Not voting because

Posted by: nutty

Not voting because - 10/04/04 06:58 AM

Fear of Jury duty. this is crazy, more than a few people (repubs, dems and independents) i have talked to wont register to vote because they dont want to be called for jury duty.<br><br>who wrote this stupid law? i mean whoever did it should be deported.<br><br>You cant polish a Turd.
Posted by: Pete

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 07:19 AM

I was called for jury duty once, and I got out of it because I was freelancing at the time (still am), and I don't get paid when I'm not at work, period.<br><br>Funny how everyone tries to give you advice about how to get out of it once you're called. One colorful pizza shop owner suggested I use the 'N-word' liberally when in the interview process...<br><br>(it didn't work)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <------<br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 07:19 AM

Thankfully here in Ohio, the jury duty rolls come from driver's license registrations, not voter registrations. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 08:06 AM

All states should follow Ohio's lead and go by driver's license. And the next person who tells me they found a cool way to get out of jury duty I am going to slap. Jury duty is a privilege we get for living in a free and open democracy blah blah blah ... Thomas Jefferson blah blah blah and blah.<br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Pete

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 08:10 AM

Mine wasn't 'cool'- I don't get paid for the time off. So sue me blah blah blah...<br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 08:15 AM

I didn't intend to make an example of your reason. I think free lancing is a good reason. I was thinking more of the lunchtime conversation I had last week where people were trading lame, "get out of jury duty stories." Too many people come up with lame excuses so that people who take a real hit have to serve. Or, in reality, we get twelve unemployed rejects deciding who goes to jail.<br><br>But your N-word dodge was pretty lame. You didn't really try that did you? <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Pete

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 08:20 AM

No, in all honesty I happened to be getting lunch on the first day of the service and I mentioned to the guy in the pizza parlor that I might get picked for jury duty because I was going to be interviewed later that day...<br><br>The 'N-Word' suggestion he gave me is 100% true, but no I didn't try it. <br><br>Would be an interesting social experiment, though...the experiment being, of course, how long it would take to have my ass handed to me. <br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>
Posted by: squareman

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 10:19 AM

A driver's license is not an indicator of citizenship, but voter registration is—it's more accurate for them to use voter reg over dmv. One cannot serve on a jury if they are not a citizen. I'm pretty sure you get thrown into the pool when you sign up for a passport too. <br><br>Personally, I've been called a few times and have actually hoped that I'd get to serve. Never did, but wouldn't have complained a bit. I see it as a honored duty. Surprises me how many "American patriots" are the same people that bitch and moan about due process and try to not be part of the infrastructure. It's easier to just put a flag on your SUV and call yourself an American.<br><br>If I had to go to trial for something, I'd hate for my trial to be postponed because a jury couldn't be found... you know me, wanting my rights and all (right to a speedy trial). <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 07:53 PM

I've been called for jury duty twice while I've been in PA. Both times I was supposed to show up right in the middle of a semester--really impossible. I've been let off both times. But I really would like to serve. I did once while I was living in MA, and loved the experience. So both times I wrote to the guy who runs the jury selection process at the county courthouse here, and explained that I'd be happy to serve on a jury, but not during the school year. Didn't work. After the first time. I bet it won't work after the second time either.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 08:19 PM

i've never been called and i would really like to have the opportunity. we moved a year ago into the city (from a more distant suburb in another county), so that should help, i hope.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 08:35 PM

The experience I had in MA was really terrific. This was in Middlesex County, which is where Cambridge is located--the jury pool was top heavy with folks with academic and scientific degrees--a couple of engineers, a couple of doctors, and so on. The deliberations were a lesson in practical reason. It made me believe that the whole idea of juries is one terrific way of handling justice. There were some lawyerly schticks that bothered me, during the case, but on the whole even the lawyers were pleasant. It was a civil suit, though. I imagine a criminal case would be a different story.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Not voting because - 10/04/04 11:16 PM

I was on a jury for the first time last year, and it was an educational experience to be sure. It was a standard DIU case. A guy was leaving a casino when a cop noticed he was weaving into the other lane and so he pulled him over and performed field sobriety tests. The driver had already admitted to having "a couple drinks", and he failed all the field tests and admitted to it. The driver then agreed to take a breath test at the police station. He failed it miserably; his blood alcohol was nearly double the legal limit and this was probably an hour after he was pulled over.<br><br>What happened at the courthouse was incredible. The jury selection process took hours. Several people just told the judge they couldn't be impartial because they "hate cops" (that one works, trust me).<br><br>When the trial actually began it was the most amateur, ridiculous presentation by the prosecution I could imagine. The lead prosecutor appeared to be in her early twenties and she had a stutter. She tried to use a Powerpoint presentation but neither her nor her colleague could get the computer to work (stupid PCs ). The only witness was the deputy sheriff that made the arrest. He was a young arrogant prick fresh off the farm (the defendant was black, btw) that started out polite but began to act annoyed after a few hours. <br><br>The defense lawyer was a mid thirties woman with long blonde hair, lots of gold jewelry, and I kid you not... a black leather jacket! She would stride up and down the jury box and say things like, "what do we really know about this so-called 'breathalyzer test'. Sounds like a bunch of technological mumbo-jumbo to me!" It was incredibly funny and I had to stop myself from laughing the first hour or two. After that I wanted to cut my own throat it was so boring and redundant.<br><br>When the time came to deliberate I was chosen as lead juror (no idea why) and nearly every single juror but me wanted that man innocent on both counts (DUI and blood alcohol over the limit, two separate charges). It was amazing! Now I'm a commie bastard and the prosecution was anything but dynamic, but every piece of evidence was right there, including time stamped, calibrated originals from the blood alcohol machine. Not to mention the guy admitted to drinking and failing the field tests. I ended up conceding that the DUI (swerving, field test, etc.) could have been subjective and so in exchange the entire group agreed on a guilty verdict for the blood alcohol charge. When it came down to it they all hated the cop, but most amazingly, NO ONE believed the dang machine!!. In essence, evidence didn't mean sh!t.<br><br>So, the guy was found guilty of being over the legal limit, but not of the actual DUI (however that works). The funniest thing of all was that the defense lawyer was crushed. She thought for sure he would be innocent of both charges. Hilarious!<br><br>My overall impression of an entire day at the courthouse is that with a jury anything is possible. Anything.<br><br>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: Not voting because - 10/05/04 01:23 AM

Interesting story..thanks for sharing. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>My overall impression of an entire day at the courthouse is that with a jury anything is possible. Anything.<p><hr></blockquote><p>One need look no further than the morons that acquitted OJ Simpson to confirm that theory. <br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Not voting because - 10/05/04 06:52 AM

In California, or at least in my county, you also get onto the jury duty call list from your license renewal & registration at the DMV. I guess these people shouldn't drive either due to fear of being called for jury duty.<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Not voting because - 10/05/04 07:17 AM

Boy, that's so different from my experience, Trog! The case I heard involved the crash of a small airplane, and the plaintiffs were asserting that the manufacturer of the airplane knew taht the design of the fuel system was defective. We had lots of interesting testimony about company policies, company memos, engeneering reports on the design, etc. etc. Sure there was some of the rhetorical crap that you'd expect. (Putting "Do you want this jury to believe . . . " in front of any statement makes for a hell of a difference in tone!) But still, the lawyers for both sides were absolutely and impressively professional, as were the jurors. The engineers on the jury were especially helpful in working through schematics and so on. But as I say, that was Cambridge, MA. I suspect that Reading, PA would be a very different experience <br><br>
Posted by: ezyrider

Re: Not voting because - 10/05/04 11:46 AM

I've served on two juries. One a criminal case for the "Pleasant Grove Cat Burglar", basically a guy broke into houses at night and stole ATM cards. His girlfriend was the getaway driver. The most damaging piece of evidence was all the cards he had in his possession and they had several ATM video captures of him getting cash with the girlfriend behind him in the pics. Open and shut.<br><br>The other case was civil. A guy placed an ad in an adult newspaper to get a threesome between him, his wife and another woman. The wife was against it but after a few beatings agreed to participate. The wife and the woman they got for the threesome fell for each other and he never got to participate in an actual threesome which enraged him. The wife filed for divorce but he wanted the kids. After several lurid tales of his abuse we awarded the case to the wife. Oh and he represented himself...which totally blew the case, he was a real idiot. Again, open and shut.<br><br>Both trials only lasted 2 days and I really enjoyed participating in the justice system. I recommend it to anyone.<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Not voting because - 10/05/04 11:54 AM

Wow, you get all the luck. Cat burglars and threesomes. I've been called three times and each time it was sitting on a cold bench for 3 hours until they dismissed us. No questions, no Perry Mason stuff at all. <br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: ezyrider

Re: Not voting because - 10/05/04 12:10 PM

I really lucked out on those two cases. The entertainment value alone was worth it! I got called for JD in March but just landed a new job and got it postponed until December. We'll see what that brings. <br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ezyrider on 10/05/04 03:11 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>