Failure to appear jury duty

Anyone here know what's up with Calis jury duty system? I never got a summons and then they send me a letter saying I failed to appear.

I can't speak for the specific procedures in CA but in general most government agencies are highly disorganized. They may have sent the summons to a previous address, or may not have sent it out at all. I think in most states jury duty summons are not sent out with return receipt or some other means of proof of delivery. Therefore, even if you did receive one, there is no valid proof which would hold up in a court of law that you did.

Although most jury duty notices carry rather intimidating legal language stating the possible penalties if you fail to appear, I'm not aware of any state actually punishing anybody for failing to show up. As I said, the way the notices are sent out, they really don't have adequate proof that you actually received the notice.

I personally think the jury system should be replaced with either lie detectors or professional jurors who are paid a salary and trained properly. The average person really isn't capable of making an intelligent decision, or of understanding the legal issues. And most are far too easily swayed by legalease double-talk from lawyers on both sides. Add to that the fact that many people absolutely hate jury duty and therefore can't be expected to give it their full attention. A professional juror who was properly trained would decide each case solely on its own merits, regardless of what the lawyers said.

I personally wouldn't worry about this. Legally the onus is on them to prove that you (and only you) actually received the jury summonses and then ignored them by failing to appear. I can't imagine how they would do so. The fact that the summons wasn't returned to the sender doesn't necessarily mean it was delivered to you. It could have been delivered to the wrong address, lost in a sorting machine, accidentally taken out by someone putting a flyer in your mailbox, or any of 100 other possible scenarios I could imagine. It could even have been delivered properly and accidentally thrown away by another family member cohabiting in the same residence. I know it's already happened to me a number of times where the mailman sticks postcards (of which jury summonses are one type) inside a catalog, magazine, or brochure. If the magazine or catalog is junk mail, which it frequently is, it often goes into the garbage unopen and unread, along with whatever postcards might be in it, especially if it's something I've already received and know I'm not interested in. In fact, 90% of my mail goes in the garbage unopened, including everything with bulk rate on it unless it's something I sent away for. Very easy for a jury summons to get lost that way, especially if another person looks at my mail before I do, and throws away stuff they know I'm not interested in. The only way to ensure that I've gotten something is to send it return receipt requested, and hope I'm home when the mailperson calls to sign for it. Most states couldn't afford to send millions of jury duty notices that way, especially when 95% of them would be returned because the recipient wasn't home. Therefore, they use threatening legal language on the jury summons which gets nearly everybody to comply.

jtd, I'm a non-practicing attorney...what they call armchair lawyers. I just consult on product/prof. liability and patent issues.

havent been in court since law school internship and haven't been on a jury in a few years. Just wondered whats up, it just shocked me they sent the bull.

I added a bit to my first post. BTW, I hope some others reply here. I don't wish to give you advice to ignore this and then find out that you get into trouble. It might be worth clearing up even if legally they can't do anything to you. Were you to ever run for public office of any sort, for example, failing to show up for jury duty would certainly be a black mark. If you ever wanted to work for a law firm at some time in the future it might also cause problems.

Thanks for the info/opinion. I think I'm going to stroll down to the court tomorrow and find out what this is about. Maybe I'll pickup a application for judge pro-temp. hahaha...Just kidding on that one.

I heard a news story a few months ago about a court cracking down on jury duty no-shows. They had a bunch of people rounded up and were ready to prosecute them when it was determined that the notices were never even sent out. More evidence of disorganization. Maybe you could successfully defend yourself against whatever action they might take, but that in itsself would be a hearty punishment. Get it straightened out proactively and good luck with the system.

jtr1962: Lie detectors (polygraphs) are BS. They do not detect lies. They're basically an interrogation technique based on intimidating the interviewee (s/he has to believe the detectors work).

Professional jurors are a good idea. That's what they do in good ol' Europe (Germany for instance).

I was sent a jury duty notice years ago while I was still in college. I probably could have gotten out of it just by using the hardship excuse since I would have almost certainly missed some class time. I've even heard that just asking to be excused, whether you have a good reason or not, is enough to get you excused. I chose to just ignore the notice though. I never heard from them again. It probably is a black mark on my public record that I'll always carry with me but I've got plenty of other reasons that I'll never be elected to public office. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sssh.gif

Here in Hood Co.,Texas, failure to appear for jury duty will cost you $500. Best have a very good reason for not showing up.

They sent me one when I was like 16 or something, I didn't do anything about it and I never heard from them again. Then I got another one when I was 19, this time I am in college away from home so I didn't know anything about it (my family forgot to forward the mail to me). Then they sent me a notice about 1 month later saying I didn't show up blah blah blah...asked me to call their office to explain it to them, I didn't know about that letter either. Finally about 2 months later, they sent me the 2nd notice letter saying the same thing, but I think they added it's against the law for failure to appear in jury duty or something. That's the furthest I got, I gave them a call right after I found out about the letters. lol

Just mention that you are familiar with jury nullification and you will never be actually picked.

Although, do we really want to NOT serve? Do we want those who have nothing to do to decide the fates of people entangled in the legal system?

[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
Although, do we really want to NOT serve? Do we want those who have nothing to do to decide the fates of people entangled in the legal system?

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's put it this way-I'm a graduate of one of the nation's top high schools and colleges, I'm pretty well-rounded in my knowledge of many things, I'm capable of critical analysis, yet I don't consider myself qualified to serve on a jury, nor would I even want to (it would be physically impossible for me to sit and listen that long without falling asleep, and I hate listening to lawyers to begin with). I simply don't feel I can fairly make a decision which can affect years of somebody's life. Also, I feel a jury is a way of passing the buck, so to speak, by freeing the judge or judges from having to make such a decision. By doing so, the jury also covers the judge's behind, so to speak. When the defendant gets released, if he/she's of such a mind as to seek revenge on those who placed him/her behind bars, he'll go after jury members instead of the judge. Seeing that the judge is the one who choose to have a career dealing with criminals, he/she should be the one to bear this burden, not the jurists.

So next time I get a notice to appear, if there is a next time, I should simply write them a letter saying I'm aware of jury nullification and they'll never, ever send me a notice again? Sounds good to me. From what I heard lawyers like mindless sheep on a jury so they probably wouldn't pick me anyway.

As I said earlier, get people to do this who would do it for a living. At least it would be a job they actually want to do, and could be trained to do objectively (which the person serving casually cannot be in the short time they're serving). Or better yet, develop something much better than lie detectors (mind readers with photographic recall?) and do away with trials altogether. IIRC, even current lie detectors are actually better at determining guilt or innocence than the juries, which are wrong more often than they're right.

As someone that has served once on a federal jury case that took 11 days of my life I would say the system works pretty well if the prosecutor and defense attorneys do their job at choosing potential jurors wisely. Serving in that jury is something I will never forget. I don't want to serve in another jury again nor would I want to UNserve in that trial because it was very enlightening having to put yourself essentially in judgement of someone elses actions by merits of evidence presented and witness testimonies opinions/facts. It was a grueling 11 days, I was an alternate and about 4 days into the trial one of the jurors was excused for some reason so I became a full fledged juror.

I think someone that has served on a non trivial jury trial will have a different point of view about things than someone that has never served. My opinion has changed considerably since then. I think the jury system works pretty well in its own aspect. The problems are more related to the managing of juries by judges and lawyers and disgruntled jurors that don't feel like they should have to serve. The trial I was on with the jurors I served with I would definately rather have these people decide my fate than a bunch of stuffed up lawyers and politically correct judges, they were top notch and none of them complained unreasonably about serving we just made the best of it and did our best. When you are in a position where you have no choice but to judge you just do your best regardless of your feelings/opinions which are trivial compared to deciding perhaps the next 25 years or more of someones life.

In California, there is no requirement to prove you got or did not get the notice. Simply call the jury commisioner's office, explain that you did not get the notice and then (get this) tell them when you'd like to be on jury duty. Yup, they will honor your request.

Expect a different result if you try to get out of the responsibility.

In Alameda county, it's a 1 day or one trial obligation. If you are not picked for a jury after one day, you have done your part for the year. Each county is different, though my sister in law (the Deputy Chief Jury Commissioner of San Diego County) tells me they are trying to standardize as much as they can across the state.

If you ever DO get the chance to serve, you should. Juries need intelligent and rational people. It's really a facinating process, especially a short 2 or 3 day trial. That's long enough to see a lot but short enough that you don't get too bored. I enjoyed the last one and I'm looking forward to the one coming up in November.

BTW, if you understand jury nullification, keep it to yourself until after you are chosen for the jury. It's a powerful tool that MAY just want to use if you see a life about to be unjustly ruined. If I recall, the concept is that the jury can decide that the defendant actually did what he/she was charged with, but that the law was not meant to be applied to this particular case.


Daniel

[ QUOTE ]
Lynx_Arc said:
The problems are more related to the managing of juries by judges and lawyers and disgruntled jurors that don't feel like they should have to serve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, both of those problems are pervasive. I'm not saying that the jury system wasn't a bad idea in theory. Rather, I'm saying that by and large it's turned out to be an absolutely horrible idea in practice for both those reasons. Furthermore, eventually technology may render the whole idea obsolete, and I feel the government should be spending substantial sums to this end. While convicting the guilty is important, protecting the innocent is even more important, and this is an area where the jury system fails miserably. I'll gladly replace it with a less than perfect technological means of determining guilt or innocence if it would mean no more false positives. While lie detectors aren't there yet, there is no excuse for at least not trying to develop a more infallible means of finding out the truth. Often, the side that wins in a jury trial is the side with better lawyers. The truth, such as it is, seems to be largely unimportant to the final outcome.

If we wanted to do one thing to at least try to improve upon jury trials in the meantime, I would suggest not choosing jurors at random from among the general population. Obviously, someone who doesn't want to be there is going to do a less than steller job. Rather, either use professional jurors, or let those who wish to serve submit their names, along with the times when they will be available. Many bored retirees who would be only too happy to serve on a jury. Furthermore, increase jury pay to something approaching reasonable. The fact is that for many people serving on a jury is not an option. They may not have the time, or they may not have a job which pays them while they're serving, which basically means serving costs them money. Or they may be in business for themselves, and have nobody to run the business while they're serving. In all of these cases serving causes undue hardship. Jury duty has to be one of the most hated things for all of these reasons. Add to this the fact that an increasing number of largely frivolous lawsuits are creating a need for more and more jurors. It used to be that one could reasonably serve once, and never expect to be called again. Now being called once every few years is getting to be the norm, regardless of whether you're picked for a jury or not. I might not mind going too much if it was for an important criminal case, and I knew I would never, ever be called again for the rest of my life. However, to have to go every few years dealing with cases which are largely about awarding money is a colossal waste of my time. Not to mention that courtrooms are notoriously stuffy and filthy. Almost everyone I know who does jury duty picks up a cold and/or rash. And the lawyers take three hours to say what could be said in five minutes. I'd rather they just hand everyone copies of the evidence, shut up, and then let the jury make up it's own mind. Postering in court the way they do borders on the ludicrous, and I absolutely hate the confrontational nature of the whole thing.

when I was put in the federal Jury pool they told me it was a 6 month period and if you served 10 days on trial(s) you were moved to the bottom of the list and generally didn't have to serve again. I had to show up 4 times before I was called to be interviewed by the jury selection lawyeres... they ask all sorts of questions and some people purposely answer in a way to keep from serving. I find that unprofessional to evade your duty that way.

grr darn typoze!!

In my county, they WERE cracking down on no shows. The judge fined dozens of folks for not showing up. This was around a year ago, and made the local papers.

What is jury nullification?

If summoned, I want out (I don't want anything to do with being on a jury). Thanks.

OMG. Somewhere our founding fathers, who had the wisdom to see a need to provide a check against a detached judicial aristocracy completely disassociated with "The People" deciding the guilt or innocence of common citizens, are spinning in their graves. The jury system is "passing the buck"?!?! For God's sake, the right to a jury of other citizens is one of our most sacred protections! Worry about losing it, not about getting out of it.

And lie detectors do nothing of the sort. They are merely sensitive instruments that accurately measure multiple physiological responses (ie. heart rate, skin pepiration, blood pressure etc) to induced stress (specific questioning) The neutral data is then interpreted by a person trained to recognize responses that correlate to those generally experienced by people who are lying. The person then renders their personal opinion on whether or not the subject is lying, but it is just that, an opinion based on the subject's physical responses, not on a shred of evidence from the case. Polygraphs are useful occasionally as tools to direct investigations, but more often as means of persuading a guilty party to confess. There is a reason they are very rarely admissible as evidence.

Sorry, but as a person that works in the criminal justice system and holds a healthy distrust of government that I believe is consistent with that of our founders, I find a lot of this thread to be quite disturbing.

[No message]

My bus law prof is or was a lawyer and gets those from the office in VA where he lives. He calls them time and time again to explain to them hes a lawyer and would not be allowed to be on the jury. The clerk tells him if he does not show, a cop will be sent out to arrest him. THis is at least what he told us. He said he calls and goes and later is told he can not be on the jury.

This is one reason I do not register to vote. I imagine a jury is much like the folks in your DMV, airport security or some horrible job you worked. No one seems to follow logic and you just want to walk.