Penalties for Jury Duty non-cooperation?

[johnsonderberg]

so we are still talking about contempt of court.

I know that it will be interpreted as contempt of court. In truth it's contempt for the over-reaching, invasive growth of government with unjust laws.

Good for you. Stand up for your rights, even if it is from behind the jailhouse bars for those 5 days.

because you don't want to set in jail for 5 days and leave the courthouse $1500 lighter maybe?

Sounds like you really want to spend a few days in jail and give the court some of your hard earned money.

"Conform & abdicate to authority, or be punished." That's neither morally nor intellectually inspiring.

so you would refuse to hear the trial before making a judgment as to whether jury nullification even might be a valid position?

I never said I wouldn't hear the/a trial. I'm merely pointing out that I would alert judges to my knowledge of JN. Judges & lawyers, unsurprisingly seeking compliant androids (just like most of you on this message board) don't want to deal with such wild cards and will do whatever it takes to keep such people (me) off the panel.

Jury nullification is not based on the fact a person is being tried. It is to protest what the jury perceives as an unjust law and as such, finds the defendant not guilty when in fact the evidence did prove them to be guilty.

I know what jury nullification is (unless you're defining it for other readers who don't and are too lazy to look it up?).

 

[johnsonderberg]

So, johnsonderberg, I suspect that you do not protest or complain about criminal or civil court proceedings and have no concern for the justice system? If you refuse to participate, then I can only assume you are not concerned with the outcomes. That's fine ... hopefully you will never be a victim of a crime nor have need to appear in civil or family court.

There is no legitimate reason to reject the very notion of serving on a jury other than simply not wanting to serve on a jury.

More data on the public school system's failure to teach reading comprehension! I explicitly said I did not seek to avoid jury duty. My information-insubordination is a protest against unjust laws/behaviors (NSA spying, among others). If that isn't "concern for the justice system", then I don't know what is (even if you don't agree with the substance of my protest).

I hope a night in jail teaches you a lesson.

"Conform & abdicate to authority, or be punished." That's (still) neither morally nor intellectually inspiring.

 

[johnsonderberg]

I honestly do not get you at all. I don't mean that in a snarky way, but in a sincere way.

I honestly do not understand what your objections are based on what you have said so far.

That's ok. We long ago went way off topic. The whole point of this thread was to find out what the penalties (apparently $1500 and/or 5 days) are for hypothetical non-compliance to the GIVE US YOUR PERSONAL INFO jury duty directive. Mission accomplished!

It was not to justify my reasons for doing so, nor to get concurrence from those of you (whose backgrounds & stake in the judicial system I am now most curious about, given the hostility to me) who've responded.

You say that you would be willing to hear the case and vote in an objective manner but you are unwilling to provide any information about yourself.

I never claimed to be objective (none of us are; more on that in a minute). And I'm only "unwilling to provide any information about yourself" as a protest against NSA spying. In the absence of the NSA spying, I would (and have in the past) given this information.

How would you feel if you were the defendant and someone like you was going to be on the jury?

Are you kidding? A juror who knows what Jury Nullification is, is ready to use it, and might spread the concept to other curious jurors? I'd be doing cartwheels if I were that defendant!!!!

Would you feel that you were going to be getting a fair trial if you had no idea what any biases any one juror held? What if the potential juror just hated people like you because of some weird reason. Wouldn't you want your attorney to be able to ask questions to help determine if you could be objective?

1) None of the jury notice form's "Are you a citizen of the US?", "Are you 18 or older?", "Have you been convicted of a felony?", or Phone Numbers, Emergency Contact, Occupation, Employer, etc., queries has anything to do with fairness. Nor are they needed: the govt already has this info in their databases.

2) If you want real fairness during the Voir Dire process, then . . . .

2a) . . . . lawyers need vastly improved training in the art of question-design. Real objectivity is impossible; a better goal is to ferret out (so you can understand and compensate for) people's prejudices. The questions I've seen attorneys choose over my 25+ years of jury duty are way too ham-fisted, fraught with biases of their own, and allow the person being questioned to (subconsciously) paint a picture of who they think they are (or wish to be perceived as) rather than who they really are.

2b) . . . . prospective jurors should not be seen nor (verbally) heard. Visual & audible data allows race, gender, and economic strata (how you're dressed) to influence juror selection. Written questionnaires (with much more subtle question design; see 2a above) is the correct methodology.

2c) . . . . prospective jurors should not be asked about their Occupation or Employer. That allows pre-conceived ideas about groups (read: stereotypes) to enter into juror selection.

 

[Proserpina]

That's ok. We long ago went way off topic. The whole point of this thread was to find out what the penalties (apparently $1500 and/or 5 days) are for hypothetical non-compliance to the GIVE US YOUR PERSONAL INFO jury duty directive. Mission accomplished!

It was not to justify my reasons for doing so, nor to get concurrence from those of you (whose backgrounds & stake in the judicial system I am now most curious about, given the hostility to me) who've responded.





I never claimed to be objective (none of us are; more on that in a minute). And I'm only "unwilling to provide any information about yourself" as a protest against NSA spying. In the absence of the NSA spying, I would (and have in the past) given this information.





Are you kidding? A juror who knows what Jury Nullification is, is ready to use it, and might spread the concept to other curious jurors? I'd be doing cartwheels if I were that defendant!!!!






1) None of the jury notice form's "Are you a citizen of the US?", "Are you 18 or older?", "Have you been convicted of a felony?", or Phone Numbers, Emergency Contact, Occupation, Employer, etc., queries has anything to do with fairness. Nor are they needed: the govt already has this info in their databases.

2) If you want real fairness during the Voir Dire process, then . . . .

2a) . . . . lawyers need vastly improved training in the art of question-design. Real objectivity is impossible; a better goal is to ferret out (so you can understand and compensate for) people's prejudices. The questions I've seen attorneys choose over my 25+ years of jury duty are way too ham-fisted, fraught with biases of their own, and allow the person being questioned to (subconsciously) paint a picture of who they think they are (or wish to be perceived as) rather than who they really are.

2b) . . . . prospective jurors should not be seen nor (verbally) heard. Visual & audible data allows race, gender, and economic strata (how you're dressed) to influence juror selection. Written questionnaires (with much more subtle question design; see 2a above) is the correct methodology.

2c) . . . . prospective jurors should not be asked about their Occupation or Employer. That allows pre-conceived ideas about groups (read: stereotypes) to enter into juror selection.

If nothing else, your expectations are more suited for Alice In Wonderland than Bob In Custody.

Questionnaires. Hmmm. I'd like more information on that methodology, given that it too opens the door for bias and stereotyping.

 

[FlyingRon]

You should read my first post again. As I stated the questionnaire isn't to "collect invasive information" against you, it is to determine if you are suitable for selection for a jury. You start out assumed eligible. The fact you blew off all the questions that might get you excused means you're still in the pool. Your political statements on the form are just ignored. All they really are looking for is:

1. You still live in the district
2. You're not prohibited due to a criminal record or whatever.
3. You're not excusable based on certain other criteria

The fact you say you won't participate means nothing to the guys screening the roles. They'll let the judge handle that when you appear and are obstinate or you don't appear.

I've gotten such questionnaires three times:

1. I had moved out of the state so I got off that roll
2. A local (state) pool I never got another notice.
3. A federal pool I got to "standby" (call every night to find out if I have to go to court the next day). Did that for several days and then they outright released me.

 

[Ohiogal]

More data on the public school system's failure to teach reading comprehension! I explicitly said I did not seek to avoid jury duty. My information-insubordination is a protest against unjust laws/behaviors (NSA spying, among others). If that isn't "concern for the justice system", then I don't know what is (even if you don't agree with the substance of my protest).




"Conform & abdicate to authority, or be punished." That's (still) neither morally nor intellectually inspiring.

You are the perfect example of the public school system's failure to teach students. You have no clue regarding the inaccuracies upon which you have based your beliefs. Carry on in your ignorance however. At least here it can be entertaining to watch you rant and rave about things of which you have no knowledge.

 

[Proserpina]

I got three requests for jury service.

Sometimes, "they" don't have all of the information at their fingertips.

Otherwise they would have known that I am not a US citizen.

 

[LdiJ]

I don't get how being uncooperative about a call to jury do is in any way a suitable protest against NSA spying. You might get taken more seriously if you choose more relevant issues to use for protesting.

 

[Proserpina]

I don't get how being uncooperative about a call to jury do is in any way a suitable protest against NSA spying. You might get taken more seriously if you choose more relevant issues to use for protesting.

You should see the folk at "above top secret dot com"

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

I don't get how being uncooperative about a call to jury do is in any way a suitable protest against NSA spying. You might get taken more seriously if you choose more relevant issues to use for protesting.

It appears to me that the OP is protesting some (not all, but some) actions that are legitimate and valid targets for protest. His method for doing so seems to be the equivalent of sticking out his tongue at "the man". Spending a few days in jail will confirm his belief in his mind regarding the complete evil that is government.

 

[FlyingRon]

His rant may have made him feel good, but it does nothing. It's entirely analogous to having not returned the form at all. They're just going to assume he's eligible for service. Nothing's going to happen until they actually call him and he acts defiantly.

 

[Zigner]

Failing to properly complete the form will guarantee a follow-up.


ETA: I've actually received the form back with a letter asking for proper completion when I missed an item.

 

[CdwJava]

More data on the public school system's failure to teach reading comprehension!

And you know where I went to school, how??

I explicitly said I did not seek to avoid jury duty.

Sure you did. You said you would not comply by providing the required information. If you fail to provide the info that is required, you will be unable to be impaneled on a jury. There are valid reasons for them to obtain the information they seek and if you do not understand them - or seek to understand them - then you are not fit to sit on a jury anyway and you should probably simply object on whatever grounds you think they will accept your objection.

Oh, and juries are also required to apply the LAW not make it up on their own. The concept of "jury nullification" insofar as it defies the law is highly flawed ... and, quite scary, as it adds a highly political element to justice and can result in tyranny. Think deep south, Jim Crow, and all white juries ...

My information-insubordination is a protest against unjust laws/behaviors (NSA spying, among others).

Oh, I suspect if the NSA stuff hadn't broken you'd object anyway. If you're an anarchist, fine. But, go all the way - try not to benefit and utilize the wares produced by the evil capitalist system such as computers and cell phones.

If that isn't "concern for the justice system", then I don't know what is (even if you don't agree with the substance of my protest).

One exercises their civic duty by participating in the process, not by ignoring it. If you don't participate on a jury, don't vote, and do not engage, then you are hardly in a position to try and affect any change. All you can do is stand around and protest ... assuming you have the time off of work ... assuming you have any work.

"Conform & abdicate to authority, or be punished." That's (still) neither morally nor intellectually inspiring.

Obeying the law still works.

 

[CdwJava]

I've gotten such questionnaires three times:

1. I had moved out of the state so I got off that roll
2. A local (state) pool I never got another notice.
3. A federal pool I got to "standby" (call every night to find out if I have to go to court the next day). Did that for several days and then they outright released me.

Overt he decades I have been summoned to jury duty twice. Both times I was an active duty peace officer and was excused. My wife has been summoned four times. Twice she was excused, a third time she was in the midst of a difficult pregnancy (#3 son) and had a feeding tube and IV line and they wouldn't excuse her so she showed up at court IV tree and feeding pump backpack and all - and immediately excused, and the fourth time it was for a strong-arm robbery case that *I* was the investigating and arresting officer on ... she was excused by the Clerk.

Sometimes it just isn't easy to follow through with your civic duty.

 

[TheGeekess]

Overt he decades I have been summoned to jury duty twice. Both times I was an active duty peace officer and was excused. My wife has been summoned four times. Twice she was excused, a third time she was in the midst of a difficult pregnancy (#3 son) and had a feeding tube and IV line and they wouldn't excuse her so she showed up at court IV tree and feeding pump backpack and all - and immediately excused, and the fourth time it was for a strong-arm robbery case that *I* was the investigating and arresting officer on ... she was excused by the Clerk.

Sometimes it just isn't easy to follow through with your civic duty.

My mom got called to jury duty several years ago. When they asked why she should be released from duty, she pointed at the defending attorney and told the court "That's my ex-son-in-law".