and therefore not listen to me about things like metadata and hashtag values or a mere presence/lack of mens defense or something then I want the more logical person.
2. The above comment notwithstanding, I'd say in my experience if I had to pick a demographic of a preferred juror it would be one that is antigovernment (with a touch of conspiracy theorist). I've won some trials where I really should have lost because these sorts of jurors frankly manufactured reasonable doubt via an unreasonable interpretation of the facts.
3. A couple years ago my jurisdiction abolished peremptory strikes* meaning that I don't really get to "pick" a jury anymore. As such, my voir dire strategically has changed quite a bit from identifying jurors who may not have immediately disclosed their biases to more educating the pool in voir dire about legal tenets such as reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, right to remain silent, etc.


*A peremptory strike is the type of strike where either side can, so long as it is not for a discriminatory purpose like race or sex, choose to get rid of a juror for almost any reason. This is the type of strategy call that movies and TV make seem really interesting. This type of strike is different from a juror who is struck for cause where the juror either has some sort of logistical reason for not being able to serve (doesn't speak English, medically can't sit there for hours, etc.) or whom can't be fair and impartial (e.g. believes cops over lay witnesses, could never convict somebody for a religious reason, knows the victim or the defendant, etc.).
 
Last edited:
If you live is a state where you can reschedule I was told the best week to try to get is the week of Thanksgiving. They say you have a much higher likelihood of not being called in that week. Too early for that now but if you ever get a summons in the 2nd half of the year it's at least worth a try.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that a lot of motions to continue are filed over the weeks of Thanksgiving and Winter Break.
 
If you're f'ing with someone's freedom, you better have the offense on video to clear my reasonable doubt standard given all I've read about system abuses and people wrongfully locked up.
So essentially you are going to vote not guilty on any criminal trial unless you have video (but how do you know it's not a fake) of the defendant doing the crime? That seems contradictory to your FF takes regarding ADP which is based on a "usually" the case assumption. I am a bit surprised by this.
My FF takes would fit more along the lines of a civil trial. ADP isn't going to be 99%+, but it is going to be >50% over time.

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance. The rate of police perjury is unknown. Google's AI says 2-10% of police reports contain lies. The study below talks about police perjury. Let's say I settle on a cop's testimony being 90% accurate. I'm going to need ten different unrelated cops testifying to the same thing before I would consider the testimony worthy of convicting. I won't just beat up on cops as eyewitness testimony is even worse. Probably need twice as many eyewitnesses as cops. If the defense attorney presents two facts supporting their clients innocence, I'm going to need the DA to bring 200 facts supporting a conviction (assuming I'm weighting all the facts the same for this discussion).

Zow probably won't speak to this in public, but DA's a paid/recognized for convictions, not justice. I need an avalanche of evidence to convict and would be tossed from the pool by the prosecution. Also I will admit to being jaded based upon personal past experience.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top