Penalties for Jury Duty non-cooperation?

[cbg]

My husband has been called several times - indeed, he has a pending date in March. He has always been excused and expects to be excused again. The reason? One of his clients is the state Attorney General.

Now me, I've been called several times; have always reported when scheduled, and have never been seated. No conflicts, no ineligibilty issues, just logistics. Twice after I arrived all the cases scheduled for the day were either settled or postponed; once they were looking for a jury of six people and the sixth was seated two people before I was questioned; twice my pool was told not to report.

SOMEONE must make up the juries. But it's never anyone from my house, though we're both willing.

 

[Silverplum]

Honestly, if the poster is so "smart" and so "edgy" and so *into* his "rebellion"...WHY would he even care what the penalties are for his planned rebellion? Why would he bother to even send the government's piece of offensive paper back to them? Why can't he google up his own penalty information?

It's all trolly.

 

[swalsh411]

I hate to disagree, but I have to. There a quite a few people with legitimate religious prohibitions against judging another person.

DC

Still not a legitimate reason. And what religion denies basic justice?

 

[Ohiogal]

Still not a legitimate reason. And what religion denies basic justice?

Quakers do not sit on juries.
Nor do the Amish.

 

[CdwJava]

Quakers do not sit on juries.
Nor do the Amish.

Nor Mennonites (my community has a significant number of them). But, these are legitimate and recognized faiths with specific convictions and they also do not utilize the court system to resolve disputes. Though I suspect most anyone with a legitimate objection to the system would be excused because no one on either side likely wants a rabble-rouser on board.

 

[justalayman]

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.








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





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.




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?).

If you know what jury nullification is, you must be aware you cannot predetermine you will
Nullify the trial before the case is heard. Only after hearing the facts and then deciding the defendant is getting a raw deal and the you believe the trial should be nullified can you make the decision to nullify the process. If you walk into the courtroom intending on nullifying the process, then no, you are not willing to hear the trial. Your mind has been made up before hearing word one of either party's case.

 

[johnsonderberg]

. . . . But, these are legitimate and recognized faiths with specific convictions . . . .

Just so you know, that's called the Fallacy of Vox Populi (something is true if a large enough group of people claim it's true). The smallest minority group is always the individual.

 

[johnsonderberg]

If you know what jury nullification is, you must be aware you cannot predetermine you will Nullify the trial before the case is heard. Only after hearing the facts and then deciding the defendant is getting a raw deal and the you believe the trial should be nullified can you make the decision to nullify the process.

Of course you can (predetermine you will Nullify the trial before the case is heard). If you think the law in question is wrong, then it becomes irrelevant whether the state makes a convincing case that the defendant violated it.

The purpose behind a potential juror warning the judge & lawyers of his/her awareness of JN is one or both of (a) being fair to them (full disclosure), and (b) to protect the JN-aware juror him/herself from post-trial retributions.

 

[CdwJava]

Just so you know, that's called the Fallacy of Vox Populi (something is true if a large enough group of people claim it's true). The smallest minority group is always the individual.

The fact that they are recognized as such by the feds who grant them a variety of exceptions including registering for Selective Service, Social Security, and the like, means nothing to you? Okay.

Oh, and I can Google big phrases on the internet and try to squeeze them into a conversation, too ... but, why???

 

[CdwJava]

Of course you can (predetermine you will Nullify the trial before the case is heard). If you think the law in question is wrong, then it becomes irrelevant whether the state makes a convincing case that the defendant violated it.

The purpose behind a potential juror warning the judge & lawyers of his/her awareness of JN is one or both of (a) being fair to them (full disclosure), and (b) to protect the JN-aware juror him/herself from post-trial retributions.

It just means that you are closed-minded and don't believe in the rule of law. But, that's fine, as long as you're honest and announce your predispositions ahead of time you'll likely find yourself released from jury duty in no time ... but, if you refuse to fill out the form as required THAT can and often does have consequences.

Of course, since you likely don't participate in the electoral process because you don't believe in government, you'll never get selected anyway as jurors are selected from the voter registration rolls. So, this is much ado about nothing.

 

[justalayman]

,

and (b) to protect the JN-aware juror him/herself from post-trial retributions.

what are you talking about? Telling the court you intend on refusing to even hear the case is not going to protect you from anything you already were not immune from.

 

[Silverplum]

For edgy-rebel dude, so you know what we know: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Google%20Wisdom

<<---- jus' like you, young'un.

 

[johnsonderberg]

The fact that they are recognized as such by the feds who grant them a variety of exceptions including registering for Selective Service, Social Security, and the like, means nothing to you?

No, it does not mean anything to me. Jim Crow laws were once "recognized by government" in America. Rounding up Jews was once "recognized by government" in Germany.

Oh, and I can Google big phrases on the internet and try to squeeze them into a conversation, too ... but, why???

To point out an error in someone else's thinking. Look up the word "Fallacy".

 

[johnsonderberg]

Of course, since you likely don't participate in the electoral process because you don't believe in government, you'll never get selected anyway as jurors are selected from the voter registration rolls.

Interesting that you bring that up, as I believe that a lot of people opt out of voter registration precisely for the (mistaken) belief that it keeps them off the jury duty radar.

The truth is that voter registration is not necessary to get a jury duty summons in California. Having a drivers license is all that's needed.

Although it might be interesting to know whether having BOTH those characteristics increases the hit rate (frequency of receiving summons over some long, say 10 or 15 year, swath of time) . . . but I can't imagine the powers that be disclosing that.

 

[Zigner]

No, it does not mean anything to me. Jim Crow laws were once "recognized by government" in America. Rounding up Jews was once "recognized by government" in Germany.




To point out an error in someone else's thinking. Look up the word "Fallacy".

Godwin's Law at work again!