Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

eJuror Will Lead To New List of Jury Duty Excuses

Posted by Soulskill on from the bringing-the-wisdom-of-youtube-commenters-to-federal-justice dept.

coondoggie writes "Now you can say your jury duty request got lost in the cloud, or that the network was down, or the Internet ate it. That's because the US District Court system is close to completing a rollout of its national eJuror system that lets prospective jurors have the option of responding to their jury questionnaire or summons online. About 80 of the 94 US district courts have had the eJuror software installed and more than half of those courts are already live on the system."

33 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. I'm all for it, by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

    Saves me the trouble of getting my Jedi robes out of the attic so I can be kicked off the jury in person.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:I'm all for it, by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a Yoda Jedi costume.

      And yes, hot it gets.

    2. Re:I'm all for it, by HogGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope you, and others that "dodge" jury duty, get into legal trouble soon!

      So you too can be judged by the "unfortunate ones" of the world that weren't "smart enough" to get out of jury duty. You know, the illiterate morons that end up finding the innocent guilty, and the guilty innocent...

      Why do you feel it's ok to take an essential part of the civic infrastructure for granted?

    3. Re:I'm all for it, by brainboyz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe because it costs some of us hundreds or thousands of dollars per day we're not able to work? Because they hold court during hours most people are working? Because they have so many stupid nonsensical rules that they use more juries than they should to prosecute people in the course of "protecting people from themselves?"

      Some people don't like wasting their time with the joke.

    4. Re:I'm all for it, by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, what a nice summary of contemporary America. "I want everything set up perfectly to maximize my rights and my productivity, and I shouldn't have to pay or sacrifice anything for it because it's all thanks to me and nobody else!"

    5. Re:I'm all for it, by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Funny

      What would you do if you were fired? Or your company closed its doors?

    6. Re:I'm all for it, by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait for the Government to save him?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:I'm all for it, by HogGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More rhetoric...

        66 percent criminal trials (47 percent felony crimes plus 19 percent misdemeanor crimes)

        31 percent civil trials

        4 percent other

      You can try and "justify" your lack of responsibility to civic duties, but facts speak for themselves.

    8. Re:I'm all for it, by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ah, but mandatory jury duty is a mistake, a lapse in the judgment of those that founded our country just as slavery. For it too is involuntary servitude with inadequate compensation. So either it must be done by volunteers, or by proper compensation. By eliminating the 80% of cases that are unnecessary (frivolous lawsuits, prison-system-cartel fodder of victim-less crimes), we could institute a judicial system worthy of a truly free people.

  2. Fully Informed Jury members by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you think you're a fair person, being on a jury is not a bad thing.

    Even better, being a fully informed member of a jury

    http://fija.org/ --(Fully Informed Jury Association)

    --
    Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    1. Re:Fully Informed Jury members by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      No they aren't, at least in my state. They have the option to pay you but it is not a requirement. One of the ways you can escape jury duty in NYS is if you can demonstrate that it would be a 'financial hardship' to serve.

      My employer pays my full wage, minus the amount I receive from the court for serving. Seems fair enough to me. I'd do the same if I was an employer and had the financial resources. People should be encouraged to serve on juries -- it's your civic duty and provides an invaluable check against Governmental power.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Fully Informed Jury members by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realize that you are already losing a few months worth of earnings to taxes right? Why are you complaining about Jury Duty but not the percentage of your income that you never even see because Uncle Sam compels your employer to send it directly to him?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Fully Informed Jury members by modecx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, you struck a chord that might yield interesting results: Serve on a jury, be immune to any state and federal income tax for that year. For many people that would basically be a 15-20% (or greater) bonus. It would cost the government (in terms of lost tax) a tiny amount, since relatively few people sit on a jury any given year.

      That would bring in people who actually want to be on a jury, since they stand to benefit, and it would also encourage (presumably higher educated) high-earners to not use the "financial hardship" get out of jail card... It really would be like winning a lottery.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  3. Why not just streamline the whole process? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Prosecutor and Defense both write out long documents outlining their cases, available on an audio file, which gets submitted to Jurors online and they get to view the case without any kind of prejudice (You don't know the sex/race/age of the alleged criminal or victim unless it is important to the crime at hand).

    The bickering between the two will be just like any other internet forum, the judge is like a Moderator, and rather than a jury of a dozen peers or so, it can be done by any amount of volunteers from 4chan or by some Amazon Cloud support team or something.

    I know I know, there's a lot of things wrong with doing it this way - but is it really any worse than the way its done already?

    1. Re:Why not just streamline the whole process? by Talderas · · Score: 2

      The Prosecutor and Defense both write out long documents outlining their cases, available on an audio file, which gets submitted to Jurors online and they get to view the case without any kind of prejudice (You don't know the sex/race/age of the alleged criminal or victim unless it is important to the crime at hand).

      The bickering between the two will be just like any other internet forum, the judge is like a Moderator, and rather than a jury of a dozen peers or so, it can be done by any amount of volunteers from 4chan or by some Amazon Cloud support team or something.

      I know I know, there's a lot of things wrong with doing it this way - but is it really any worse than the way its done already?

      Oh god. A legal system ran by 4chan?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:Why not just streamline the whole process? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but is it really any worse than the way its done already?

      Yes. It cuts out the ability to look witnesses and the defendant in the eye. Non-verbal communication is important, particularly when someone's liberty is on the line.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Why not just streamline the whole process? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes.

      Do they send out Nobel Prizes by mail? I know its the best idea ever, but I'm a little busy arguing on the internet so I won't have time to pick it up myself.

    4. Re:Why not just streamline the whole process? by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, because the system is based on history, not logic. It was invented before logic was, and it has to complete its task even in a total absence of logic. If the lawyers choose to introduce logic, then that's their strategic choice. Generally one will, and the other won't.

      Second, because the trial changes as it goes on, and argument is fluid. Information from one part of one person's testimony can drastically alter how other witnesses testify, and whether they even do testify.

      Third, because questioning witnesses elicits more honest responses than prepared statements do, and watching someone answer a tough question elicits more information than the words in the answer gives.

      Fourth, because part of the purpose of the trial is presenting the case to the community. Both to give the community closure and to keep the government's pointy end open to scrutiny. Merely adjudicating the facts of the case is something any king can do from the bathroom.

    5. Re:Why not just streamline the whole process? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...In closing, while we do acknowledge that Anonymous does not forgive, we want the record to show that my client did it for the lulz. The defense rests."

      Verdict: Innocent, but all lawyers in the room get sent to death row. kthxbai.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  4. BBC reports that internet will kill jury system by burisch_research · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Top judge says internet 'could kill jury system'
    The jury system may not survive if it is undermined by social networking sites, England's top judge has said.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11796648

    --
    char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
  5. Jury selection by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First: For those of you who think avoiding jury duty is an option rather than a duty -- thanks for avoiding one of the simplest and most basic requests that our country makes of you in exchange for citizenship. You must be proud.

    Second: If the request gets lost, it gets lost. It doesn't matter whether it's eaten by a computer, an angry mail processing machine, or the dog. Lost is lost. You'll get another summons.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Jury selection by uprise78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The 35% income tax plus the 8.5% sales tax I pay are more than enough of a sacrifice to pay in "exchange for citizenship". Having to on top of that take unpaid days off is ludicrous. I might as well just hand my while fucking life over to big brother.

    2. Re:Jury selection by Tanktalus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My wife was summoned for Jury duty. The date for appearance was approximately 1 week prior to our first child being due. We quickly asked for her to be excused on the grounds that she'd be as likely as not giving birth in the court room. (Turns out the child was 6 days early, so labour would have started during any jury questioning.)

      I got a summons for jury duty that asked me to appear about 3 weeks later. I don't think the ink was dry on our request for my wife to be excused before this one was on its way. Seriously - they wanted to drag both adults in a house into jury duty pretty much simultaneously? I asked to be excused on the grounds that I was the only driver in a house that would have a 2-3-week-old baby in it, which would cause my wife and our child undue hardship.

      If I could have gone, I would have. But not for your high-and-mighty reasons. More to get an up-close-and-personal experience of why the court system is a joke. I doubt I would have made it to trial, assuming that the case involved actually got to trial, merely due to my cynicism. One of the lawyers would likely have asked me to leave before the trial started.

    3. Re:Jury selection by nasalicio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, but you have a human birth right of free will. No one can force you to do anything against your will. Obviously there can and/or will be penalties for exercising your right of free will at times, but thats a choice some people are willing to take in some areas.

    4. Re:Jury selection by eggnoglatte · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't pay those taxes "in exchange for citizenship", you pay them for living in the country and using the infrastructure. This should be obvious, since non-citizen greencard holders pay the same taxes.

      Voting and jury duty are pretty much the only civic duties directly associated with citizenship.

  6. My answer ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a Libertarian who believes in Jury Nullification. I also believe that as a jury member I can ask questions of witnesses beyond the questions directed by either side, and I won't hesitate to raise my hand to ask questions neither side is willing to ask to get at the truth neither side is really after.

    If we're bound by the idea that if it is a "law" that it is legal, then we end up with the Senator Palpatine style "I will make it legal"

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:My answer ... by sribe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm a Libertarian who believes in Jury Nullification. I also believe that as a jury member I can ask questions of witnesses beyond the questions directed by either side, and I won't hesitate to raise my hand to ask questions neither side is willing to ask to get at the truth neither side is really after.

      Actually, there's a gradual movement where states are slowly allowing jurors to ask questions. I think eventually this will spread to all states.

      Now you don't get to raise your hand and blurt it out mid-testimony. Questions are submitted to the judge in writing, reviewed, and passed on to both sides if appropriate...

    2. Re:My answer ... by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >If we're bound by the idea that if it is a "law" that it is legal, then we end up with the Senator Palpatine style "I will make it legal"

      The law was made by representatives elected by the people. Until the constitution says there's a Senator Palpatine who has the power to make something legal on his own, that's not a good analogy.

      Juries are bound to follow the law. They get to decide if the facts in the case fit the law. They don't get to decide not to convict even though the facts fit the law. Their value is that they are citizens, not sinecured magistrates who have the physical power to write down that the facts fit the case when they don't, or to color the facts in a way that a dozen average people would find untrue. The jury system guarantees that at least 12 citizens will be witnesses to the trial, are the focus of the presentation of evidence, and will validate its outcome as a true application of the law.

      If you think the law is wrong, it's your job to get it changed before it gets to court by electing people who represent you and petitioning them for changes to the law. It's the court's job to apply it as it's written (in a statute or a past judgment), and it's an apellate courts' job to deal with situations where one of the parties to the case thinks the process did not get followed properly or the law inappropriately conflicts with another law (up to and including the constitution).

  7. I wish I'd get more Jury Duty, really... by eepok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know I have a better understanding of science & technology (through hobbies), law (by education), logic & fallacy (by education), and value my integrity more than the vast majority of the public. I love to see the process in action (even though I decided not to be part of it professionally).

    I have, though, considered it an imaginary dream job to simply serve on juries day-in and day-out. Professional Juror! Critical thinking, creative solutions-- civil and criminal cases alike.

  8. Jury duty letters get sent to my childhood address by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even though I haven't lived there since 1986. My mother, who has nothing else better to do, calls the number on the letter, and tells (brags) that her son is working on another continent. She has repeatedly requested that my name be removed from the list, which doesn't seem to work. She was called up herself, but given that she was over 80, and has heath problems she didn't want to serve. But neither the DA or the defense wanted to excuse her. Did they think that old ladies can be manipulated?

    Anyway the case was against a cop from her town being charged for using excessive force or something like that. She was finally so frustrated at not being excused, that when the judge asked her at the end, if there was anything she would like to say, she answered, "I could never find a police officer from my town guilty." I would have thought that the DA would have asked her that, but I guess he was hoping that he had a senior citizen to manipulate.

    When my father was called up jury duty, he told me how the selection process went. He was a quiet person, but a very astute observer. Both the DA and the defense kicked off anyone prospective juror who had half a brain. The first question presented to him was about his education and profession. Both the DA and the defense attorney stood up, the judge laughed, and said to my father, "Go home."

    Now that I am older, and could afford to spend to spend some time on a jury, I wouldn't mind doing so. But I would probably get chucked as fast as my dad did.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  9. Weeding out the indifferent... by Nags14 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems that if people have the option to run away from this responsibility, the people who choose to do so are the ones who we wouldn't care to have on the jury anyway. I don't know about everyone else, but if I was being convicted of a crime I didn't commit, I would rather have the people that are willing to take the time out of their lives to do so, then the ones who will vote the way of the majority in order to end the process quickly.

  10. Re:Jury duty letters get sent to my childhood addr by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think it may depend on the area. I've seen some trials where some smart people have served. An interesting major case with that would be the Terry Childs case. One of the jurors had a CCIE. Means not only is he extremely smart, but extremely knowledgeable in the technical aspects that will come up. However he was chosen to serve. There is no universal truth to selection in my experience.

    As for stupid summons I've got a good one:

    My mom is a Canadian by birth, and never bothered to immigrate to the US (well she did actually 1 year before moving back to Canada). Had her green card for decades and all was well. Periodically she'd get a jury summons. She'd mark the "I'm not a citizen," box and that was that but they didn't take her off the list. One time she gets a summons, makes the "Go away box," gets a "You have to come or we'll issue a warrant for your arrest," letter. So she goes. The case is for something minor and the judge starts off with a speech to the effect of "This case will be done before the end of the day, so I don't want to hear any lame excuses why you don't have time to serve. That said, does anyone have a legit reason they can't be here?" Mom timidly raised her hand and said "I'm Canadian." The judge was flabbergasted said "Do you have your green card? Come here!" She showed him her green card, he wrote down her name and turned to a deputy and said "Get her off the list, I don't want to hear she's been bothered again." He then apologized to my mom and she left. Never got a summons again.

  11. Re:For the Love of God, serve on a jury by Rick17JJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was a juror on a one day trail earlier this year, here in Arizona. As the jury selection process was starting, we were all very relieved to hear that this was expected to be just a one day trial. Because of that, no one felt the need to try to get out of jury duty.

    If any of us had really wanted to get out of being on the jury, there was a certain answer to one of the jury screening questions which would have most likely caused us to not be selected. There was the question of whether or not we thought that bicycles should be allowed to share the road with cars. However, we all truthfully said that we thought that bicycles should be allowed to share the road with cars.

    Just ahead of that, they had asked if any of us had never ridden a bicycle. They also asked if any of us had never driven a car. Presumably, they wanted jurors who both knew how to ride a bicycle and drive a car.

    It was a 6 person jury, with one alternate juror. About half of us had either a 2-year or 4-year college degree. All of the jurors seemed intelligent enough and took their duties seriously. Despite a few minor contradictions in the testimony, the basic facts seemed clear enough to us to find the driver of the car guilty of reckless endangerment and also guilty of a similar charge.

    The next day, at work, one of my co-workers and her husband criticized the fact that we had found the driver of the car guilty. They made it clear that they thought that bicyclists on the road were an annoying hazard, and that they thought that the bicyclist should have been the one that was found guilty. The driver of the car would been revving his engine while tailgating the bicyclist from about 6 inches behind, while refusing to go around the bicyclist. The driver of the car felt that the bicyclist should have pulled off of the narrow lane instead of trying to wave at him to him to pass.