I just got a notice for jury duty in the mail Friday. If I tell the judge that I don't agree with the system and will not vote anyone guilty will he let me off? Will I get put on a do not fly list? I'm wondering because I assume that a judge will think I'm just trying to get out of serving.

First opportunity you see tell him you believe in jury nulification.

The judge will ask the pool of jury prospects if anyone would have any problem finding the defendant guilty if the prosecution proves its case. If you say you could not find this person guilty, you will be excused. The judge will probably ask you a bunch of questions, but I'm pretty sure your reason for excusal will not be recorded in any way.

heh, I just dodged jury duty last week. I moved from New Jersey to North Carolina, and Jersey decided to summon my judicial skills from nine hours away. A new driver's license took care of it, but the ensuing property/highway taxes associated with registering my car, as well as having to deal with the DMV, are quite annoying.

I've heard this term before but never took enough interest to research it. After reading the wiki page and a link from that page, I'm pretty shocked that no one can inform a jury of its right to nullify the law. Maybe I'll go ahead and serve. I don't feel obligated to answer the judge's question about strictly adhering to the law.

Make sure if you want to serve to put on a dumb loyal citizen act. Do you know what kind of conviction it's for? If it's drugs I would consider it a note of personal honor to sneak my way in there and get the guy off. Other things I'd probably be too apathetic to do it unless it concerned similarly totalitarian laws...maybe tax evasion would be fun but do those trials even have juries?

I had to go last year. It was a civil case and I hated my job and would have gladly served more days, so I semi-lied when the lawyers in the selection room asked if I would "follow the law as the judge explains it to you" or whatever. I wanted to be on the jury just because it seemed interesting and again, to get out of work. The case was settled when we reported the next day, but at least I had the whole day off for it.

Here's what I would do now. If the case was about drugs or any other nanny-state [censored], I would lie about my beliefs and do whatever necessary to get on the jury. I would then try to convince the other jurors and/or hang the jury. It would be great if it were a marijuana case because there'd be a chance of getting people on board.

Any other type of case, when the lawyers or judge ask me if I will follow the law, in front of a room full of people, I will state that no, I do not believe in government and expand upon that if necessary.

One of the reasons I don't want on is in case I get put on a trial for a violent/sex crime. No way would I vote not guilty for someone who obviously commited rape or some other crime along those lines.

Yeah that would blow. I would only do it if I could find out what the conviction is for beforehand.

Just tell the judge that you're a scientist and you look forward to applying the principles of science and mathematical precision to the law. They'll drop you like a hot potato.

I served on a jury. It was a civil suit. I was the last holdout and it was a very interesting experience. Being locked in that room with 11 people against you all wanting to leave. I think it helped build my character plus I am all for juries as I am for jury nullification and think that concept should be spread as much as possible.

Please expand! First, had you seen 12 angry men beforehand? How long did you hold out for? What reason did you hold out? Did you think you had any chance of changing the people?

I'm impressed

Pull a Homer Simpson, tell the judge you're prejudiced against ALL races.

I had seen 12 angry men. I'm not sure but I think there might be an original and a remake but I did see it and I LOVED that film. I think it did a really good job characterizing the way people's selfish interests/unconscious emotions, etc influence the way they behave on a jury.

I'm a pretty perceptive guy and actually raised my hand to approch the judge/prosecutor/defending lawyer to raise an issue when I was selected. I asked a quesiton about the plaintiff (who was not present), as I suspected I had insight into her background/psyche. I was correct in my suspicion-they told me and I told them why I was asking (I"m a counselor). The judge asked me if I felt that I could be impartial given all of hte info and I said yes and both the prosecutor and defending lawyer accepted me for the jury.

The first day was kind of a cluster f*$% with people kicking around random thoughts opinions but no one was examining the evidence which I found amazing. People were just speculating and pulling hypotheticals out their buts. I mostly kept quiet but asked a few questions of people. We took a vote and it was about 50/50 by the end of the day.

The start of the next day someone makes an announcement that they had thought about it last night and think the plaintiff was full of it/deserved what she got and others agreed. It quickly became 11 to 1 (I was undecided, I had not made up my mind that she deserved any settlement but did not want to dismiss the defendants).

One juror challenged me saying "how can you be right if we all agree?" and I simply said that I had not made up my mind and had questions. The person who asked the question became visibly pissed and spouted off angrily at me. I responded calmly but in a way that embarrassed her. At that point the head juror interjected and engaged me in discussion.

I had felt considerable pressure as soon as the morning vote happened and the pressure escalated when the lady attacked me and I got sneering looks from other jurors (prior to the head juror interjecting and dialouging with me) which made it that much worse.

It was quite obvious that at least a few to maybe half or more just wanted to get out of there and be done with it and really never examined any evidence.

I pointed that out and asked people how they came to their conclusions (which they basically came to emotionally and not rationally and could not really dialouge with me when I had quesitons or poited out other possibilities.

The head juror did a great job keeping order and displayed patience with me. I pointed out my concerns and told them that I wanted to look over the medical records. People were pissed. I finally made my decision after examining hte medical records in favor of aquittal, or whatever you call it in a civil suit mid way through the second day.

I did not think I had any chance in hell of changing the minds of the other 11, and as I said I was simply undecided, the other eleven wanted to say not guilty and leave. I was not sure one way or another. If I became convinced the person deserved a settlement I think it would have been really, really difficult for me to convince them. Some had predjuices about the defendant even though she did not testify and was never present in the courtroom (pertaining to the question I asked the judge prior to final appointment, that the others started to quesiton and kind of figure out after the first day of deliberations).

But all in all it was a very valuable experience for me. If I am ever selected for a drug case (as long as the dude doesn't shoot someone) I will hold out for mistrial, argue for aquittal until I get all the others to agree or the judge declares a mistrial. There may also be other criminal situations I do that with.

That would really be all you need to say. They may ask you if you are really positive and such, but if that is really what you believe (It's probaly a good idea to talk about your conscience) there's little they can do. A lot of times, people will back down when the judge asks them "are you absolutely sure...." a few times and they'll probaly give some reasons, etc. Don't be afraid of the judge getting pissed; just don't pull off any 2p2 style comments and it'll be fine.

bkholdem:

That's simply a great thing that you were standing up for juror's rights. I would have never known anything about juror nullfication, had I not found it browsing online sources. If more people knew that they had that kind of power to really vote with both their heart and mind, then things might change a bit.