Just saved myself a few hours with that one.
i got out by saying i had a philosophical issue with courts as a whole and didn't want to punish someone (a minority on some drug charge), judge asked me if i could respect the distinction between guilty/innocent and punishment and i was like 'nah' and they dismissed me lol
i got bills to pay dog court rebate don't cover shit barely covers gas one way it's like $15 A DAY
It's wild that they don't even pay minimum wage. They should pay more than that of course but it's another one of those ways that society is blatantly biased towards the wealthy without even the slightest bit of plausible deniability.
Not everyone can afford to take so much time off work, it's nice to nullify if you can but it's not even guaranteed to work.
That's days off work and depending on the judge you could end up facing criminal charges. That's if you're completely obstinate and refuse to convict. At most you'll cause a mistrial and they'll just repeat the process again with a new jury in a year. At worst you piss off the judge and get yourself charged with criminal contempt if they feel it can be argued, which I believe is the only crime you can be imprisoned for indefinitely without a trial. A judge can throw you in jail until you agree to comply.
In North Korea if you refuse to convict someone the state wants convicted, you get thrown in prison indefinitely.
But more seriously, it's not "I'm going to nullify" it's "I don't know, I just don't think there's enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed a crime".
Would that even work? The premise of the court is it is impartial. If you're a misanthropist, you hate everyone, that's impartial.
My dad got booted from a jury because he was a volunteer firefighter and it was an arson case.
Apparently they didn't want people prejudiced against arsonists.
I get the idea that a firefighter would be opossed to the idea of somebody who setting fires but by that same logic that should disqualify everybody who isnt a clinically diagnosed psycopath from ever serving on a jury for a murder case in the event they're going into the case with a negative perception of people who kill other people.
would be opossed to the idea of somebody who setting fires
Actually I'm thinking it's more likely that they got rid of him on the chance that he knows something about fires and the telltale signs of arson. Lawyers might not want a bigot but they definitely don't want an expert on the Jury.
It’s this, however also, firefighters are statistically the most likely people to be arsonists, and the lawyer definitely doesn’t want an expert on the jury who is also potentially sympathetic to the defendant!
Yes, generally speaking, the more intelligent you appear the riskier the trial becomes if you’re judging. If they want experts, they’ll pay someone they know will align with their side to show up. As for jurors, they want the average joe. Smart enough to put on his socks and drive to court, but also obedient enough to feel awe and respect for the institutions.
Apparently they didn't want people prejudiced against arsonists.
Ah, but have you considered the funnier possibility that they didn't want anyone who might look at an arsonist and think "this guy is good job security for me?"
If anything I'd be more concerned they'd be sympathetic because of the disproportionate percentage of firefighters that are arsonists.
Also I know you were joking but as a volunteer firefighter I promise my dad wasn't hoping for more opportunities to have to put out fires for free.
Absolutely definitely joking. Hope I never have to experience a house fire.
well what if I do the good murder. looking pretty bias'd there, my guy, why do you hate the rule of law?
It may work, but you now have government witnesses to you saying you hate everyone to the point it affects your mental capacities to think and judge and must be excused from society. It will come back to bite you if anything happens in the future.
I feel like wkuk did that better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCV5hro9ecs
Also first. It's not a super unique idea but also it bares a striking resemblance.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Just say "jury nullification" you'll never get picked again. Or better yet don't say it and just refuse to convict no matter what if you get picked.
That's not true. I used that and it didn't work. It was a couple years ago. In the same form - I also said I was unwilling to be a room with unmasked people due to covid. That didn't work either.
so the prosecutor did not care that you would refuse to convict even if he proved the case beyond a shadow of a doubt? interesting way to prosecute a case when doing jury selection....
I don't even live in a rinky-dink county either. I assume that in every state - rural counties break the rules and bend the law due to "budget shortages" and "staffing issues" and the like. Meanwhile - everybody pretends that's not actually true. I don't want to dox myself but I live in an important county where I thought when it came to government legal stuff that they triple checked that every "t" was crossed and every "i" was dotted. But - of course - I was wrong.
its not even that this is like one of the most basic things for a prosecutor
you get to have a say in jury selection. youd absolutely want to make sure your potential picks dont involve someone who says no matter how good you make your case, no matter the evidence, they absolutely will vote not guilty
They never contacted me again but if they had - I would have gone to jury selection and when it was my turn to answer questions before anybody I asked a single question I would have said "I believe in jury nullification. Also - due to covid I do not want to be in a room full of unmasked people. What do you have to say about that Mr. Prosecutor?" And if I was not released from jury duty immediately - I would have said "Mr. Prosecutor, after I leave here I'm going directly to the [Local News Paper Name] to talk to a reporter in person about this situation. I thought you should know that important news."
I would really want to say a bit more "...important news for your career," but a stupid joke is not worth having me be on Mr. Prosecutor's shit list.
Don’t risk getting arrested. Just say your personal morals will dictate your verdict, or whether the defendant is a dangerous criminal with far reach.
My case was lawsuit (slip and fall in a restaurant) and when they asked the pool if you think there should be caps on lawsuit payouts, I shot my hand up. We had a 15 minute break and I was the only one not called back in.
So the real trick is to signal that you're not in the lawyer's monetary best interest.
I've only been called to a grand jury summons and they don't tell you what the case is going to be about but you know it's going to be related to the state. The only way to get out was to just say you don't trust the police. Because they're obviously the one prosecuting. This is in Michigan and it was the alleged kidnappers plot I found out later.
The best way to avoid jury duty is to not show up. Tons of people don't show up. They aren't going to put warrants out for everyone who ignores a jury summons.
They summoned me and I'm not even a citizen. Told them that and they took me off the list
If they don't check if they summon citizens or not, they probably won't check when they pull you off the list if you claim it
If you don't want to get on a jury in an attempt to throw the trial then you are a huge lib
If you want to pay my wages while I'm fucking around in court, be my guest.
Here, juryduty pays minimum wage, so if you're unemployed it's a pretty good deal. Never saw it happen though
"Real" crimes (that are currently prosecuted in AES states and would continue to be prosecuted if a worldwide communist revolution succeeded tomorrow) do happen. An unfortunately common example is domestic violence. Committing to throw any trial in favor of the defense is contrarianism, not a theoretically sound approach for how one might wring some actual justice out of our shitty legal system.
That goes without saying. You could also be in a situation where you intentionally cause a mistrial because everyone else wants to let the abuser go.
I was in jury selection with an ex cop. He admitted to a pro-police bias, and he was dismissed by the defense. I got up and copped to an anti-cop bias. I was dismissed by the prosecution.
