I've never understand why people always complain about jury duty in particular. I've never been called, but I think it sounds like an interesting experience.
Mostly it's money related. Some people literally cannot afford to attend jury duty because of how little compensation there is for their time; like in my area, if it takes two weeks you get compensated $4.75 an hour compared to a full time job which is $13.50 below minimum wage ($18.25).
I also think it would be cool and would like to attend, but then I wouldn't be able to pay rent if it goes on too long.
Yeah you get to sit in a lobby for 3 hours, then the judge calls you in to tell you to be back in an hour after lunch. The you come back and sit a few more hours until they call you back in to tell you what time to be back the next day
if you are willing to sit a juror pool for like several days straight, where they spends hours questioning each juror of why they can and cannot serve. its really annoying and time consuming, and people have jobs. most of the people in my area can afford to take time off, majority of the juror pool i was in was tech/programmer. its very anxiety inducing if you dont want to be there.
Wait, so you have to take vacation days for jury duty? Your employer doesn't have to give you leave? That's fucked up lol. Every time I think the US couldn't be more fucked than it already is, I get proven wrong lol.
because they choose 12jurors, 6 alternates because they are much easily swayed to go in one decision or another by prosecutoers, defense attorneys. thats why they rarely choose people in the courst system themselves , or scientists some times. thats why they choose BUmpkins to be jurors. people like rittenhouse got off, because they likely chose jurors that are likely pushovers, or wont speak up.
In most (maybe all) states, you do get paid by the state, but it is something hilariously low. In my state it is $20 a day I believe, which is not much above the minimum hourly wage for my area.
The assholes in my city don't even pay you enough to cover parking in the local parking garages they fucking recommend you use, let alone gas or meal expenses, for the day.
ours is 15/day if you are chosen, ive heard people its as low as 5$, and a small pittance for gas/travel expenses. federal court is rarer but they can pay up to 40$/day in some cases.
and some employers require the jury duty pay, if you want your full 8hr shift to be paid. it really isnt fair to force employers to pay the jurors thier full usual hours. its the city and state that should pay thier full wage amount for that day. but they dont, they know they cant get by with paying less than 15$/day.
Oh your job has to let you take time off - they do not, however, have to pay you. You have to use PTO (paid time off, aka sick & vacation days) if you want pay for the days you're off doing just duty. Because America is a capitalist hell.
yes and no, it really depends on the EMPLOYER if they want to pay you for it, they allow you to be on JD, but they dont have to pay you. and i read in other states, thier employer may require the "pitiful jury duty pay" as compensation for time off. if you are a federal/city, state worker, either UPS/USPS you are out of luck, they are more likely to choose these jurors because they know they will allow JD for the long haul for these people.
i sat in one last sept, it was very boring and very annoying if you a job. basically the 1st 2 days is roll call like 200+people, and they may or may not take "excuses' to be excluded from jd. if you are selected you have to sit in a courtroom usually 8am sharp and then sit there for 7+hrs listening to peoples "biases" of why they can or cannot be in the jury(with breaks). they will sus you out if you try the JD nullfication tactic, and they might end up choosing you. its incredibally annoying. this went on for 3-4 days, because people were trying to get out of jury duty( they have to vet every single person they call to the stand. its usually they choose 12 main jurors and 3-6 alternates, the only ones that usually are excused are people who are old(70+), have a disability, or thier jobs require so much time commiment they cant afford to be jury duty. almost everyone in my Jury pool were in tech, so mostly can afford to have time off, only a few one cant speak or understand English clearly(chinese immigrant), one is DEAF or very hearing impaired.lawyers, LEOs are also excluded mostly.
then they go through biases like someone is too emotional, or some is a former lawyer from another country (germany) which she gave the reason why a jury is inefficient, she was excused. 1 chick tried her hardest of being A SJW(organizing/prostesting,,,etc).
some people cant afford to be in a jury because of money. In a HCOL thats less likely.
I was exempt from jury duty while serving in the US military, but at one particular base I was stationed at, they put me on a list of potential jury members for any military trials held in the area.
My boss got selected to sit in on a trial, but I never got called. He was super excited about it. He said it was a fascinating case and he couldn't wait to spill the details once the trial concluded.
To this day, I've never been called on. I kinda hope it happens one day. I'm retired now and have nothing better to do.
I wouldn't mind doing it. I was actually summoned twice in a two year period, but my stupid ADHD ass neglected to show up because I was really bad at time management back then. They have not summoned me since :(.
they are too smart for that, they will keep you in the jury as long as they want just for doing that, or choose you anyways. you have to come up with creative ways of"biases". thats what some of the people did when i sat on a jury in the stands did. they were overexaggerating thier biases, and creating "Stories"
I've only served on jury duty once, and it was kinda fucked up. Child abuse case, and we were all kinda on the fence leaning toward defendant was guilty, but the evidence presented was just absolute dogshit. Lots of reasonable doubts.
Found the dude not guilty on the premise that we'd rather let a guilty piece of shit off the hook than risk convicting someone who's innocent, but it felt real fuckin icky to give that verdict over what was most likely just a lazy investigation by the cops.
Hope the kid turned out okay... must have absolutely zero faith in the legal system because of that.
You did the right thing. It's also important that cops and prosecutors do their job and stop relying on horrible accusations to be enough to convict anyone they want.
A lot of true crime stories start with "the cops did nothing for the first 2 weeks" or "a lot of evidence went missing and the lead detective got busy" or "they said it was just a runaway case until a body showed up. Cops are dumb as dog shit and care only about protecting and serving themselves. Sure there are some good cops but not enough.
i remember seeing one youtube, where a cousin/friend was suspected of murder, but the cops dint question him or did anything. many people in the comments said the cop was likely related so they ended the INVESTIGATIon of the killing.
Though it's important to remember that modern juries expect CSI-level investigations from the cops, where you can simply "enhance" a photo until the suspect is easily identifiable and all criminals coat the crime scene in semen prior to fleeing, so if there's no clear footage or DNA evidence, a lot of people think that must mean the cops are incompetent.
CSI show exaggerates those things dont really happen in real life at all, they dont have fancy way of detecting blood, footprints, fingerprints, or some microscopic evidence. also fingerprints have been shown to be extremely unreliable as of the latest research.
I don't remember the name, but some lawyer on YouTube explained that exactly the problem you all had, is why he doesn't struggle defending someone who is "obviously" guilty.
You can't really know that right of the bat. You need at least some good evidence. Basically he is making sure that all the other people do their job correctly.
Pretty easy to get out of, right? I'm sure no prosecutor would keep you if you stated plainly that you detest cops and would never trust a word that comes out of their snouts. I've also heard of people claiming to have biases against all races but their own just to get out of jury duty, although at least once, I've heard of a judge asking jurists who made such claims for proof of past statements along those lines or be slapped with contempt of court charges. Not sure proclaiming to be a racist is the direction I would go in, but to each their own, I suppose.
Of course, always go for jury nullification (or be the lone dissenting vote if your state requires a unanimous jury) if you can, but this is for when you aren't able to put in the time for whatever reason
It's not like cops would ever lie to close the case or prosecutors would frame someone to get a conviction. Never in my life have I heard about something like that happening.
I'm not going to try and defend my take; i acknowledge it's a shitty one, and I'll own it. My original comment was poorly worded, though, when it comes to my stance. "I'm not trying to argue that this is a good or fair way to think. I'm just trying to clarify what I meant in my original comment.
My baseline is that they're likely guilty, not that I blindly believe they're guilty simply for being in a court room. I'm suspicious by nature, and the fact that you're being tried (and that they have enough evidence to bring you to court) doesn't lend itself to me believing your innocence. This clearly conflicts with the innocent until proven guilty concept, which makes me a poor juror to select.
I also take a lot of stock in evidence - which by its nature points to someone having done a given action. Not necessarily the person on trial, however. My point is that it's easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative (i.e., innocence).
So it's more of: I think you probably did this, and I believe what I can see and measure (and those things frequently point to guilty) than you're guilty before you even take the stand.
If they have good evidence, like CCTV photo or something putting the accused far away from the crime, obviously my stance would change. What I was trying to [poorly] get at in my first comment is my suspicious nature. That pre-disposition makes a bad juror to select. That nature may not be fair, and it's a character flaw, certainly.
Jesus. No, man. That is not the right way to think. The consequences of finding an innocent person guilty are not just bad for that person, they are bad for the entire justice system, and the society that it serves.
I get that you are partly saying that to get off jury duty, but I just don't want to let that slide. The courts are a vital barrier against corrupt cops, sure, but even upstanding honest cops could easily see someone as guilty because of their own unconscious biases or just the bad luck of circumstance making someone look guilty. It happens all the time.
My friend's dad, now a retired judge, was the second lawyer who defended Lindy Chamberlain, and actually got her released from the bullshit charge of murder.
She was the famous case in Australia where her baby got eaten by a dingo. The cops thought she'd killed her baby, because she was "cold and unemotional" while being questioned. So they just did not look at the evidence properly, her first defence team sucked, and she got found guilty, even though there was tons of evidence that a dingo had indeed just come and grabbed her baby from her tent and dragged it off.
If the cops look at you and get a feeling you are guilty, they will act on that feeling. You need a court, with a process, to try and detach all that human gut instinct away from the actual facts, to find the truth of the matter.
Ooh, dice it real small and put it in a airtight bag/container, bonus points for vacuum sealed. This works for pretty much every Brassica oleracea cultivar.
I served once, and it was an interesting experience, I learned to trust the court system more than I did before, at least for the civil trial I sat.
Years later I was on call for selection. During the selection process I agreed, when the lawyer asked, that false imprisonment needed to mean they couldn't leave, i.e. they were locked up. That was enough to eliminate me. I didn't want to be on a criminal trial that sounded like it was going to last weeks.
In short, it's easy enough to get out of serving, there's no reason to be a jerk.
Obviously it depends on your location, but you can probably just sign up. Around here, you contact the county court system (which is how our juries are administered), give them your contact info, and wait for a case. You're limited to volunteering once per year, because some retirees would keep doing it just to stay busy.
also a interesitng thing they get you with, is that you can be called federal and superior(county court) in the same year, and one does not excuse the other if you did it already. so they can DOUBLE dip on people.
seems more likely depending how they get juror rolls. they usually target voter rolls, than DMV RECORDs, and then go down the list from them. also many people noticed if you voted frequently or recently you almost guaranteed to get one within 6month to a year. thats why people in other forums mentioned they stopped voting because of this too much of a hassle and it hurts thier income. or they just ignore the summons, even if they send another "warning summonrs"
i was called 6month 1year every time after voting, lucikly most of those time they dint call my group number except last year. and there were posts on other forums where this happened too. west coast, i looked up the statistics, as fo 2023, our state only choose about 150k jurors every year, out of how eligible jurors int he state(which is 8million potential). but we know they must choose the same people year after year, and avoid others.
This is only punishing the other jurors stuck there too. Unless they are putting out enough ppm to be noticeable even 15 feet away in an open air room.
It's an important civic duty. For every opportunity to find Luigi did nothing wrong, there is a terrible case.
I had a friend who had a 8 month jury stint over a infamous and grusome child murder. They had to review detailed forensic evidence. He had to go to therapy for panic attacks for years.
if you have alot of time on your hands. but in most cases people cant afford to take work off just do it, they lose out on alot of money. and most states pay very little, like a few bucks to 15/day if you are selected. federal might pay more. difference between 5$ and few hundred or more is quite significant.
usually its not their responsibility to do so, its the city should be responsible. because the job loses out on people not being there for several days at a time.
Where are you not being paid? It's always paid here. It's just a lot less than minimum wage (like $75 for the whole shebang no matter how long it lasts).
The rate was so low in Harris County, TX several years ago that the day rate wouldn't even pay for parking and the cheapest lunch at the courthouse cafeteria.
I knew someone who got picked for jury duty on a trial that lasted over a month in federal court over 2 hours from where he lived.
He ended up having to take out loans to cover his travel expenses on top of his normal living expenses. He got paid something like $7/day for the entire trial and his job only gave 5 days of PTO for the whole year and didn't pay for jury duty like a lot of businesses do, so after the first week he had no income.
I forget the minimum length, but my state also gives a per diem if the trial is longer than a certain number of days. But like some one else said, it's only like $12/day. Like barely enough to cover a lunch. IDK if they feed you tho. I have never actually had to go; I'm always cut during the "call in and check your group number" phase. The paperwork details payment; doesn't say much about food, travel, or any of that.
I mean...think about that for a minute. If you're being paid less than minimum wage then how are you supposed to afford to live? Some people live paycheck to paycheck.
Practically speaking it would be better to eat it before going in so that you're digestive system can do its thing. That means to to 24 hours in advance. So like dinner and breakfast before heading in should prime the system nicely.
In some places, telling potential jurors about jury nullification is considered juror tampering.
It's better to phrase it differently without actually saying the words "jury nullification". Something like, "I would vote not guilty if the law is unjust."
i was sitting in a juror room last year, and a few did it differently. the most annoying one was the SJW, she was telling how she was activist, how she organizes protests, events for political protests, it works, but the court will atempt to keep you a very long time if you try this though, while they eliminate other potential jurors. one was showing huge biases towards LEO, how they wernt helped and what not. and another one was a former german lawyer, how she thinks having a Jury is very wrong and biased.
by the fourth day they got really nervous, and just kept most of the jurors that were chosen, because they knew the more time goes on people will try to use these tactics to get out.
My relative said he would never get culled as a juror, because he was an activist lawyer. Actually he was a lawyer for a local city government and he helped shape all the changes for a region and after he retired from the city, he represented local cops who had fucked up real bad
So get a law degree if you want to get out if jury duty
What the other guy said. Just search up some videos of people opening it. If I remember correctly, the 'appropriate' way to open the can is in a tub of water, because the smell is so horrible.
140 Comments
Turret3857@infosec.pub · 174 pts · 16d
I am going to make everyone suffer because I have to participate in society 😇
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 60 pts · 16d
Etterra@discuss.online · 1 pts · 1d
The eggs and beans dude, obviously.
stoicmaverick@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 16d
I've never understand why people always complain about jury duty in particular. I've never been called, but I think it sounds like an interesting experience.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 33 pts · 16d
Mostly it's money related. Some people literally cannot afford to attend jury duty because of how little compensation there is for their time; like in my area, if it takes two weeks you get compensated $4.75 an hour compared to a full time job which is $13.50 below minimum wage ($18.25).
I also think it would be cool and would like to attend, but then I wouldn't be able to pay rent if it goes on too long.
village604@adultswim.fan · 9 pts · 16d
Yup, here you get minimum wage which is only slightly over federal.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 16d
in the west its only 15/day, if you are on the juror pool. and it was 3-4 days, i make more than that in half of a shift.
xylol@leminal.space · 15 pts · 16d
Yeah you get to sit in a lobby for 3 hours, then the judge calls you in to tell you to be back in an hour after lunch. The you come back and sit a few more hours until they call you back in to tell you what time to be back the next day
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 14 pts · 16d
if you are willing to sit a juror pool for like several days straight, where they spends hours questioning each juror of why they can and cannot serve. its really annoying and time consuming, and people have jobs. most of the people in my area can afford to take time off, majority of the juror pool i was in was tech/programmer. its very anxiety inducing if you dont want to be there.
bridgeburner@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 16d
Wait, so you have to take vacation days for jury duty? Your employer doesn't have to give you leave? That's fucked up lol. Every time I think the US couldn't be more fucked than it already is, I get proven wrong lol.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 16d
You reminded me of an excellent quote: "the USA is not a first world country. It's 50 third world countries in a trench coat".
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
because they choose 12jurors, 6 alternates because they are much easily swayed to go in one decision or another by prosecutoers, defense attorneys. thats why they rarely choose people in the courst system themselves , or scientists some times. thats why they choose BUmpkins to be jurors. people like rittenhouse got off, because they likely chose jurors that are likely pushovers, or wont speak up.
snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 16d
Yeah do they not legally have to pay you for it in the us or something? That's messed up
zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 15d
In most (maybe all) states, you do get paid by the state, but it is something hilariously low. In my state it is $20 a day I believe, which is not much above the minimum hourly wage for my area.
Grostleton@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 15d
The assholes in my city don't even pay you enough to cover parking in the local parking garages they fucking recommend you use, let alone gas or meal expenses, for the day.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
the cities make money from revenue of parking tickets, parking fees.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
ours is 15/day if you are chosen, ive heard people its as low as 5$, and a small pittance for gas/travel expenses. federal court is rarer but they can pay up to 40$/day in some cases.
architect@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 15d
They pay you but it’s like enough for lunch.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
and some employers require the jury duty pay, if you want your full 8hr shift to be paid. it really isnt fair to force employers to pay the jurors thier full usual hours. its the city and state that should pay thier full wage amount for that day. but they dont, they know they cant get by with paying less than 15$/day.
Etterra@discuss.online · 1 pts · 1d
Oh your job has to let you take time off - they do not, however, have to pay you. You have to use PTO (paid time off, aka sick & vacation days) if you want pay for the days you're off doing just duty. Because America is a capitalist hell.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
yes and no, it really depends on the EMPLOYER if they want to pay you for it, they allow you to be on JD, but they dont have to pay you. and i read in other states, thier employer may require the "pitiful jury duty pay" as compensation for time off. if you are a federal/city, state worker, either UPS/USPS you are out of luck, they are more likely to choose these jurors because they know they will allow JD for the long haul for these people.
errer@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 16d
I served in a jury once on a criminal case, we found the defendant not guilty and got to see him be freed. That felt pretty nice to be a part of that.
teslekova@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 15d
Nice one! That's like one of the optimal outcomes for jury duty.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 16d
i sat in one last sept, it was very boring and very annoying if you a job. basically the 1st 2 days is roll call like 200+people, and they may or may not take "excuses' to be excluded from jd. if you are selected you have to sit in a courtroom usually 8am sharp and then sit there for 7+hrs listening to peoples "biases" of why they can or cannot be in the jury(with breaks). they will sus you out if you try the JD nullfication tactic, and they might end up choosing you. its incredibally annoying. this went on for 3-4 days, because people were trying to get out of jury duty( they have to vet every single person they call to the stand. its usually they choose 12 main jurors and 3-6 alternates, the only ones that usually are excused are people who are old(70+), have a disability, or thier jobs require so much time commiment they cant afford to be jury duty. almost everyone in my Jury pool were in tech, so mostly can afford to have time off, only a few one cant speak or understand English clearly(chinese immigrant), one is DEAF or very hearing impaired.lawyers, LEOs are also excluded mostly.
then they go through biases like someone is too emotional, or some is a former lawyer from another country (germany) which she gave the reason why a jury is inefficient, she was excused. 1 chick tried her hardest of being A SJW(organizing/prostesting,,,etc).
some people cant afford to be in a jury because of money. In a HCOL thats less likely.
cobysev@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 16d
I was exempt from jury duty while serving in the US military, but at one particular base I was stationed at, they put me on a list of potential jury members for any military trials held in the area.
My boss got selected to sit in on a trial, but I never got called. He was super excited about it. He said it was a fascinating case and he couldn't wait to spill the details once the trial concluded.
To this day, I've never been called on. I kinda hope it happens one day. I'm retired now and have nothing better to do.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 16d
was he chosen, from what ive gathered they usually reject people that are too excited for jury duty.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
I wouldn't mind doing it. I was actually summoned twice in a two year period, but my stupid ADHD ass neglected to show up because I was really bad at time management back then. They have not summoned me since :(.
architect@thelemmy.club · 3 pts · 15d
It’s because they don’t value your time.
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com · 0 pts · 16d
Also jury nullification exists, which can be fun.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 16d
they are too smart for that, they will keep you in the jury as long as they want just for doing that, or choose you anyways. you have to come up with creative ways of"biases". thats what some of the people did when i sat on a jury in the stands did. they were overexaggerating thier biases, and creating "Stories"
Murse@slrpnk.net · 70 pts · 16d
I've only served on jury duty once, and it was kinda fucked up. Child abuse case, and we were all kinda on the fence leaning toward defendant was guilty, but the evidence presented was just absolute dogshit. Lots of reasonable doubts.
Found the dude not guilty on the premise that we'd rather let a guilty piece of shit off the hook than risk convicting someone who's innocent, but it felt real fuckin icky to give that verdict over what was most likely just a lazy investigation by the cops.
Hope the kid turned out okay... must have absolutely zero faith in the legal system because of that.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 16d
You did the right thing. It's also important that cops and prosecutors do their job and stop relying on horrible accusations to be enough to convict anyone they want.
We're close enough to the French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror as it is. I still think Al Franken really didn't do anything seriously wrong.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 16d
You wouldn't believe the amount of cases we shelve because cops are incompetent. Or maybe you will if you know anything about cops.
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 15d
A lot of true crime stories start with "the cops did nothing for the first 2 weeks" or "a lot of evidence went missing and the lead detective got busy" or "they said it was just a runaway case until a body showed up. Cops are dumb as dog shit and care only about protecting and serving themselves. Sure there are some good cops but not enough.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 15d
i remember seeing one youtube, where a cousin/friend was suspected of murder, but the cops dint question him or did anything. many people in the comments said the cop was likely related so they ended the INVESTIGATIon of the killing.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 15d
and LAZY, they wont bother with small petty crimes.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 15d
Though it's important to remember that modern juries expect CSI-level investigations from the cops, where you can simply "enhance" a photo until the suspect is easily identifiable and all criminals coat the crime scene in semen prior to fleeing, so if there's no clear footage or DNA evidence, a lot of people think that must mean the cops are incompetent.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 15d
CSI show exaggerates those things dont really happen in real life at all, they dont have fancy way of detecting blood, footprints, fingerprints, or some microscopic evidence. also fingerprints have been shown to be extremely unreliable as of the latest research.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14d
Yep, but good luck convincing a jury who raised on CSI/NCIS/etc. shows.
autriyo@feddit.org · 11 pts · 16d
I don't remember the name, but some lawyer on YouTube explained that exactly the problem you all had, is why he doesn't struggle defending someone who is "obviously" guilty.
You can't really know that right of the bat. You need at least some good evidence. Basically he is making sure that all the other people do their job correctly.
ITGuyLevi@programming.dev · 9 pts · 16d
As one of those kids, he'll probably turn out okay. As a juror, it's better to let a piece of shit go free than make an innocent person rot in jail.
When the kid grows up I would almost guarantee that he would make the same decision.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 15d
In both cases the piece of shit goes free. Which is somehow really hard for people to understand.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 15d
Sorry you had to deal with that. It sounds like you did the job properly, as shitty as that is.
Depress_Mode@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 16d
Pretty easy to get out of, right? I'm sure no prosecutor would keep you if you stated plainly that you detest cops and would never trust a word that comes out of their snouts. I've also heard of people claiming to have biases against all races but their own just to get out of jury duty, although at least once, I've heard of a judge asking jurists who made such claims for proof of past statements along those lines or be slapped with contempt of court charges. Not sure proclaiming to be a racist is the direction I would go in, but to each their own, I suppose.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 25 pts · 16d
Nah, you keep all that secret, manage to get on the jury anyway, then vote not guilty no matter what.
Unless it's a civil case. Then you just automatically rule in favor of whichever party has less money.
Depress_Mode@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
Of course, always go for jury nullification (or be the lone dissenting vote if your state requires a unanimous jury) if you can, but this is for when you aren't able to put in the time for whatever reason
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 15d
i was in last fall, and people had to come up with long drawn out explanation, convoluted biases. you cant just say it outright now.
Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net · -21 pts · 16d
I'm of the mind that if you're being criminally tried, your likely guilty. Not always, obviously, but that's enough to say to get me off any jury.
NoForwadSlashS@piefed.social · 7 pts · 16d
Its true, the cops never do anything wrong, always just assume they did everything by the book.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 16d
It's not like cops would ever lie to close the case or prosecutors would frame someone to get a conviction. Never in my life have I heard about something like that happening.
Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 15d
I'm not going to try and defend my take; i acknowledge it's a shitty one, and I'll own it. My original comment was poorly worded, though, when it comes to my stance. "I'm not trying to argue that this is a good or fair way to think. I'm just trying to clarify what I meant in my original comment.
My baseline is that they're likely guilty, not that I blindly believe they're guilty simply for being in a court room. I'm suspicious by nature, and the fact that you're being tried (and that they have enough evidence to bring you to court) doesn't lend itself to me believing your innocence. This clearly conflicts with the innocent until proven guilty concept, which makes me a poor juror to select.
I also take a lot of stock in evidence - which by its nature points to someone having done a given action. Not necessarily the person on trial, however. My point is that it's easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative (i.e., innocence).
So it's more of: I think you probably did this, and I believe what I can see and measure (and those things frequently point to guilty) than you're guilty before you even take the stand.
If they have good evidence, like CCTV photo or something putting the accused far away from the crime, obviously my stance would change. What I was trying to [poorly] get at in my first comment is my suspicious nature. That pre-disposition makes a bad juror to select. That nature may not be fair, and it's a character flaw, certainly.
teslekova@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 15d
Jesus. No, man. That is not the right way to think. The consequences of finding an innocent person guilty are not just bad for that person, they are bad for the entire justice system, and the society that it serves.
I get that you are partly saying that to get off jury duty, but I just don't want to let that slide. The courts are a vital barrier against corrupt cops, sure, but even upstanding honest cops could easily see someone as guilty because of their own unconscious biases or just the bad luck of circumstance making someone look guilty. It happens all the time.
My friend's dad, now a retired judge, was the second lawyer who defended Lindy Chamberlain, and actually got her released from the bullshit charge of murder.
She was the famous case in Australia where her baby got eaten by a dingo. The cops thought she'd killed her baby, because she was "cold and unemotional" while being questioned. So they just did not look at the evidence properly, her first defence team sucked, and she got found guilty, even though there was tons of evidence that a dingo had indeed just come and grabbed her baby from her tent and dragged it off.
If the cops look at you and get a feeling you are guilty, they will act on that feeling. You need a court, with a process, to try and detach all that human gut instinct away from the actual facts, to find the truth of the matter.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 16d
Fartmaxxing.
Dookieman12@piefed.social · 22 pts · 16d
Needs some raw broccoli too
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 16d
A beer and some peanut butter cookies.
dingus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
Why peanut butter cookies????
Angular@crazypeople.online · 9 pts · 16d
Because they’re my favorite.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 16d
Bruh I'm no food chemist or gastro-entamologist, but if you give me 2 peanut butter cookies and some beer, I can clear a room.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16d
Ooh, dice it real small and put it in a airtight bag/container, bonus points for vacuum sealed. This works for pretty much every Brassica oleracea cultivar.
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de · 19 pts · 15d
I don't understand you humans.
Why does "everyone else has to suffer" if you are stuck with jury duty?
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 15d
What are you?
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 15d
No idea, but pretty certain that i'm not the same species that i read about every day in the news.
MehBlah@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 15d
A meat Popsicle?
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 16d
I served once, and it was an interesting experience, I learned to trust the court system more than I did before, at least for the civil trial I sat.
Years later I was on call for selection. During the selection process I agreed, when the lawyer asked, that false imprisonment needed to mean they couldn't leave, i.e. they were locked up. That was enough to eliminate me. I didn't want to be on a criminal trial that sounded like it was going to last weeks.
In short, it's easy enough to get out of serving, there's no reason to be a jerk.
West_of_West@piefed.social · 7 pts · 16d
I've always wanted to do jury duty. Never been called.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 16d
Obviously it depends on your location, but you can probably just sign up. Around here, you contact the county court system (which is how our juries are administered), give them your contact info, and wait for a case. You're limited to volunteering once per year, because some retirees would keep doing it just to stay busy.
West_of_West@piefed.social · 2 pts · 16d
Cool, I can't volunteer here. But I was able to register in case they don't have my address.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 16d
also a interesitng thing they get you with, is that you can be called federal and superior(county court) in the same year, and one does not excuse the other if you did it already. so they can DOUBLE dip on people.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 16d
seems more likely depending how they get juror rolls. they usually target voter rolls, than DMV RECORDs, and then go down the list from them. also many people noticed if you voted frequently or recently you almost guaranteed to get one within 6month to a year. thats why people in other forums mentioned they stopped voting because of this too much of a hassle and it hurts thier income. or they just ignore the summons, even if they send another "warning summonrs"
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 15d
I vote in every election and have never been called.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
i was called 6month 1year every time after voting, lucikly most of those time they dint call my group number except last year. and there were posts on other forums where this happened too. west coast, i looked up the statistics, as fo 2023, our state only choose about 150k jurors every year, out of how eligible jurors int he state(which is 8million potential). but we know they must choose the same people year after year, and avoid others.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 15d
Your fellow jurors are suffering enough, why do you have to make it worse?
Simulation6@sopuli.xyz · 13 pts · 16d
That’s a lot of food. You could feed a family of 4 on that.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 13 pts · 16d
The family that farts together stays together.
PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 16d
Simply because nobody else will have them. Too much ass air!
tamal3@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
They're going to eat from the same container for the whole week. It'll get better every day.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 1 pts · 16d
Like bigos.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 16d
1 Angry Man
qarbone@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 15d
This is only punishing the other jurors stuck there too. Unless they are putting out enough ppm to be noticeable even 15 feet away in an open air room.
ieGod@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 15d
I really enjoyed my stint as a juror. Never tried to weasel out of it either.
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 15d
It's an important civic duty. For every opportunity to find Luigi did nothing wrong, there is a terrible case.
I had a friend who had a 8 month jury stint over a infamous and grusome child murder. They had to review detailed forensic evidence. He had to go to therapy for panic attacks for years.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 15d
if you have alot of time on your hands. but in most cases people cant afford to take work off just do it, they lose out on alot of money. and most states pay very little, like a few bucks to 15/day if you are selected. federal might pay more. difference between 5$ and few hundred or more is quite significant.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 16d
I thought being on a jury might be quite interesting, until I found out you don't get paid for it. Fuck that, I'm not working for free.
Gork@sopuli.xyz · 18 pts · 16d
Last time I went they paid like $25 for the entire day.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 16d
That would barely cover your costs to be there.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 15d
the first day spend around 7+hrs sitting on hard wooden benches. yea it wont cover the hours lost if you were working.
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 16d
Employers should have to give you paid time off for it
hydrashok@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 16d
Some do
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
usually its not their responsibility to do so, its the city should be responsible. because the job loses out on people not being there for several days at a time.
69420@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 16d
You get paid where I live, but it's some useless amount like $12/day.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 16d
that is effectively not getting paid imo
I got bills to pay. I'm not living a lavish life. either it matches my income, or I find a way out of it
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 16d
That's why they call it a civic duty, not a job.
Notyou@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 16d
I got summoned recently and was excited. Ever8I worked with seemed odd that I was excited. The guy took a deal so they dismissed us around 11-12.
The court wrote a small check but I got a full pay day from my job. Union benefits for the win.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 4 pts · 16d
Where are you not being paid? It's always paid here. It's just a lot less than minimum wage (like $75 for the whole shebang no matter how long it lasts).
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 16d
The rate was so low in Harris County, TX several years ago that the day rate wouldn't even pay for parking and the cheapest lunch at the courthouse cafeteria.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 16d
Depending on how long the trial lasts, that wouldn't even cover travel expenses.
That's effectively working for free.
lonefighter@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 16d
I knew someone who got picked for jury duty on a trial that lasted over a month in federal court over 2 hours from where he lived.
He ended up having to take out loans to cover his travel expenses on top of his normal living expenses. He got paid something like $7/day for the entire trial and his job only gave 5 days of PTO for the whole year and didn't pay for jury duty like a lot of businesses do, so after the first week he had no income.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 16d
I'd just stop showing up at that point, that's ridiculous. Financial hardship is a legitimate reason to get out of jury duty where I live.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 3 pts · 16d
I forget the minimum length, but my state also gives a per diem if the trial is longer than a certain number of days. But like some one else said, it's only like $12/day. Like barely enough to cover a lunch. IDK if they feed you tho. I have never actually had to go; I'm always cut during the "call in and check your group number" phase. The paperwork details payment; doesn't say much about food, travel, or any of that.
dingus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
I mean...think about that for a minute. If you're being paid less than minimum wage then how are you supposed to afford to live? Some people live paycheck to paycheck.
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 16d
Especially if the trial is 20, 30, 40 weeks long
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
grand juries can be longer.
ieGod@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 15d
This not universally true. Can vary by country, province, and court system level.
bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
But the hours are good.
Etterra@discuss.online · 9 pts · 16d
This is genius, though personally I'd the eggs into egg salad and add plentiful fried onions.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 16d
here we didn't get to bring our own meals. We weren't even allowed to go home or keep our phones at all, nor get visitors
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
thats only if you get selected to be one of the 12 jurors, or alternates. we just sat in the seats waiting to be potentially called in the room.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 15d
oh ok. then that's the same here
Etterra@discuss.online · 1 pts · 1d
Practically speaking it would be better to eat it before going in so that you're digestive system can do its thing. That means to to 24 hours in advance. So like dinner and breakfast before heading in should prime the system nicely.
Doom@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 16d
Ya'll if you don't want to serve just tell the court you know what jury nullification is and ask to be dismissed. No need for biological warfare.
village604@adultswim.fan · 9 pts · 16d
In some places, telling potential jurors about jury nullification is considered juror tampering.
It's better to phrase it differently without actually saying the words "jury nullification". Something like, "I would vote not guilty if the law is unjust."
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 15d
i was sitting in a juror room last year, and a few did it differently. the most annoying one was the SJW, she was telling how she was activist, how she organizes protests, events for political protests, it works, but the court will atempt to keep you a very long time if you try this though, while they eliminate other potential jurors. one was showing huge biases towards LEO, how they wernt helped and what not. and another one was a former german lawyer, how she thinks having a Jury is very wrong and biased.
by the fourth day they got really nervous, and just kept most of the jurors that were chosen, because they knew the more time goes on people will try to use these tactics to get out.
KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org · 7 pts · 16d
Some sauerkraut also. Gives it a tang.
Bring enough for everyone that way you'll guarantee a quick verdict.
snoons@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 16d
Cheese would go well with it too. Wash it down with some organic olive oil and for dessert sugar free gummy bears from a disreputable temu seller.
KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org · 8 pts · 16d
With a side of shredded lettuce just to make things interesting.
:D
sirico@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 15d
12 angry farts
unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 16d
My relative said he would never get culled as a juror, because he was an activist lawyer. Actually he was a lawyer for a local city government and he helped shape all the changes for a region and after he retired from the city, he represented local cops who had fucked up real bad
So get a law degree if you want to get out if jury duty
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 16d
lawyers, LEO, or family of either one will usually get you excused asap. the 2nd less common is being a MD, PHD, or another scientist or specialist.
robocall@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 15d
You can tell the lawyers you don't want to be selected. They typically don't want people on the jury that aren't taking the responsibility seriously
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 15d
And an ipa
Agent641@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 15d
And some asparagus for that reeky pee
MrSelfDestruct@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 16d
Real human bean
imadethis@fedinsfw.app · 3 pts · 16d
I'm pretty sure you can just open one can of surstromming and save yourself all the effort of the eggs.
Etterra@discuss.online · 1 pts · 16d
What does that mean in American?
IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 16d
basically swedish rotten fish
teslekova@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 15d
It's like putting a lit m-80 in a durian and taking it into the jury room.
Etterra@discuss.online · 1 pts · 1d
I would pay to see that happen. On video, not in person.
imadethis@fedinsfw.app · 2 pts · 15d
What the other guy said. Just search up some videos of people opening it. If I remember correctly, the 'appropriate' way to open the can is in a tub of water, because the smell is so horrible.
TIEPilot@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
Take it easy Satan... talk about evil.
Gates9@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 15d
“OMG DELICIOUSSSSSS!!!”
PacMan@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 15d
Hope they brought some fish to microwave during lunch. 1430 they are putting their popcorn in for 2 extra minutes
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 15d
bring some durian candy. the smell lingers and sticks for a while.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe · 2 pts · 16d
What, no black coffee?
snoons@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 16d
That's after the olive oil and sugar free gummies.
FluidBeef@quokk.au · 2 pts · 15d
A Dozen Eggy Men
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 15d
YOU CAN'T HANDLE A SCOOP!
turtlesareneat@piefed.ca · -3 pts · 16d
It's weird how sometimes y'all will engage with an AI image like it's real without further discussion
Robin@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 16d
Looks pretty real to me. The text on the bag is readable and a real brand.
turtlesareneat@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 15d
So this container has two lids, and they posed it on top of one, in front of another, because that's how you do
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 4 pts · 16d
It's because no one believes this is actually someones breakfast before jury duty. It's a joke. It doesn't matter if the image is real or not.