California has a system called "one day, one trial" (ODOT). It's the same throughout the whole state. The municipal courts were merged with the superior courts awhile back. With ODOT, you don't have to sit in a jury room for a week or two, like under the old system. You have one week where you're a potential juror, and you call in the evening before to see if it's your day. Sometimes you never get called, but most of the time, you'll be asked to come in on Wednesday or Thursday, which is generally when the new trials start. They need a lot of jurors because there has to be a good selection for each trial scheduled. What seems to happen a lot, however, is that at the eleventh hour they have a plea bargain or settlement, so you're dismissed at lunch, or sometimes when you return from lunch. That's your one day.

If you're selected for voir dire, but they don't get to you by the close of the day, you'll be asked to come back the next day because you're already part of the trial, and that can extend a week (average, I think, is three days) or you could get OJ (and I don't mean Joyful Guy). The "one trial" means that after that first day, you won't be asked to participate in another trial that year. If you're dismissed from voir dire the first morning, you can be called to another trial that afternoon. Same day is the only way you might participate in two trials.

If you're not selected, you go home for another year. They do pull names from both the driver's licenses and voter registration, so it's possible to get two summonses. When you call in to respond, you just let them know you already served (it helps if you keep your certificate), and they strike you from the list. You can also postpone once, without having to prove an excuse, if the date you're given is inconvenient. They'll often let you choose your date within the year--I know professors who do that, and choose to serve during term breaks. Otherwise, they'll automatically assign a date approximately three months later.

Very few excuses are accepted. People above a certain age can claim age as an excuse if they want to (the court doesn't want to sort through a litany of bladder issues, arthritis, bursitis, GERD, hemorrhoids, etc.). If you're really not fit, your doctor can write you an excuse detailing why you can't serve. If you're the sole caregiver during court hours, you may be excused, but if you ordinarily have daycare/eldercare, you won't be. Picking up the kids from school isn't an excuse. If you're a day laborer whose family will starve without your day's work, you can be excused by the judge, but in general have to work isn't an excuse. It is illegal for an employer to fire or penalize a juror for serving. The governor has to serve. Lawyers have to serve. Active duty police officers are generally excused, for obvious reasons, and, I think, military with excuses from their commanders.

I am not actually eager to be empaneled because I have health issues that would make an extended trial hard for me, but I'm happy to serve otherwise. European style trials where the judge is the head of the investigation, trier of fact and dispenser of justice, freak me out. I treasure our system. The courts work hard to make trials as easy on jurors as they can, but this can't be their primary concern. Thus, it's not always a good fit for everyone who might receive a summons. One day, one trial, is really a much better system than the old way. Everybody serves, not just people who can't get out of it, and it's not particularly onerous. You do have to have sufficient citizen population to have a big enough pool of jurors, however.

I was in OC. The only time I was granted an excuse was during a crucial time of my mother's colon cancer. They were really nice about it.

We must have a larger population of eligible jurors in Texas. We get one summons to jury duty every three years. I've served once for 4 days and the rest have been quick, one-day trials.

Yeah, I thought of the same way especially so during the time of high unemployment. Since we get paid for jury duty, why not call on those that are unemployed. Even if the payment is little, it's better than nothing for those unemployed that need every bit of an income. Whereas, for those that are working and already receiving an income, there are so much rescheduling to do in order to fulfill this duty.

The government should think of temporary changing the rules on who to call for jury duty during the time of high unemployment. It would certainly help.

I have never been called to jury duty.

Sue

I live in a small community with a small population in the County, so we get a summons for jury duty at least once a year. That's the most frequent you can be called for jury duty here. I've served on two juries - one had 12 jurists and the other 6, and hubby has served on one jury.

It once meant you were committed for the whole month, but now they have changed the system and it's for a certain day.

If only those that "wanted" to serve were the pool of jurors two things would happen. The pool would get used up quickly. And the type of person who wants to serve, could have a vested interest in meting out justice. That is, they'd be biased. Just food for thought.

Another here who has never been called for jury duty. I'm 79 and have been a registered voter since I was 21, and lived in three different cities during that time. I once complained to a friend that I had never been called and really wanted to serve and she told me that I'd never survive voir dire because I was too smart. That's not saying much for those who do serve. Pretty scary.

DH and I were called often while we lived in Cook County, IL. We each served on juries twice. Lots of dismissals. Since we moved north...never called. Could be we have aged out!

I chaired my last jury. The case was prolonged due the judge's cancer. He could only sit for a few hours, and the backlog was so great that the system needed whatever he could contribute. So...we jurors commuted into the city center for half-days for a week to accomplish two days worth of deliberation.

I live in a large county and have been summoned twice in 30 years. The first time I made it to voire dire but was dismissed. There was an attorney with me in the juror pool and he went before the judge during voire dire to explain why he couldn't serve....he was an attorney, he had cases, etc.. The judge said tough luck and he had to serve......he was livid! I was called again last year but when I called the night before my number wasn't picked so I didn't even have to report. I've always thought that in high profile cases like OJ, Casey Anthony, etc that retired attorneys and judges should make up the jury.....they can understand the testimony and can see through all the antics that go on.

I've been summoned twice with the second time being this summer. Both times, I was excused because I am the main caregiver to my children under age twelve.

I've been on a few juries and I enjoyed the process. I found it very interesting. When I lived in San Francisco, I was on a murder trial that involved a Chinese gang. When I lived in Baltimore I was on a very complicated trial that involved multiple defendants and multiple plaintiffs. It was companies being sued because of asbestos poisoning. In this case, it ended (after many weeks) in a hung jury. The jury was invited by the plaintiff lawyers to come in and talk with them about what the strengths and weaknesses were of their presentation of evidence. I thought that was kind of neat and very interesting.

I can understand people considering it a hassle, but if I were on trial, I would want a group of people who could be fair and open minded. It's not easy, but it is a good system.

Thanks everyone for your input. I was excused today, which was a relief. The trial will be at least to four weeks, if not longer. There was just no way I could sit there for that many weeks. One week would have been fine.

When I served as a juror about ten years ago, the case lasted 8 days. When the lawyers asked about my experience with that case I was honest. In that particular trial, the lawyers were disrespectful, the judge had to reprimand them continuously, and the trial should have been wrapped up in 5 days not 8.

The lawyers put the ball in my court and asked if I could serve on this trial. I asked if I said no, would I be postponed or excused? They said they had no way of knowing that. I volleyed the ball back on their side and said that I would leave the decision up to them and if chosen I would do the best to my ability.

They still have to do a selection again next Tuesday as they still don't have enough people. Many had business trips, vacation etc and all those were let go. I'm not sure if they were excused or postponed.

I've served once and enjoyed it. The second time I was called in, I was let off because I was self employeed and it would have been a true hardship.

I haven't been summuned since I've moved to Alabama; have no idea why not.

I was chosen for a jury last month. When I get summoned, I am just relieved if is from OC's County Court, and not Federal! I got summoned to both one year, less than four months apart. Serving for one, does not excuse you from the other. The Federal case was for a gang leader, and the charges included murder and attempted hire for murder of witnesses, racketeering, drug trafficking and a scroll of other charges. The case was expected to last at least 12 weeks, and they said to prepare for up to four months. Jury selection alone was taking multiple days. Guess how happy I was when he eventually decided to take a plea deal? It was the only Federal Court summons I have received; the cases are probably are not all that intense, but it was enough to make me nervous about future invites.

I now just consider jury duty to be a part of my volunteer hours; it just happens to be for our country. Volunteers after natural disasters deal with the frustration of time wasting and inefficiency, too. But they are both important and worthwhile calls to answer.

I was last called in September of 2001. I had to appear for four trials during that period. In each instance 13 potential jurors were selected at randomly from the pool, and the two side's lawyers got to ask questions and each could then dismiss three of the potential jurors, resulting in seven jurors to hear the case. In two of the four cases I was not randomly selected and was excused. In the two other cases I think the lawyers didn't like my answers to their questions and dismissed me.

One case dealt with an automobile accident where the defendant was driving on a suspended license, and injured another driver. One lawyer's question was "Has any of you been injured in an automobile accident?" I raised my hand to indicate that I had. If the lawyer had asked for more info I would have said "I was in a one car accident where my car slid off the road in an ice storm, and my injury was little more than a painful bruise. So I don't think it is relevant." but I was dismissed.

The other case dealt with a couple that broke up. He claimed she gave him a horse which he took and then sold. She claimed she was only letting him use the horse so it wasn't ever his to sell. During the questions from the lawyers I noted that my wife and I owned several horses, and was quickly dismissed.

I'm happy that you won't lose your vacation deposit.

I have a difficult time sitting in those hard courtroom chairs. I was called last year to the Santa Ana court. About halfway through the day, they sent a bunch of us over to Westminster/Huntington Beach because that court had run out of prospective jurors. The voir dire didn't finish the first day so we had to return for day two. They finally empanelled enough jurors when there were about five of us left so my service was complete for the year. I hope, hope, hope that I am not called again this year.

I did lose part of it because I had to cancel the trip:( I had no way of knowing when I would actually go in.

Oh, that's disappointing.

I have only served once and I believe that I truly made a difference. It was a DUI case and all the men were saying not guilty....when it was totally obvious he was drunk on his butt. Several said he was probably drunk, but not that drunk.....he had 4 lanes of traffic tied up. All the guys wanted to do is get out of there and go home. I insisted that the judge didn't ask us to determine "how drunk he was" just whether or not he was drunk....and it was obvious that he was wasted....After I talked to them they all agreed with me....and we gave him a guilty. But honestly I think the men on the jury didn't care one way or another.....they just had other things they wanted to be doing.

That is just plain shameful ruth, good for you for sticking to your guns. Wow. I would not mind serving at all if I knew it would make a difference.

One year apart? Our laws say no more than once every three years. I wonder what timeframe other states have. Just a thought.

Ruth, that is precisely why there should be a system in place for availability. I understand that we don't want people with agendas or professional jurors. (It certainly wouldn't be right to having a pool of the same people.)

It just seems to me if I am good enough to be called today then I am good enough for yesterday or tomorrow. There are so many highly intelligent people who are unemployed. Now could be their time.

I don't know. Maybe a survey of when you will be available? For example, the young man that was picked stressed how this was the perfect time in his career to do jury duty. Months from now, he would have travel in his schedule.

Quite a few businessmen got out because they had business trips scheduled. They probably were postponed. But what happens if the same thing happens when they get called again?

With this excuse, I am good for four years for federal and six for cvil.

Side story: I thought that the last time I did jury duty and was picked for the case was ten years ago. I decided to do some cleaning out of my paper work and found a letter from a juror that served on the trial. He sent everyone a copy of a newspaper clipping of our case. It made it into his local paper. He also wrote funny anecdotes about each of us.

The letter was dated 1998!

It is a civic duty, and an important one.

You should, though, be able to request a deferral and serve at a later date. My state allows one per jury summons.

In a way, it's actually dangerous to have people that really don't want to be there. Often times dissenting jurors trapped in a jury room will just let themselves be pressured by the rest of the group and vote guilty so they can all go home.

called 2x and never served...third time I was just out of major surgery so was excused...but the other 2x's all I managed to do was ruin my back from the horrible seating, then to be sent home...

In 80+ years, having lived in three provinces and ten years out of country - nine in Korea, one in NY (that is U.S., isn't it?) ...

... never been called.

Several years as a clergyperson ... have heard that they don't get called, but unsure.

I'm sure that I would have found such an experience interesting.

ole joyful

I remember moving here 35 years ago, registering to vote here and changing my driver's license. I moved in with a new baby I was nursing, a pre schooler, and a kindergartner. I was called to jury duty and panic set it. I filled out the post card and explained my situation. They did not call me back for jury duty for 18 years!

Ruthie, some of the other jurors were probably guilty of that crime themselves! Good for you. You might have saved lives, really!

parker25mv, you're exactly right and I suspect that's exactly what happened in ruthieg__tx's case. Instead of having a hung jury as it should have been if there was the disagreement suggested, I suspect the others acquiesced to a conviction solely as a convenience prompted by ruthieg__tx under the threat that she'd keep them there if they didn't vote her way. If that's the case, it was a travesty.

As for telling them something to get yourself excused, that doesn't always work either. A friend of mine did that. He said he couldn't convict anyone of anything so they might as well let him go. Judge said no, you won't go. You won't be on a jury but you will show up every day and sit in the (small) waiting room until the time for his service was up, which if I remember right was a couple weeks or so.

It was really easy to get kicked off. As you know, they sort of "present" the case during voir dire and I piped right up and said I would never let a friend in my car that had a gun after being asked what would I do if ________. Guess I showed a bit of bias. You've never seen so many lawyers write a name down so quickly in your life. I saw the court officer later that evening while out to eat and he told me I did a "great job".

Well, the trick we should be trying is how to be able to serve without destroying our backs, neglecting our duties, etc., but there are all kinds of ways to get out of it, especially if the lawyers haven't used up their peremptory challenges. I read about one woman who eschewed the Agatha Christy novel for jury room reading in favor of a book on constitutional law. :)

Oh, I wasn't trying to get out of it, I was merely honest. And outspoken. Hm,? how typical of me!

The variety of self pride is interesting. I prefer to give my kudos to those that do the task at hand. Frankly, I don't think using "oh so clever" methods to get kicked off deserve a "great job" pat on the back. Other opinions apparently abound. :)

It is a shame that most want out rather than in. For me, and I'm sure the majority of whom ever up that day, had scheduling difficulties. The number of people in the room shrank when we were told that the trial would be at least 3 weeks. Many had business trips or vacation plans.

For most of us, it's not easy to drop everything at a moments notice to be able to serve.

Which is why I still feel there should be a way to have an availability list. With so many on unemployment, they were rather serve sooner than later. You still have the same cross section of people, but out of those some would welcome a diversion.

For the record, I didn't want out. I just thought it was ironic that I was off so quickly! Apparently, being opinionated will make it happen?

Who knows. Maybe it was my imagination that they wrote my name down. Maybe they kicked off all women, redheads, moms, or???

Just like the person who walks into a car dealership every 3 or 5 years, thinking they're going to out-negotiate and out-maneuver the people who work there every day (who can size up what to expect from a potential customer after a couple of sentences)......

So too for a prospective juror during voir dire - don't fool yourself. The judges and lawyers working in criminal law, whether for the prosecution or the defense, do this week after week and they have your number. Let's say (just for discussion) there are 10 personality type/attitude combinations among potential jurors. They know what type they're looking for for this case, this jury, this defendant. They've seen it all, been there, done that, and can have a good guess at about which category a prospective juror belongs as the brief discussions move ahead. What you display in your manner and answers, whether honest or an act, is easily digested by the attorneys. From that, they decide they want you or don't want you, depending on how the jury selection process is proceeding.

S-lash is right. They do know what they want. And Rob, you're right that they often don't want opinionated people. They also don't want college professors (too smart and probably too liberal, and certainly can see three sides of every issue). Prosecutors don't like liberals. Defense don't like law and order, throw the book at them, "they" are ruining our neighborhood types. But they also usually only have a few peremptory challenges, after which they have to convince the judge that there's a good reason for rejecting a juror (e.g., membership in a hate group). They're usually pretty careful with the peremptories because of that. They don't want to get stuck with someone they most definitely do not want down the road if they use up their discretion on "lesser evils". But they still reject the professors out of hand (or at least the ones I know).

In my situation they didn't want the nurse and they didn't want the lawyers!

One time when I was called, it was for a criminal case surrounding the sexual abuse of a two year old girl. We were asked if we could be fair and impartial.
Honestly, I answered that there was no way that I could be impartial and I was excused. I had a long period of depression just thinking about that whole scenario. I honestly daydreamed about taking action against the defendant, but fortunately he was convicted.

Horrible things happen in our communities.

Pkponder- I am good friends with several law enforcement officers as well as DAs who have to try those cases.

Trust me, it isn't easy for any of them. Those who end up in a dedicated position of only dealing with child abuse cases suffer from depression, burn out and a high turn over rate.

No one should have to deal with the most depraved our society has to offer on a frequent basis, but unfortunately someone has to do it.

My wife was called a year or so ago to State Court as there is no county level of Government here. The pool consisted of 35 people and they were seated in the courtroom and the Judge did the questioning.

The pool was told about the case which was a kid who got drunk and broke a window of a shop in town, and pled not guilty. They were then asked if there was anybody who felt they couldn't serve on the day of the trial. About 6 or 7 hands went up. Three said they had made vacation reservations for the date of the trial. She calmly asked them to show the Court within 3 business days that they had made the reservations prior to receiving the Jury notice and "of course you'll be excused". Others said their employer wouldn't pay them for the time lost. Again "prove to the Court and you'll be excused".

I've served on two juries, and although it was inconvenient, it is a tenant of our free society. That's one of the reasons everybody should be taught in schools that "Freedom is not free".

It is our duty as citizens to make sure an innocent man goes free just as a guilty man should be punished.

I was half serious. It was a drug case and they were in a school zone. I'm betting mom would've gotten me off as quickly as being opinionated.

While it's true California has One day/One trial in place you are still on call for 5 days. In our county we have are expected to be available one hour notice. Then if you go in and are selected in a jury pool you may have to return for several days until you are dismissed during voir dire. It happened to a friend of mine just a few months back and she doesn't even drive so it was a real hardship for her to have to take the bus every day. We get summoned once a year. I'd be happy to serve but I'm one of those intelligent people who actually can be impartial they don't want. Plus I am honest and I certainly don't trust the local LEOS so that would knock me out almost every time anyway. I'm jaded now so I don't care any longer. Justice isn't as blind as we are led to believe.

So every year you have to go in? What happens if to serve on a case? Are you still expected to go in the following year.

I'm curious. How may people are actually there waiting? With us, we phone in for instructions. I didn't have to appear until Thursday. The numbers went from 0 to the 500's. We sat in a large auditorium, but it was obvious that the number of people sitting there was low. And, indeed, when they started taking attendance many people didn't show.

Although I was excused, the two other options are postponement or transferred to another possible case.

We don't go in every year but we are put on standby for 5 days each year. We have to call in each day at assigned times to see if our number comes up and we actually go in only if it does. I know a lot of people who simply use another option. Since there is no proof of service by mail with a jury summons they simply shred them. Not right, but it's commonly done enough that people freely admit to it.

I've been called 4 times and served twice. The two times I didn't serve I was released before even getting to the first step (other than checking in). I proudly served the other two times and actually enjoyed it. It did disrupt my schedule and was a pain in the neck, but it's a responsibility and a privilege. I actually enjoyed it and have little patience for people who look for ways to get out of it.

We Americans have a tendency toward the use of words of overemotional hyperbole these days.

I see jury service in a different way. Whether you agree or disagree with yesterday's or today's political leaders and system, decisions have been made on what the laws are and how they are enforced. "We" The People have hired employees to carry out those rules and procedures, and they are doing the jobs we've asked them to do.

When I'm paying someone to work for me, I do everything I can (and certainly anything I'm asked) to assist and facilitate their efforts. No less so with a public employee than with a private one. If a fresh line has been painted on the road, I avoid driving over it. If a public safety worker tell me to pull off the road, or leave an area, or to do whatever, I do what I'm told. If the court system asks for help to carry out trials, then similarly people should do what they can to cooperate and help out.

There's no need to fly a flag or suggest it's the defense of freedom. It's simply one of thousands of tasks our governments perform and it's one they need the help of individual citizens to do. If you don't like the system, or don't like the laws, or think it should work differently, those are different issues.

The way I see things, the right to a jury trial is one of the most important rights there is in America.

Many of you might think that judges are there to be impartial and fair, but that is far from the reality in many cases. Judges are often completely indifferent to the lives they are ruining and just want to push things along, it's a conveyor belt like system. They do not have the time to scrutinize all the details of every case, and generally just take the prosecutor at their word. Many prosecutors see their job as winning convictions, often without regard to whether the defendant may actually be innocent. It's a screwed up system, and a jury may be the only thing that stands between you and a prosecutor who wants to press charges (and a judge who is just there to rubber stamp everything).

Just to piggyback on what pillog said upthread, in California you can get a permanent excuse from jury duty if you meet the criteria.

However, this only exempts you from State, not Federal, court trials.