Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts It's funny.  Laugh. The Internet Technology Your Rights Online

eJuror Will Lead To New List of Jury Duty Excuses 191

Posted by Soulskill
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

eJuror Will Lead To New List of Jury Duty Excuses

Comments Filter:
  • by burisch_research (1095299) on Friday November 19, 2010 @03:35PM (#34284596)

    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 [bbc.co.uk]

  • by eepok (545733) on Friday November 19, 2010 @03:50PM (#34284734) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:My answer ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sribe (304414) on Friday November 19, 2010 @03:51PM (#34284742)

    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...

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Friday November 19, 2010 @03:59PM (#34284856)

    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.

  • by Nags14 (1943942) on Friday November 19, 2010 @04:00PM (#34284864)
    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.
  • Re:Jury selection (Score:3, Interesting)

    by uprise78 (1256084) on Friday November 19, 2010 @04:18PM (#34285066)
    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.
  • Re:Jury selection (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tanktalus (794810) on Friday November 19, 2010 @04:22PM (#34285114) Journal

    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.

  • Re:Jury selection (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nasalicio (122665) on Friday November 19, 2010 @04:40PM (#34285322) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:I'm all for it, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HogGeek (456673) on Friday November 19, 2010 @06:10PM (#34286242)

    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.

  • by modecx (130548) on Friday November 19, 2010 @06:28PM (#34286424)

    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.

The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

Working...