Ignore Jury Summons - Consequences?

[AHA]

Put it this way, if you were put on trial for something, wouldn't you want a jury of several people there to give you at least a chance of aquittal(spelling) instead of having your future put in the hands of only 1 person's(judge) decision?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Just ignore this clown "stepenk" he sounds like he gets his facts of off perry mason, probaly while high on crack, what a ignorant moron.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Just ignore this clown "stepenk" he sounds like he gets his facts of off perry mason, probaly while high on crack, what a ignorant moron.

 

[AHA]

What imagination, the same post on 3 different threads. Running out of things to say?

 

[joeyblow]

You can blow the "civic duty" lectures out your ears. They don't address my question at all. I want to know how a judge can jail someone without establishing proof of a crime.

As with most states, we have a whole section devoted to "RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE" that says summons and subpoenas are to be served by registered mail, process servers, sheriffs, etc., etc. This makes perfect sense. It allows the court to prove the document was received.

But, jury summons are just sent by regular mail. Regular mail is pretty reliable but hardly infallible. It gets lost, misplaced, tossed out, and otherwise fails with some frequency.

Of the millions of jury summons sent out every year, some of them must reallly get lost. And I bet that some poor souls really don't receive the second notice if there is one.

So...they get fined for this? Do jail time? That's insane. Why doesn't the court have to prove the person ignored the jury summons by sending at least one in a verifiable fashion prior to applying punishment?

 

[cbg]

Joey, if you want to be a test case and try ignoring your jury duty summons to prove or argue your point, be my guest. Just don't come whining to us when you have to pay the penalty, whatever it might be in your state.

BTW, what makes you think the court has to prove you DID receive it? As we keep telling you, unless you have verifiable mail delivery problems, it's just as reasonable (more so, in my opinion) for you to have to prove you DIDN'T.

 

[joeyblow]

As we keep telling you, unless you have verifiable mail delivery problems, it's just as reasonable (more so, in my opinion) for you to have to prove you DIDN'T.

"Guilty unless you prove you are innocent", eh? I may not want to do jury duty but I pray like hell that you never serve on one.

Let me ask you something. Say your jury summons really did get lost. The sheriff comes out and serves you a 'real' summons to appear before the judge. How are you going to prove that you did not receive something sent to you by regular mail? It's impossible to do that. You have no defense.

Demonstrate "verifiable delivery problems", you say. What kinds of problems would that be? Every so often, I get mail meant for someone else. That's a fact but how do I "verify" it? Other people might just throw it away. I stick it back in the mailbox. Maybe it eventually gets to person it was meant for, but who knows? I am sure other mail disappears into the nooks and crannies of the postal service never to be seen again. How do you "verify" the fate of any particular piece of mail unless it's sent in a verifiable fashion (registered, etc.)????

BTW, what makes you think the court has to prove you DID receive it?

There it is again. "Guilty unless you prove you are innocent".

But that's not how the system is supposed to work. And that's why I don't understand how people are punished for an acusation that can't be proven and against which it is impossible to defend.

There should be substantial proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, I believe) before someone is punished. That's basic. So, how can you be punished for ignoring something when there is no proof of you receiving it? Every other kind of court summons and subpoena must be served in a verifiable fashion. Why not the jury summons? What makes it special?

If any attorney is reading, I'm curious about the legal principle that lets a court act this way in regard to a jury summons.