eJuror Will Lead To New List of Jury Duty Excuses

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."

Comments

Fully Informed Jury members

[ciaran_o_riordan]

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)

Re:Fully Informed Jury members

[Shakrai]

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.

Jury selection

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Jury selection

[eggnoglatte]

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.

My answer ...

[Archangel Michael]

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"

Re:My answer ...

[sribe]

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...

Re:I'm all for it,

[HogGeek]

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?

Re:Why not just streamline the whole process?

[blair1q]

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.

Re:I'm all for it,

[timeOday]

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!"