Very interesting post. DH has been called for jury duty a few times, but until this last time his names was not called.
This time he had to report to the court, and his experience just about mirror yours.
Lol, they kept asking the potential jurors how they felt about drugs. Have you or anyone you know or someone in the family used drugs. There is a hint in there somewhere that it would be a drug case.He was not shy about saying that he was anti drugs.He was not picked as a juror.

One of our neighbors was in the jury pool and she explained that she was the sole breadwinner in the family and she was excused.

Meldy, glad it all worked out.
It must be a trial just for the jurors to go through to even be able to serve!
Hope you can rest easy 'til the NEXT notification.

I shudder when I get a notice---I served once and was scarred for the rest of my life---The only dissenting vote---took everyone about four hours to win me over and I wound up in tears, I was so upset for the guy.

I retrospect; they were right---I almost always go for the underdog, though. Don't know why.

The prosocuter came up to me afterwards and said,
"So and so told me you'd never forgive me for sending this old guy back up the river.
But, he was caught red-handed with drugs and a hunting rifle in the back of the PU."
I told him I understood, but the guy was 65
(seemed so OLD!!!!) and he couldn't spare five years sitting in a cell
and yes, he was right,
I would never forgive him for doing that to an old person.
I sort of forgave him a few months later
when he was found dead in his apt. from
an overdose of drugs.

Double jepardy.

The juror selection process can be a pain. The last time I was asked was during chemo and I was excused.

Meldy, your post was interesting. I took the easy way out not too long ago; since I'm well past 70, I am permanently excused b/c of age. However, I rather think I'd be excused, anyway, b/c of looking like--and being--"an innocent-looking old lady"! :>)

Irrelevant? Aren't all our posts irrelevant? I liked this one. That would've been a good jury to be on. At least interesting. Cool. Wonder why they didn't pick you? Or were you thrown off during one of the preemptory times? I'm not seeing why. Of course, I could just be reading too fast.

I think most of the posts are interesting rather than irrelevant, but I was frankly doubtful about this one.

Mine was the seventh number called; calling the numbers took just long enough for me to note the first 6 numbers were all people who had requested to be excused. Of course, that was just a coincidence. At that particular portion of the pre-selection, before hearing the individual requests to be excused, the judge had repeated what was in the info packet, that there were *very* few acceptable reasons to be excused -one example was of having made reservations [in advance of being called to duty] for an unusual and expensive trip, and even that example was qualified as to being at the judge's discretion as whether it would be an adequate excuse. I have no idea why I wasn't accepted; now that it's all over, I'm more relieved than disappointed although I think the case is likely to be very interesting.

My favorite neighbor was with the DC police dept; after retiring she took a job working for a private investigative firm. She reminded me of that while I was commenting that so many of the available jurors were in law enforcement. I have no idea if it's done often or in many places, but she tells me that when a master list of potential jurors is selected, they are investigated for stuff like having a criminal record (that's what she did for the firm), prior arrests, and so forth. I guess that may explain why the judge seemed to be aware that *everyone* was familiar with computer usage, and maybe also explains the high percentage of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, FBI, police officers and state troopers among the jurors called.

That was one thing about which I was greatly surprised, being in law enforcement (lawyers even! police, etc.) didn't get you kicked off the case for which I was a potential juror. That seems like it could be prejudicial? But that's my take on it. What really seemed to give our judge pause were people who had been victims of crime. It seemed to him, that it put an undue strain on them to go through a trial. Maybe. If it was a violent crime.