WWTBAM Bored

I've got to report at the courthouse at 9 am. Depending on whether I'm selected or not, I may not be online (during the day shift, at least) for a while.

While I'm gone, let's keep some ontopicosity going!

GW just went through this last week. There at 8:30, dismissed before 10:00 when all the pending cases were resolved prior to reaching the courtroom. She had a nice day off after that. Hope you have the same.

I have nothing on topic to add.

gsabc wrote:GW just went through this last week. There at 8:30, dismissed before 10:00 when all the pending cases were resolved prior to reaching the courtroom. She had a nice day off after that. Hope you have the same.

I have nothing on topic to add.

Just tell him you want to bring back the phone game.

If you're actually called, practice this phrase: "He sure looks guilty to me."

It will work wonders in keeping you off juries.

I like jury duty.

I WANT jury duty...I have never been summoned for it, and that makes me sad.

I was called for jury duty many years ago when I was living in California, but then not again until I had a home in Idaho but was working all over the country. I told them that I was working out of town but the jury coordinator said the judge said I had to return to Idaho - no excuses. I would have lost a week's pay as well as the cost of returning. My friend who was house-sitting said a sheriff's deputy showed up at my house with an arrest warrant. I never took care of that but would have fought it if I had ever been arrested.

Bob Juch wrote:I was called for jury duty many years ago when I was living in California, but then not again until I had a home in Idaho but was working all over the country. I told them that I was working out of town but the jury coordinator said the judge said I had to return to Idaho - no excuses. I would have lost a week's pay as well as the cost of returning. My friend who was house-sitting said a sheriff's deputy showed up at my house with an arrest warrant. I never took care of that but would have fought it if I had ever been arrested.

I thought employers are required to pay you for time you serve on a jury (you just have to turn over whatever the court pays you, if anything)? Is that just a CT thing?

sunflower wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I was called for jury duty many years ago when I was living in California, but then not again until I had a home in Idaho but was working all over the country. I told them that I was working out of town but the jury coordinator said the judge said I had to return to Idaho - no excuses. I would have lost a week's pay as well as the cost of returning. My friend who was house-sitting said a sheriff's deputy showed up at my house with an arrest warrant. I never took care of that but would have fought it if I had ever been arrested.

I thought employers are required to pay you for time you serve on a jury (you just have to turn over whatever the court pays you, if anything)? Is that just a CT thing?

I don't know if that's a law anywhere, but it's a good idea. Citigroup would have. Problem was that I would have had a major expense returning to Idaho and I was self-employed. I doubt the judge had the right to order me back.

sunflower wrote:I thought employers are required to pay you for time you serve on a jury (you just have to turn over whatever the court pays you, if anything)? Is that just a CT thing?

Employers are required to give you time off, but around here, at least, they don't have to pay you. (Caveat: it is possible the law has changed in the past few years, but this is the way it used to be in Texas). When I served on a jury back when I worked summers at JCPenney, I got paid for the day I would otherwise have worked (one of my jury days fell on my day off), and they didn't make me turn over the $12 I got paid by the County.

The self-employed really get screwed.

I knew I wasn't crazy...all the jobs I've ever had, I know they pay for time served at jury duty. I don't think I've ever known anyone to serve more than 5 days though. If you click on the link, it has a grid of the other states as well.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0975.htm

Employer pays the first five days, then state pays $50 per day. Part-time and unemployed jurors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses during the first five days.


(That link is from 2000, but current CT General Statutes have the same requirement - I liked that link because it showed all the states)

The last time I served, I was asked if I would be paid by my employer while serving. If the answer was no, then the county paid some small amount - maybe $36.00 or something.

They also serve who only sit and wait.

In other words, I was not selected for the jury, which is fine with me.

Twelve other citizens (plus two alternates) will now decide the case of assault with a (full) wine bottle.

MarleysGh0st wrote:They also serve who only sit and wait.

In other words, I was not selected for the jury, which is fine with me.

Twelve other citizens (plus two alternates) will now decide the case of assault with a (full) wine bottle.

Well that would have been interesting...was it red or white?

MarleysGh0st wrote:They also serve who only sit and wait.

In other words, I was not selected for the jury, which is fine with me.

Twelve other citizens (plus two alternates) will now decide the case of assault with a (full) wine bottle.

That doesn't sound too bad, unless there was also battery involved.

TheConfessor wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:They also serve who only sit and wait.

In other words, I was not selected for the jury, which is fine with me.

Twelve other citizens (plus two alternates) will now decide the case of assault with a (full) wine bottle.

That doesn't sound too bad, unless there was also battery involved.

You need batteries for your wine?


On a serious note, how many states still use the term "battery"? I know Texas does not in criminal law.

TheConfessor wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:They also serve who only sit and wait.

In other words, I was not selected for the jury, which is fine with me.

Twelve other citizens (plus two alternates) will now decide the case of assault with a (full) wine bottle.

That doesn't sound too bad, unless there was also battery involved.

They didn't use the word "battery" but the defense is not disputing the fact that someone was struck in the face with said wine bottle. They will be arguing self defense.

MarleysGh0st wrote:They also serve who only sit and wait.

In other words, I was not selected for the jury, which is fine with me.

Twelve other citizens (plus two alternates) will now decide the case of assault with a (full) wine bottle.

I think they would have emptied the darn bottle before one of them hit the other with it.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:They also serve who only sit and wait.

In other words, I was not selected for the jury, which is fine with me.

Twelve other citizens (plus two alternates) will now decide the case of assault with a (full) wine bottle.

That doesn't sound too bad, unless there was also battery involved.

They didn't use the word "battery" but the defense is not disputing the fact that someone was struck in the face with said wine bottle. They will be arguing self defense.

I hit them with the wine bottle because they were swinging the cork screw at me.

peacock2121 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

TheConfessor wrote: That doesn't sound too bad, unless there was also battery involved.

They didn't use the word "battery" but the defense is not disputing the fact that someone was struck in the face with said wine bottle. They will be arguing self defense.

I hit them with the wine bottle because they were swinging the cork screw at me.

I was thinking cheese knife.

silverscreenselect wrote:If you're actually called, practice this phrase: "He sure looks guilty to me."

It will work wonders in keeping you off juries.

Well, the courtroom was full of approximately 100 potential jurors. After the judge asked for people who wanted to ask for exemptions, about twenty got in line. Some of those were excused, some weren't. Then, after going over the general rules, they drew eighteen names for the first round of voir dire.

The judge began with some basic qualification yes/no questions for the whole group, and one guy answers "No" to the part about being innocent until proven guilty. The judge asks him, even if his personal opinion was otherwise, whether he could still follow that principle as a juror.

"No."

And so the judge excused him. Awfully simple, if that's what you want to swear to.

They ended up selecting ten jurors from that first group, so they drew eighteen more names (still avoiding mine), went through the whole voir dire again, and picked the last four from those. The rest of us were then free to leave, at 1:30.

Bob Juch wrote:

sunflower wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I was called for jury duty many years ago when I was living in California, but then not again until I had a home in Idaho but was working all over the country. I told them that I was working out of town but the jury coordinator said the judge said I had to return to Idaho - no excuses. I would have lost a week's pay as well as the cost of returning. My friend who was house-sitting said a sheriff's deputy showed up at my house with an arrest warrant. I never took care of that but would have fought it if I had ever been arrested.

I thought employers are required to pay you for time you serve on a jury (you just have to turn over whatever the court pays you, if anything)? Is that just a CT thing?

I don't know if that's a law anywhere, but it's a good idea. Citigroup would have. Problem was that I would have had a major expense returning to Idaho and I was self-employed. I doubt the judge had the right to order me back.

This is why non-lawyers should avoid the temptation to practice law. --Bob (who is not an Idaho lawyer)

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

sunflower wrote: I thought employers are required to pay you for time you serve on a jury (you just have to turn over whatever the court pays you, if anything)? Is that just a CT thing?

I don't know if that's a law anywhere, but it's a good idea. Citigroup would have. Problem was that I would have had a major expense returning to Idaho and I was self-employed. I doubt the judge had the right to order me back.

This is why non-lawyers should avoid the temptation to practice law. --Bob (who is not an Idaho lawyer)

Bob#### is right. The Judge most definitely has the authority to order you to appear, despite the circumstances. He also had the authority to hold you in contempt for not showing.

That said, most Judges have the good sense to be able to figure out who really has a valid conflict and who is just trying to duck Jury Duty.

sunflower wrote:I knew I wasn't crazy...all the jobs I've ever had, I know they pay for time served at jury duty. I don't think I've ever known anyone to serve more than 5 days though. If you click on the link, it has a grid of the other states as well.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0975.htm

Employer pays the first five days, then state pays $50 per day. Part-time and unemployed jurors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses during the first five days.


(That link is from 2000, but current CT General Statutes have the same requirement - I liked that link because it showed all the states)

Even Mecca pays for jury duty. Back in October 2003, I was summoned on a Monday and wasn't dismissed until Tuesday afternoon (Didn't even make it to the selection process, just sat in the courthouse basement for 2 days). Got both nights off (Yes, even us overnighters get time off for jury duty) with full pay, got to keep the $44 for jury duty I got paid from the county, and got a nifty four day weekend out of it (I would have been so pissed had it extended into my Wed-Thu off, since the courthouse doesn't consider those of us who have different weekends from others....)

lb13

The Ithaca Journal has a short article about the trial in today's paper. I suspect national coverage of the case will be, uhhh, somewhat limited.

I had no hint what the case was going to be, before it began. Coincidentally, when I woke up yesterday there was a report on the radio about a murder case starting in Cortland County. This morning's report said that the first day's voir dire only resulted in two jurors being selected for that one, so far!