Monday, March 27, 2006

jury duty, the second time around

I’m online from the court house. Well, I guess the SD court house still hasn’t implemented free wireless service. I’m connected through my blackberry's IPModem. Pretty painful to use (5kbytes/sec with 500+ sec ping), but at its still a 100 times better than being here without it.

First time I was here for jury duty, I gotta admit I was pretty mad that I was here while they wasted my time (not to mention the $16 for parking and finding out the $15 a day only kicks in starting the second day of jury duty. The only thing I could focus on was what can I say to get dismissed.

I’m here the second time. And, there’s a new surprise. Government workers don’t even get $15 a day. Thank you Arnold! other than that, i have a totally different perspective on why i'm here the second time around. I think what changed my mind was the whole talk that the judge gave before the jury selection began. he pretty much covered all the bases on why it is my duty to be here, and how any circular argument i can come up with why i should be excuses were addressed (meaning i didn't have an argument at all). Its kinda like going through acupuncture. First time, you kinda pay attention to every needle going into your body, but after a few times, you just kinda relax and let the process take its course.

Oh, they are calling names. C’ whammies, no whammies, no whammies…

Dang! brb...being called..

haha! dismissed. i think the key to getting dismissed is to stay out of the spot light. don't present them with any information that might interest them. so talk the least amount possible (having no spouse, kids, friends/relatives in law enforcement or legal profession helps). also, don't be smart and say something like how you don't think you can offer a fair unbiased opionion for the case, or how you think the US law system doesn't work. you're just opening yourself to arguments from judges and lawyers. your half assed circular logic won't stand up to these professionals whose sole purpose in their profession is to change your mind about something. with cleverly phrased questions they'll just destroy your argument and quickly set you in your place. and that might be exactly what they are looking for. someone who is quickly convinced. and also, keep personal details and especially personal experience to yourself. Like the first guy that was introducing himself. He was listing his past jobs and credentials like he was applying for a job. did he wanted to get chosen? well, maybe he did.

and the case had something to do with driving with a suspened license. bunch of people wanted to share a story on how they might or might not be personally affected after knowing a friend who was hit by a unlicensed driver. Not surprisingly, at least half of those people weren't getting dismissed.

another thing that seemed to make a difference was if you had served in a prior jury before. it doesn't work the way you think it should. like you might think if you had served in a jury before, they should give you a break, and let the ones that never served have their turn. it doesn't work like that. if you get on a jury once and reached a verdict, watch out. you just put a stamp of approval on yourself. how illegal is it to lie about details like these during the jury selection process? its not like you're on the witness stand and sworn in are you?

till next year!

No comments:

Post a Comment