A funny thing happened at the Federal Distirct Court House

A short time ago, I completed a form from the Federal District Court at 701 E. Broad St. regarding my potential service as a juror. I requested an exemption due to age, medical conditions and poor hearing.
Next came a summons assigning me an identification/juror number with date and time to report with a bolded warning that it was a federal crime to not appear. No exemption.

There is an alleged procedure to follow to request said exemption. First a simple attachment to the request with reason(s) - that failed.
Next is a letter from one's doctor with a five (5) day window........the doctor refused!

In a quandary, I decided to walk into the lion's den in search of meat. I was not disappointed - it was most entertaining.

At the front door security post I was checked out by four (4) nice officers - each who had his own schtict.
.....No holsters or mag cases allowed.
.....No web gear allowed - that would include my suspenders and belt w/o which my pants would fall.
.....We have no facilities to store/hold restricted items........but you can put your holster & mag cases in the lockers we have for such things.
.....We require a 2nd piece of identification, which will be returned to you when you leave - he accepted my VCDL membership card!

Cutting to the chase - went up to the Clerk's Office - was told no problem, completely reasonable. By the time I got home, I had already received a written excuse from jury service which I am saving.

Exiting the building was only slightly less entertaining - took my sweet time putting everything back on and in its place. The nice officers wanted to fish, but nothing was biting

Glad you made it out ok, Grapeshot... What a pisser.

I was on a jury just once, about 45 years ago. I hung the jury.

In another time, I would very much like to serve on a federal jury.......especially one where I might have the opportunity to legitimately use nullification

I was once selected for jury duty on a murder case and was not recused even though I was an active DCJS instructor and knew the defense attorney personally - go figure. A plea agreement was entered the morning the trial was to begin.

I would have shown-up with the summons only, no ID. When they refused me entrance I would have called the clerk and informed the clerk the marshals denying you entrance and interfering with a court order. Remember there is no law that requires you to have ID.

I have an attorney friend that use to live in DC. Had a order to be in court. Showed up with just the order. The marshals finely let him in. How would the court find anyone in contempt when their own officers deny you access?

color of law said:

I would have shown-up with the summons only, no ID. When they refused me entrance I would have called the clerk and informed the clerk the marshals denying you entrance and interfering with a court order. Remember there is no law that requires you to have ID.

I have an attorney friend that use to live in DC. Had a order to be in court. Showed up with just the order. The marshals finely let him in. How would the court find anyone in contempt when their own officers deny you access?

Click to expand...

I am very aware that they were playing with/bending the rules - color of law, if you know what I mean

It was a fun interlude to an otherwise quite day.

Grapeshot said:

In another time, I would very much like to serve on a federal jury.......especially one where I might have the opportunity to legitimately use nullification

Click to expand...

Oh no... not me. The last time I got a summons it came with a massive "questionnaire" which I refused to fill out. I will not answer personal questions, anywhere. I went on the appointed day (a small town municipal court) and told the judge that I would not answer the questions. She argued for a little while, but finally turned me loose. That was more than 25 years ago, so it might not work out so well for me now. Never had another summons, so I'll take my chances.

I'm the FIJA contact person for Wyoming, so I understand nullification very well. The big problem is that almost nobody in the jury pool understands it, and the second problem is that there are fewer and fewer jury trials all over the country. The "plea bargain" extortion is a very wicked, but prevalent thing. The courts and their minions have the deck stacked seriously, no matter what you do. Me? I'm staying out of court altogether.

MamaLiberty said:

I'm the FIJA contact person for Wyoming, so I understand nullification very well. The big problem is that almost nobody in the jury pool understands it, and the second problem is that there are fewer and fewer jury trials all over the country. The "plea bargain" extortion is a very wicked, but prevalent thing. The courts and their minions have the deck stacked seriously, no matter what you do. Me? I'm staying out of court altogether.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand how jury nullification can work if the few folks who understand it refuse to serve on a jury.

Even in cases where nullification is not an issue, how can we hope for appropriate verdicts if those who are most informed, most thoughtful, most likely to see through the BS from lawyers on both sides, refuse to serve?

I can understand that there are legitimate reasons a person can't serve including health problems, child care, or significant negative impacts to one's business. But to refuse service over minor inconveniences seems like just turning over the system to those most likely to make horrible mistakes. Similarly, to make obvious that one should be excluded from service by refusing to bring ID, refusing to answer a general questionnaire about education and employment, or otherwise making a stink over the small stuff, seems like picking the wrong battles. Penny-wise, pound-foolish as it were.

I've been summoned 3 or 4 times in the last 15 years between Federal and local court. I had to ask to be excused once due to a medical appointment with a specialist that simply wasn't going to get rescheduled in a timely manner. I've not been selected any of the other times. I probably never will be given my education level and such. But I won't do anything to deliberately exclude myself from jury duty since--arrogant as it may sound--I'm exactly the kind of person I'd want on a jury if I were being tried....and exactly the kind of person no lawyer wants on a jury (according to a couple of lawyer friends).

Charles

Well, utbagpiper... I simply don't agree with you. At the time of that summons 25 years ago, I was living in So. Calif.
And then there is the fact that I've never again received a summons. The "courts" don't let you volunteer. Another factor is that I now live in a tiny rural community that hasn't had a major crime in almost ten years... no jury trials here for much more than the occasional DUI.

I'm delighted to give information to anyone who wants it, but I have no obligation to expose my private affairs to anyone. And I have no obligation to be enslaved for the duration of a trial in any case. If it seemed right to do, I would do it... I simply don't think it matters anymore. That genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle.

Nightmare said:

!

Click to expand...

Next time you're summed for jury duty, keep track of how many folks with graduate degrees in any STEM field get selected.

Lawyers on both sides are not excited to have those trained in ignoring emotions and solving problems by looking objectively at data sitting in a jury box. Both sides want to play to emotions. Among 200+ coworkers with similar educational credentials, over 20 years, I can count on one hand the number who have ever served on a jury.

MamaLiberty said:

Well, utbagpiper... I simply don't agree with you. ... If it seemed right to do, I would do it... I simply don't think it matters anymore. That genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle.

Click to expand...

A perfectly valid opinion, MamaLiberty, as much as I disagree with you. What has me confused is serving as a FIJA rep while holding those beliefs.

If it no longer matters, why bother with FIJA efforts at all? It is the seeming inconsistency there that has been scratching my head.

Charles

Nightmare said:

!

Click to expand...

oh thank you ~ thank you so much...

ipse

utbagpiper said:

A perfectly valid opinion, MamaLiberty, as much as I disagree with you. What has me confused is serving as a FIJA rep while holding those beliefs.

If it no longer matters, why bother with FIJA efforts at all? It is the seeming inconsistency there that has been scratching my head.

Charles

Click to expand...

I don't have any problem giving information to people who want it, and think they can do some good with it. I just have passed beyond that point myself.

It's pretty much a moot point, however, since it has been many years since anyone asked for the information. If you'd like to pay the postage, I'd be glad to send all of the brochures and booklets to you to hand out where you are. Probably would do a lot more good than sitting in my closet.

For those who, like me, had no idea what a FIJA contact person is: http://fija.org/

Fully Informed Jury Association

MamaLiberty said:

I don't have any problem giving information to people who want it, and think they can do some good with it. I just have passed beyond that point myself.

Click to expand...

I can understand that.

MamaLiberty said:

It's pretty much a moot point, however, since it has been many years since anyone asked for the information. If you'd like to pay the postage, I'd be glad to send all of the brochures and booklets to you to hand out where you are. Probably would do a lot more good than sitting in my closet.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the offer. Afraid my plate is currently full with RKBA and personal responsibilities.

Thanks

Charles

solus said:

...

Click to expand...

--edited by mod--right on time.

Back in the 80s I rode on patrol with a sheriff's deputy buddy 4-6 nights a week and testified in court several times and was in court ready to testify when a plea was reached. I got my jury summons and showed up on the appointed day, I knew the judge so I went up front and we were talking when he suddenly looked surprised and said "What are you doing here? We aren't having a trial, we're just picking a jury".

I said "I know, I've got a jury summons" and handed him the summons.

He looked at it, handed it back, pointed to the door and said "Get out of here and quit wasting everyone's time; there isn't a lawyer in this county that is going to let you sit on a criminal jury".

MamaLiberty said:

Glad you made it out ok, Grapeshot... What a pisser.

I was on a jury just once, about 45 years ago. I hung the jury.

Click to expand...

+1

utbagpiper said:

--edited by mod--right on time.

Click to expand...

He wasn't even replying to you.

I don't think a judge would want me on a jury.

I have always believed that if I am given the responsibility to make a decision that will affect people (both the defendant and the victims and/or their next of kin) for the rest of their lives, then I absolutely must be aware of every fact concerning the case that I can possibly learn. I would absolutely refuse to be limited to some subset of information that the lawyers and the judge might decide that I need in order to make a decision.

My worst nightmare would be to render a verdict, then the next day learn of some fact that would have changed my mind if I had known about it in the deliberation process.

I sort of figure that if God needs to know all the facts when judging us, then I am certainly not able to make a judgement with just some of them.

TFred

TFred said:

I don't think a judge would want me on a jury.

I have always believed that if I am given the responsibility to make a decision that will affect people (both the defendant and the victims and/or their next of kin) for the rest of their lives, then I absolutely must be aware of every fact concerning the case that I can possibly learn. I would absolutely refuse to be limited to some subset of information that the lawyers and the judge might decide that I need in order to make a decision.

My worst nightmare would be to render a verdict, then the next day learn of some fact that would have changed my mind if I had known about it in the deliberation process.

I sort of figure that if God needs to know all the facts when judging us, then I am certainly not able to make a judgement with just some of them.

TFred

Click to expand...

or that the jury instructions were rigged so as to favor a malicious prosecutor who stomped his foot every time the defense attorney put forward a reasonable suggestion ? (not that it ever happens, of course)