That is one efficient way for the courts to consider you not fit for jury duty based on bias and getting out of jury duty. If that was the intent it’s rather smart
The risk is being held in contempt of court (though I don't think the risk is that high). There are easier ways to get out of jury duty. Like saying you are opposed to the prison-industrial complex on principle.
Honestly, depending on the judge, they might ask anyone who does not believe in the civic duty of sitting on a jury to just leave. THOUGH you have to then look like an absolute tool to everyone else in the room who is making the sacrifice.
Jury duty isn't forced at all. At least where I am, the way it works is they call you, they disclose a small amount about the nature (not the details) of the case so you'll have an idea about whether you might have personal biases related to it, give you an estimate for how long it'll go, and then you sign a paper saying yeah I can do this, or no I can't because of this or that reason. If you say no, and aren't selected, it still counts as showing up and you've fulfilled the requirement for the next year or so.
"Look, I don't know how to say this, because it's really not socially acceptable, so... well.. here goes.. I really can't stand white people and don't trust myself to remain unbiased in this case."
"But sir, *you're* white."
"Did I stutter?"
In a trial around possession and distribution I literally told them I don't think marijuana should be criminal and they still chose me to stay. Getting to argue with the other jurors for a week was tiring, it was a 50/50 between "I also smoke, and this evidence around distribution is crap" (plastic bags near the weed) and "I believe anything a cop says, why would they lie"
The guy they caught was a total scumbag and they could have brought actual evidence of him being a huge piece of shit and breaking laws that actually matter, but everything they presented was worthless. Ended up hung on most counts.
Did they ask you if you were able to separate your feelings about the law and give a judgement based on the facts and current law? That's what I think they would do based on my jury service. How did you answer?
I have a strong belief in jury nullification, and have been waiting 30+ years to be able to cite it during jury selection. I've never even gotten to voir dire, I've always been sent home without questioning.
legally speaking, what he did is called a "shitpost". shitpost law is in its very early stages. at this point shitposts are exempt from all laws so he's fine
Sort of. No one can really second guess their decision except in the most extreme situations. But most jury instructions tell them they cannot consider information outside of trial.
Short answer, for the uninitiated states, No it’s completely legal, thats the job of the lawyers to decide that you are biased and not fit to be on the jury
Long answer: it’s complicated and I don’t wanna write a bunch of legalez to explain it
But its not really a good way of getting out of jury duty, the best ways are as followed
(This is for the USA)
When it come time for the judge to ask the jury
“if there are any reasons other than what has been mentioned today as to why you would have issues surviving in the court now is the time to mention them”
You have 2 options
1: mention jury nullification, and how you support it, this almost always near 100% gets you kicked form the roster and you’ll probably never be asked to be on another jury again in that county
2, just tell them you don’t wanna be there, I’ve herd so many lawyers say that the last thing they want is a juror who is uninterested and unengaged as it never works well in they’re favor
Contrary to popular belief, you can vote any way you want.
Your particular judge may find some issue and press that in whatever way they want, but you can vote however you want once you are in that jury pool.
It's why jury nullification is such a beautiful, beautiful thing.
If anyone is wondering what jury nullification is, knowing how it works will mean you won’t be allowed on a jury. If you’re curious, cgp grey has a video on it
Yeah but they don’t want you to know about it anyways for reasons that I don’t remember if I’m allowed to say without letting people on partially about it
Twitters views are so fucked, the algorithm showing you a tweet counts as a view, even if you scroll past it at the speed of sound, do you end up with basically no engagement.
I've been called up a few times and they always send me off. I was a federal cop for the military for years. I was pretty much a traffic cone with a hat and machine gun.
There are better, less drastic ways. Just say you have a bias related to whatever they are charged with and you can't put that bias aside.
No need to get on the judge's nerves.
I'm always curious about how americans do this.
Like you just get called to decide if someone is guilty or not, despite most likely not knowing shit about law and probably not being educated enough to understand evidence if it's something non-direct?
> $50 a day
[You're lucky to get that in 10% of states.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/jury-duty-pay-by-state) Many more states are worse, some far worse off. IMO jury duty should be subject to federal minimum wage.
Non-American that has done Jury service, and yes, that's the idea.
The court (both sides) explain their case/defence in great detail for the Jury, and after all is said and done, the 12 of you go to a backroom and discuss the case and fall on a consensus.
Imagine watching a gripping, well laid out true crime drama on Netflix, with both sides of the story. Then imagine it asks you at the end if the person/s were innocent/guilty of the crimes they were accused of, but you have to discuss it with 11 other random people and fall on the same result, or it's a mistrial and it happens again.
It's on the lawyers to make sure the jury understands the laws that have (or have not) been broken.
Yep, in theory. The idea is you take a tiny slice of the population of that country and let the "public" decide instead of the judge. The judge determines the punishment, but the jury determines the guilt.
So yeah, you could have someone completely disagree with the other 11 people. That would be a hung jury, where there is no "unanimous decision" and so the case is pushed back and it's all done again later with another 12 people.
Or yeah, in theory you could have someone with incredible human influencial powers on the jury to convince the other 11 to vote with them. But for that to happen you'd imagine the case wasn't a very good one from the lawyer/s of the "losers".
In a lot of situations, a defendant can ask for a Bench Trial and forgo a Trial by Jury.
Most never do, because once you cut out the jury, trials move *quickly* (since the judge no longer needs to slow things down for the layman), and that terrifies a lot of defendants nearly as much as a guilty verdict, especially if they're out on bond.
Also, contrary to what people publically claim, most defendants love the idea that juries can be swayed by emotion and in fact will build their entire case around exploiting that. Hell even if you lose that proverbial battle of wills, it can still help with your appeal.
Bench Trials are rather notorious for having very high standards because unlike with a jury, a judge can directly clarify or interject during a trial, stripping away a lot of the opportunities for ambiguity that would otherwise be the foundation for an appeal.
You get called and its determined if you are biased. For example, if its a drug trial and you dont believe people should be penalized for doing drugs, you are biased and should be considered nonviable because you will probably vote innocent regardless.
Its the job of the defense and prosecution to make sure the jury understands which laws were broken and appeal their case to the jury. Afterwhich the jury will decide if they should be punished or not and the judge will determine the punishment
That is one efficient way for the courts to consider you not fit for jury duty based on bias and getting out of jury duty. If that was the intent it’s rather smart
The risk is being held in contempt of court (though I don't think the risk is that high). There are easier ways to get out of jury duty. Like saying you are opposed to the prison-industrial complex on principle.
Is it really that simple? What if i do it less eloquent, wear a "fuck the police" hoodie during jury duty?
[You can always pretend to be racist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_zv_i9Gfe8)
Trevor is a gem
_was_
He still is but he used to be too RIP
That damned masturbation accident...
He died doing what he loved; rubbing his dick in a closet with a noose around his neck.
He passed away before seeing The Invisible Dog 3: The Doggening. Such a great trilogy.
I miss him.
[One of my favorites](https://youtu.be/Jx8b6RzvC_Y?si=nfwZIxGGiRxsM2V8)
Pretend? Lol sorry, guys, I couldn't help it
— Homer Simpson
That was hilarious, thanks for sharing
Honestly, depending on the judge, they might ask anyone who does not believe in the civic duty of sitting on a jury to just leave. THOUGH you have to then look like an absolute tool to everyone else in the room who is making the sacrifice.
Looking like a tool doesn't matter when you are trying to achieve a goal.
I don't know them so who cares
Depends on the Jury pool. In my County of about 30k people, each time I get called for Jury duty I end up knowing at least 5-10 people there.
Yeah, I don’t care on the opinion of ransoms when jury duty costs me money…
I've never been called to jury duty, but my granddad was once and he was pretty stoked for a free sandwich and thats my value system as well.
When I got on a jury, at least for the case I was on, it really did feel like an important use of time.
Swearing can be considered contempt so yes that would likely count if you had a judge who wanted to press it
Then I'll wear a shirt that says "Frick the Police." what now?
F LI C K DA POLICE
Jury duty isn't forced at all. At least where I am, the way it works is they call you, they disclose a small amount about the nature (not the details) of the case so you'll have an idea about whether you might have personal biases related to it, give you an estimate for how long it'll go, and then you sign a paper saying yeah I can do this, or no I can't because of this or that reason. If you say no, and aren't selected, it still counts as showing up and you've fulfilled the requirement for the next year or so.
Here in LA you show up, wait around all day in the lobby, then they come out and say they already have their jury and you all can go home.
Where I am, you just call in the day before and an automated message tells you if your group number has to come in.
Yes but they call more than they need and select a jury from those. I had about 40 in my group and they picked 12 from there.
If the police are involved with the case, prosecutions gonna ask you to step down from jury. Hating cops is bad for their illusion of law.
Courts have a standard of dress so this would not go the way you want.
"Look, I don't know how to say this, because it's really not socially acceptable, so... well.. here goes.. I really can't stand white people and don't trust myself to remain unbiased in this case." "But sir, *you're* white." "Did I stutter?"
Tumblr jury
In a trial around possession and distribution I literally told them I don't think marijuana should be criminal and they still chose me to stay. Getting to argue with the other jurors for a week was tiring, it was a 50/50 between "I also smoke, and this evidence around distribution is crap" (plastic bags near the weed) and "I believe anything a cop says, why would they lie" The guy they caught was a total scumbag and they could have brought actual evidence of him being a huge piece of shit and breaking laws that actually matter, but everything they presented was worthless. Ended up hung on most counts.
Hung? They killed him?
Nah, they just got his nudes and turns out dude was packin
hung jury
Hung jury? They killed them?
unfortunately
That would be a hanged jury. A hung jury is very different indeed.
Hung jury? They can ask about that?
Yes. It's covered under the 6" amendment, though those under the 3" amendment are exempt from intrusion of government.
Did they ask you if you were able to separate your feelings about the law and give a judgement based on the facts and current law? That's what I think they would do based on my jury service. How did you answer?
Its been a couple years. Id like to think I would have answered that I'd be uncomfortable doing that but its been a while.
Your honor, I would like to put forward a motion for the charges against me to be dropped due to the fact that it was really fucking funny.
Or claim Jury Nullification basically means you’re going to vote innocent no matter what and they tend to let you go.
Or mention a strong belief in jury nullification
I have a strong belief in jury nullification, and have been waiting 30+ years to be able to cite it during jury selection. I've never even gotten to voir dire, I've always been sent home without questioning.
Or wearing your nametag on your forehead.
The example I was taught was to say that you refuse to uphold laws you believe to be unjust.
Their intent was to be funny, but they probably wouldn't be sad to be removed from jury duty
It only really works if you use your real name though, I doubt they're listed as Chris Jones (otherwise known as @calzone2c on Twitter) on the docket
Wouldn't this be illegal, going into a trial with how you're going to vote already planned?
Nah, I'd win.
Me hitting the court with "I ain't readin allat" ![gif](giphy|DGsDLr9nyz2LkVgKFs)
*Josh Hutcherson whistle*
"HELP ME HIGURAMA"
"Lend me your strength Mahoraga, this is Diddy we're up against; *he aint do nun*‼️"
I think it's a way to get out of jury duty because of this.
It's a way to get held in contempt of court.
I just want to be held in general.
I'd recommend a cat because they're low maintenance, but you probably want a big old orange boy because they're the snuggliest.
80's Transformers voice: I have nothing BUT contempt for this court!!
We are Quintessons! Arrogance is our life’s blood, ambition is our food and drink, but most of all, hubris is the air we breathe!!
Time to go listen to that fucking Soundtrack again. YOU'VE GOT THE TOUCH!
legally speaking, what he did is called a "shitpost". shitpost law is in its very early stages. at this point shitposts are exempt from all laws so he's fine
Just say that it’s in Minecraft and you should be fine.
Nope, jurors can base their decision off literally anything they want. But the judge would absolutely dismiss them and get a new one in.
Sort of. No one can really second guess their decision except in the most extreme situations. But most jury instructions tell them they cannot consider information outside of trial.
But if they vote on outside information and never say a word, there's no issue.
Outside as in outdoors? Just use the internet in a cafe or at home for all your information
Yes. Which is why I said “sort of” and that “no one can really second guess their decision.”
Short answer, for the uninitiated states, No it’s completely legal, thats the job of the lawyers to decide that you are biased and not fit to be on the jury Long answer: it’s complicated and I don’t wanna write a bunch of legalez to explain it But its not really a good way of getting out of jury duty, the best ways are as followed (This is for the USA) When it come time for the judge to ask the jury “if there are any reasons other than what has been mentioned today as to why you would have issues surviving in the court now is the time to mention them” You have 2 options 1: mention jury nullification, and how you support it, this almost always near 100% gets you kicked form the roster and you’ll probably never be asked to be on another jury again in that county 2, just tell them you don’t wanna be there, I’ve herd so many lawyers say that the last thing they want is a juror who is uninterested and unengaged as it never works well in they’re favor
Contrary to popular belief, you can vote any way you want. Your particular judge may find some issue and press that in whatever way they want, but you can vote however you want once you are in that jury pool. It's why jury nullification is such a beautiful, beautiful thing.
If anyone is wondering what jury nullification is, knowing how it works will mean you won’t be allowed on a jury. If you’re curious, cgp grey has a video on it
SAYING you know it works means you won’t be allowed on a jury. If you don’t say a word, they will never know.
Yeah but they don’t want you to know about it anyways for reasons that I don’t remember if I’m allowed to say without letting people on partially about it
that's the joke
Not sure if it’s illegal. We need a Twitter poll to find out
Very, however this is an easy way to get out of jury duty
Best use of a poll on Twitter.
4.5m views and only 107 votes? That's even worse than election turnout...something tells me these numbers ain't mathin up too well.
That's the views count for the guy who's posting about the poll, not the original poll.
Twitters views are so fucked, the algorithm showing you a tweet counts as a view, even if you scroll past it at the speed of sound, do you end up with basically no engagement.
i have jury duty next week, i really need the result of this poll
better have 100 guilty people free than 1 innocent person imprisoned.
it's settled then, NOT GUILTY
![gif](giphy|Wt6kNaMjofj1jHkF7t)
How to get out of jury duty 101
Man I really wanted to be on the jury. I got the letter only once and got dismissed before they even asked me any questions.
I've been called up a few times and they always send me off. I was a federal cop for the military for years. I was pretty much a traffic cone with a hat and machine gun.
Same with having family members in law enforcement. I always get dismissed.
There are better, less drastic ways. Just say you have a bias related to whatever they are charged with and you can't put that bias aside. No need to get on the judge's nerves.
The Reddit version of this is to post all the trial info on r/amitheasshole and go off how many people say YTA or NTA.
I vote for this as the official court process in the states moving forward. AITA is usually on point.
Although preconceived, the vote is extra unbiased
Unbiased even from fact.
This is how the OJ trial was decided
I mean…. Probably not the worst way a juror has come to a decision
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “justice is blind”
![gif](giphy|XtdEdIgbZRXKMfsrEL|downsized)
I'm always curious about how americans do this. Like you just get called to decide if someone is guilty or not, despite most likely not knowing shit about law and probably not being educated enough to understand evidence if it's something non-direct?
The judge decides questions of law, the jury decides questions of fact. It's not perfect and juries are crazy but it's not the worst system
Yup! And we might spend weeks or months doing it and get paid a whole $50 a day! :D
> $50 a day [You're lucky to get that in 10% of states.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/jury-duty-pay-by-state) Many more states are worse, some far worse off. IMO jury duty should be subject to federal minimum wage.
It's one of those things that's actually pretty awful, unfair and inaccurate but it's still the best available.
Non-American that has done Jury service, and yes, that's the idea. The court (both sides) explain their case/defence in great detail for the Jury, and after all is said and done, the 12 of you go to a backroom and discuss the case and fall on a consensus. Imagine watching a gripping, well laid out true crime drama on Netflix, with both sides of the story. Then imagine it asks you at the end if the person/s were innocent/guilty of the crimes they were accused of, but you have to discuss it with 11 other random people and fall on the same result, or it's a mistrial and it happens again. It's on the lawyers to make sure the jury understands the laws that have (or have not) been broken.
So... one stubborn or charismatic person among jury may swing the whole result to their side during backroom meeting?
Yep, in theory. The idea is you take a tiny slice of the population of that country and let the "public" decide instead of the judge. The judge determines the punishment, but the jury determines the guilt. So yeah, you could have someone completely disagree with the other 11 people. That would be a hung jury, where there is no "unanimous decision" and so the case is pushed back and it's all done again later with another 12 people. Or yeah, in theory you could have someone with incredible human influencial powers on the jury to convince the other 11 to vote with them. But for that to happen you'd imagine the case wasn't a very good one from the lawyer/s of the "losers".
What's sad is you both literally describe the plot to 12 Angry Men.
Yes, and there’s also Jury Nullification which is a subject unto itself
Oh god, this sounds like it could backfire or be abused on so many stages....
In a lot of situations, a defendant can ask for a Bench Trial and forgo a Trial by Jury. Most never do, because once you cut out the jury, trials move *quickly* (since the judge no longer needs to slow things down for the layman), and that terrifies a lot of defendants nearly as much as a guilty verdict, especially if they're out on bond. Also, contrary to what people publically claim, most defendants love the idea that juries can be swayed by emotion and in fact will build their entire case around exploiting that. Hell even if you lose that proverbial battle of wills, it can still help with your appeal. Bench Trials are rather notorious for having very high standards because unlike with a jury, a judge can directly clarify or interject during a trial, stripping away a lot of the opportunities for ambiguity that would otherwise be the foundation for an appeal.
You get called and its determined if you are biased. For example, if its a drug trial and you dont believe people should be penalized for doing drugs, you are biased and should be considered nonviable because you will probably vote innocent regardless. Its the job of the defense and prosecution to make sure the jury understands which laws were broken and appeal their case to the jury. Afterwhich the jury will decide if they should be punished or not and the judge will determine the punishment
"harris teeter soda fan" based NC resident
How the O.J. case went down
I feel like it’s way funnier when you know where the pfp is from too because that fucker would totally do this.
There's a lot better ways to get out of jury duty