# Jury Duty



## synthetic (May 8, 2012)

I'm interested to hear how people handle being put on jury duty during a gig. Murphy suggests that this would happen the week you begin work on your biggest gig ever. Anyone have stories/tactics? Besides getting yourself arrested?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 8, 2012)

synthetic @ Tue May 08 said:


> I'm interested to hear how people handle being put on jury duty during a gig. Murphy suggests that this would happen the week you begin work on your biggest gig ever. Anyone have stories/tactics? Besides getting yourself arrested?



They generally will not let you out of it but they will let you reschedule it to a later date.


----------



## Mike Greene (May 8, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 08 said:


> They generally will not let you out of it but they will let you reschedule it to a later date.


Really? My experience has been the opposite, because my clients are rarely able to reschedule to a later date. They're always happy to let me out if it and find someone else, though.

Oh, wait . . . 

:mrgreen:


----------



## rgames (May 8, 2012)

Get a degree in science or engineering. The attorneys often cut scientists and engineers from the pool because they don't want people who think - they want access to your emotions and they don't want any of that rational thought getting in the way 

rgames


----------



## midphase (May 8, 2012)

It's 1 week at most (in most cases half a day). You usually get out no later than 5pm which leaves plenty of time for evening composing.

Not saying that it would be a pleasant week, but it's manageable...and as Jay pointed out, rescheduling is very much an option.

If you are single, and depend heavily on that one job, and you can't reschedule...you could make the argument to the judge that being picked to be on a jury would put you in a state of financial hardship...sometime that works.


----------



## dinerdog (May 8, 2012)

After rescheduling at least 5 times I finally went to 100 Centre Street, NYC and ended up meeting my wife of 20+ years.

Strange, but true.

ps - I recall the interviewing judge asking "what do you really do?" when I said I was a musician. I never got picked for anything either. :wink:


----------



## midphase (May 8, 2012)

In Los Angeles, there is always the possibility that jury duty might open up some business networking possibilities. Last time I was called in, I spotted more than a few people in the biz.


----------



## JJP (May 8, 2012)

Rescheduling usually works. I've had to do it more than once here in Los Angeles.

There was a time when I reported to serve a week before a TV season started. I was sent to a courtroom where they were interviewing jurors for a month-long asbestos case. I explained to the judge that if this case were landing sometime outside the TV season, I'd be happy to serve. However, if I was forced to take a month off from a TV show, I would lose my health insurance and quite possibly my job. The judge was very understanding (they see this a lot in Los Angeles) and excused me from the case.

The courts in Los Angeles are usually pretty good about working with you (I've done Federal, LA Superior Court, and Traffic). They won't let you out of your service obligation, but they will allow you to reschedule it to a time when you are available.


----------



## synergy543 (May 8, 2012)

What if you don't believe in certain aspects of the judicial system? 

For example what if you don't believe in mandatory sentencing or are opposed to the fact the US has the largest prison population of any country in the world (and the prisons are run by public corporations for profit? Or why should the lawyers be allowed to make megabucks while the jury doesn't even get a pittance?

Could they expect a fair judgement from a juror who has such moral oppositions?


----------



## Brian Ralston (May 8, 2012)

Every time I have been called in to serve I have dreaded it. UNTIL I actually get there and once I get in the courtroom my perception changes. The judges have all been extremely fair, accommodating and appreciative of folks being there to do their civic duty. I then started to not dread the process but appreciate it and even enjoy it a little. I always learn a lot when I go through it. Although I will admit I have never been on a case longer than 4 days and most of the time I get asked to be excused by one of the attorneys because they probably don't like that I have a college degree and am my own boss. 

So what I am trying to say is. Don't fear it. If you are busy, just say so. You will be asked more detail and if need be they will usually reschedule you for a better time. But they are hard core, in LA at least, about letting anyone out completely. You will have to do it. might as well get it done sooner if you can than to keep kicking it down the road.

And I would not ever try being flippant with the judge or try using the situation to make a speech about how you don't like the system. That has never worked out well in any similar situation I have seen. And there is almost always one. In one case the judge threatened a guy with contempt if he did not stop being difficult. That stopped it right there for the day. And believe me he was given a long leash. And the next day when he did not show...the judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest right there at roll call.


----------



## midphase (May 8, 2012)

Read this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... duty_.html


----------



## JT3_Jon (May 8, 2012)

LOL! I just got a jury summons in the mail! :lol: 

You can for sure postpone for a later date (its right here on the form) but like others have said, you will have to serve eventually. I'm just going to get it over with as I don't actually have any solid gigs lined up... 

Its weird though. Part of me does not like the idea of jury duty as I personally don't like judging other people. I cant imagine how I would feel if I played a part in sending someone to life in prison, or worse! However, on the flip side, I do see the value in having an impartial jury of my peers, so I appreciate that aspect of the system and should feel pride in participating. And then you peel the layers of the onion and start to find some of the bad spots that synergy eluded to...but to mix produce metaphors, does that mean you throw out the whole bunch? 

Very strange...


----------



## Brian Ralston (May 8, 2012)

Jon...while one could argue that you are judging others....it is what you are judging that is important to note. Usually sentencing is not up to the jury. That decision is imposed by the JUDGE and the jury is just deciding if the case presented by the prosecution (criminal) or plaintiff (civil) is true or if the one by the defendant is true. That is it. And you can only make that decision based on what is presented to you in that court room. How it pertains to the law, the jurors are educated on. 

So...I was on a CA criminal case involving a drug dealer who got caught. It was enough for a felony. It was brought up (and struck down) but still brought up that this guy had two prior felonies. 3 strike rule would apply. Some folks on the jury all of a sudden in deliberation were having a hard time saying he was guilty because this 3rd strike would put him in prison for life. And for the least aggregious of the 3 felonies. (non violent). they had a hard time doing that. 

Here is what I told them as I am sharing with you. You can't make the decision based on that. You can't weigh the consequences. It is the judge who does that. Not the jury. The jury has to decide on that case and that case alone if the defendant was guilty or not and if he was (which in this case he clearly was cause they had video) then that had to be the decision, regardless of what number felony it was. That was this person's choice to not change after his previous two convictions. They ultimately agreed with that assessment and the Jury 12-0 convicted him as guilty. Case over. We never heard the end or sentencing. But all deep down knew. But we left knowing that we gave it good discussion over a couple of days. We let everyone say their peace with it. And we voted and everyone knew what they had to do. The process worked for us and we gave him our best shot at being fair in deciding his guilt.


----------



## midphase (May 8, 2012)

Do criminal attorneys have to serve for jury duty? Just wondering.


----------



## synergy543 (May 9, 2012)

JT3_Jon @ Tue May 08 said:


> I cant imagine how I would feel if I played a part in sending someone to life in prison, or worse!



As an honest juror, how would you feel? Could you really agree to a unanimous conviction were these the circumstances?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... WS7012.dtl

Many laws such as 3-strikes get passed in a heated political climate without anyone really carefully considering the consequences.

Here is how it happens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4--w-et1SNg


----------



## Daryl (May 9, 2012)

synergy543 @ Wed May 09 said:


> JT3_Jon @ Tue May 08 said:
> 
> 
> > I cant imagine how I would feel if I played a part in sending someone to life in prison, or worse!
> ...


It's not your call to make. If the evidence proves that the guy is guilty, he is guilty. That's it. As a juror on the case, the sentencing is none of your business.

In any case you have not been elected to change the law, unlike the politicians. If it is a bad law, the democratic process should be used to change it. You should not disobey a law, just because you don't agree with it. That is not democracy.

D


----------



## synergy543 (May 9, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed May 09 said:


> It's not your call to make. If the evidence proves that the guy is guilty, he is guilty. That's it. As a juror on the case, the sentencing is none of your business.
> 
> In any case you have not been elected to change the law, unlike the politicians. If it is a bad law, the democratic process should be used to change it. You should not disobey a law, just because you don't agree with it. That is not democracy.
> 
> D



Daryl, have you heard of the Milgram Experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

A law could never be overturned if we didn't even bother to discuss it in a forum such as this. 
Where strict obedience of authority leads toward injustice itself, do you not think it is worthy of discussion?


----------



## Brian Ralston (May 9, 2012)

midphase @ Tue May 08 said:


> Do criminal attorneys have to serve for jury duty? Just wondering.



Yes they do. But usually one of the attorneys in the case will eliminate them in voir dire because they do not want a lawyer in the jury trying their case in their head. Especially in a criminal case. Civil cases may not matter to them ad much. We are human after all.


----------



## synergy543 (May 9, 2012)

Brian Ralston @ Wed May 09 said:


> midphase @ Tue May 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Do criminal attorneys have to serve for jury duty? Just wondering.
> ...



Well following Daryl's logic...

It's not their call to make. If the evidence proves that the guy is guilty, he is guilty. That's it. As a juror on the case, the sentencing is none of thier business. 

In any case, the lawyers have not been elected to change the law, unlike the politicians. If it is a bad law, the democratic process should be used to change it. Lawyers should not disobey a law, just because they don't agree with it. That is not democracy.

Why should lawyers be treated differently than any other citizen?


----------



## Daryl (May 9, 2012)

synergy543 @ Wed May 09 said:


> Daryl @ Wed May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not your call to make. If the evidence proves that the guy is guilty, he is guilty. That's it. As a juror on the case, the sentencing is none of your business.
> ...


This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of serving on a Jury. Of course we can discuss overturning a law, but to make unilateral decisions when serving on a jury, just because you don't happen to agree with the law, is not acceptable behaviour in a civilized society.

Let's imagine for one minute (totally hypothetically) that someone ripped off one of your tracks and had a huge hit with it. You took them to court, but the "jury" decided that your track wasn't as good as the new one, so they decided not to find the plaintiff guilty of copyright theft. You wouldn't be so happy that the law wasn't obeyed then. :wink: 

D


----------



## Daryl (May 9, 2012)

synergy543 @ Wed May 09 said:


> It's not their call to make. If the evidence proves that the guy is guilty, he is guilty. That's it. As a juror on the case, the sentencing is none of thier business.


Correct.



synergy543 @ Wed May 09 said:


> In any case, the lawyers have not been elected to change the law, unlike the politicians. If it is a bad law, the democratic process should be used to change it. Lawyers should not disobey a law, just because they don't agree with it. That is not democracy.


Correct.



synergy543 @ Wed May 09 said:


> Why should lawyers be treated differently than any other citizen?


Correct.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 9, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed May 09 said:


> synergy543 @ Wed May 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Wed May 09 said:
> ...



I cannot say to an absolute certainty that there are not times when I would allow myself to be party to jury nullification.

Make believe scenario:

Person A repeatedly calls person B a series of disgusting, vile racial epithets. Person B slugs him and Person A falls and hits his head and dies.

Person A legally is clearly guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter but I am not convinced 100% that I might not vote not to find him guilty.


----------



## chimuelo (May 10, 2012)

You want to get out of this pretend your are biased, racist and believe in the Death Penalty. you will be ecvused and never bothered again.


----------



## midphase (May 10, 2012)

"I am not convinced 100% that I might not vote not to find him guilty."

Ahhhh...triple negative!!!! Help me out Jay, what does that mean? WHAT DOES IT MEAN???? (brain fizzles and smoke comes out of my ears)


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 10, 2012)

midphase @ Thu May 10 said:


> "I am not convinced 100% that I might not vote not to find him guilty."
> 
> Ahhhh...triple negative!!!! Help me out Jay, what does that mean? WHAT DOES IT MEAN???? (brain fizzles and smoke comes out of my ears)



Yeah, I sort of mangled the English language there :lol: 

What I meant to say was that it is entirely possible I would vote to acquit that person despite the fact that legally I would be in the wrong.


----------



## gamalataki (May 10, 2012)

You're not the type of person they want on a jury, so when they ask questions make sure you voice your opinion and they'll let you go.

If you're not going downtown, but instead going to Pasadena/Glendale/Burbank, juries are usually picked in two days. So if you can stand to lose that amount of time, get it over with.


----------

