Jury Duty

[Justin]

I am a full time university student. I am living 2 hours away from my parents home and I received a Jury Duty letter at my parents address. My dad opened it for me and it says i must fill it out and sign within 5 days. This letter is 2 hours away and I dont currently have a vehicle. What the heck do i do? I cannot get home to sign the letter and i cannot go home for Jury Duty. I am a full time student. This would screw me over

[omagedon]

You can mail a letter saying why you can't do it and they will consider it.

[Justin]

You can mail a letter saying why you can't do it and they will consider it.

yes, but the letter must be signed and mailed within 5 days. The letter is 2 hours away. How do i sign it?

[S_G]

Try writing "I love ch!nks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Silverman)."

*****s is censored?

[Noob1ee]

Tell your parents to go to the post office and mail it to you. Btw, is it fax-able?

[rfdrfd]

Easy, just get your dad to sign it in your name. (Wink Wink... forge your signature as best he can).

Like the courts really have YOUR signature on file to compare it ? Sure, its not the best thing to do, but in this situation, at least YOU know he is signing it on your direction and behalf.

Email him a pic of your signature or something.

[Justin]

Tell your parents to go to the post office and mail it to you. Btw, is it fax-able?

no, it appears the original needs to be signed. They can't mail it without my signature. Today was 1 day...just found out when they phoned me, so now i have 4 days.

[omagedon]

I thought you could call them but maybe I was wrong. Since I am in Alberta and we can call...

[Justin]

Easy, just get your dad to sign it in your name. (Wink Wink... forge your signature as best he can).

Like the courts really have YOUR signature on file to compare it ? Sure, its not the best thing to do, but in this situation, at least YOU know he is signing it on your direction and behalf.

Email him a pic of your signature or something.

I guess, but the bigger problem is how do i get out of it so i do not have to appear for selection and worse case be selected as a juror? I no longer live in the same city, am a full time student and can't afford to miss class, and have no vehicle.

[bokep]

.....

have your dad mail it to you (2-3 days)

then you sign it and mail

what the hell is the problem here?

[rfdrfd]

I guess, but the bigger problem is how do i get out of it so i do not have to appear for selection and worse case be selected as a juror? I no longer live in the same city, am a full time student and can't afford to miss class, and have no vehicle.

I was at jury duty once as well. Never got called in, just sat there for 5 days in that big room with the rest of them. Booooooring.

Get out of it? I don't think you can, read it carefully, the only reasons are medical, and out of country (I think).

Hey, its a privilege as a Canadian !! :cheesygri

[CheapScotsman]

Have your Dad put it back into the envelope. Cover up the original destination address (your name and parents address) then write in big letter across the front of the envelope

MOVED ... RETURN TO SENDER

[Noob1ee]

no, it appears the original needs to be signed. They can't mail it without my signature. Today was 1 day...just found out when they phoned me, so now i have 4 days.

What I meant was, to tell your parents to mail it TO you not for you =)

[ullyeus]

I guess, but the bigger problem is how do i get out of it so i do not have to appear for selection and worse case be selected as a juror? I no longer live in the same city, am a full time student and can't afford to miss class, and have no vehicle.

I find it surprising you have never heard of mail...or express shipping..

[i6s1]

They don't care. When I got a jury duty letter when I was a student I just phoned in and got excused over the phone. Fax your parents a copy of your student card, have them write a note and send it in.

[Nikita]

I was at jury duty once as well. Never got called in, just sat there for 5 days in that big room with the rest of them. Booooooring.

Get out of it? I don't think you can, read it carefully, the only reasons are medical, and out of country (I think).

Hey, its a privilege as a Canadian !! :cheesygri

Acually is your civic duty, one you should see as a priority if you have any sense of pride in yourself and your country. In the bigger scheme of things, missing some school for something as important as this, is a minor thing. You'll likely miss more school from skipping classes and partying.

I am a full time university student. I am living 2 hours away from my parents home and I received a Jury Duty letter at my parents address. My dad opened it for me and it says i must fill it out and sign within 5 days. This letter is 2 hours away and I dont currently have a vehicle. What the heck do i do? I cannot get home to sign the letter and i cannot go home for Jury Duty. I am a full time student. This would screw me over

Can't get home or doing so is an inconvenience? People with full-time jobs and families to support, people who own companies that depend on them, people with far more important things than few days of school sit on juries. Get some perspective here. You'll get a whole different kind of education sitting on a jury, something most people never even get the chance to do. I'm sure your school will accomodate you, employers are required to do so by law, and educators do understand the importance of civic duty. Suck it up and give something back to your community.

I get so peeved at people who try to get out of jury duty. Those that do are often the same ones who complain when the jury they've copped out of bring in a verdict they don't agree with. Maybe if they'd taken that opportunity to sit on the jury, they'd at least understand the verdict. And in fact may, in future, be less likely to criticize jury decisions.

[hagbard]

:arrowu: Don't listen to this guy. If they call you in, put on your best nutcase act.

[woodstock827]

IIRC, I believe full time students can be excused from jury duty...
Also if you're at a job position that your company really requires you to be there, your employer can request that you be excused from jury duty if there's enough proof/reason.

5 days to respond? did they fedex the letter or something? Canada Post alone takes like 3 days at least to deliver a mail. How would they know when you get the letter? My mom got that letter a few months ago and it was just sent by regular mail. And then her jury schedule changed 3 times and never have to be called to jury again..

[i6s1]

Acually is your civic duty, one you should see as a priority if you have any sense of pride in yourself and your country. In the bigger scheme of things, missing some school for something as important as this, is a minor thing. You'll likely miss more school from skipping classes and partying.



Can't get home or doing so is an inconvenience? People with full-time jobs and families to support, people who own companies that depend on them, people with far more important things than few days of school sit on juries. Get some perspective here. You'll get a whole different kind of education sitting on a jury, something most people never even get the chance to do. I'm sure your school will accomodate you, employers are required to do so by law, and educators do understand the importance of civic duty. Suck it up and give something back to your community.


Full time students are exempt from jury duty. I agree with you that it is a civic duty, but missing 2+ weeks of school would jepordize and entire term. Even if the school tried to make an exception, he'd still have to pass all his tests and catch up on lost classtime and papers. School is essentially a competition in some areas, so he shouldn't feel obligated to allow himself to be put at a disadvantage when there are suitable people available.

[Nikita]

So all of those who have 'important' things to do instead get exempted, leaving the lowest common denominator as jurors. And then everyone wonders why our system is so messed up when it comes to the outcome of trials.

[firetrainer]

Yes, because its the jury, not the judge, who comes up with the terms of the sentence.

[hagbard]

Our system is screwed up because we've become too politicized. Every little thing requires a new law, which then clogs up the courts trying to punish all the j-walkers (which, damn it, should be punished!!) and pot smokers (and seed sellers who require extradition). Toss out useless laws and they're be far less jury duty and a lot more freedom and respect for the laws that do protect us from violence.

[Nikita]

Yes, because its the jury, not the judge, who comes up with the terms of the sentence.. That's only in the U.S. In Canada, only Judges are empowered to sentence.


Our system is screwed up because we've become too politicized. Every little thing requires a new law, which then clogs up the courts trying to punish all the j-walkers (which, damn it, should be punished!!) and pot smokers (and seed sellers who require extradition). Toss out useless laws and they're be far less jury duty and a lot more freedom and respect for the laws that do protect us from violence.

Couldn't agree more. I'm also of the opinion that only criminal trials should be tried by juries, and civil trials by judge alone.

[CheapScotsman]

Acually is your civic duty, one you should see as a priority if you have any sense of pride in yourself and your country ... I could argue the same (civic duty) for having kids or voting or introducing mandatory military duty ... but for those you get a choice (and arguing those isn't the point of this thread) ... civic duty my keester.

I get so peeved at people who try to get out of jury duty. Those that do are often the same ones who complain when the jury they've copped out of bring in a verdict they don't agree with. Maybe if they'd taken that opportunity to sit on the jury, they'd at least understand the verdict. And in fact may, in future, be less likely to criticize jury decisions.I hardly ever get upset at a jury decision ... but most judges are incompetent when it comes to sentencing


And, of course, while they want to you do your civic duty they don't want you to know too much .... do a quick search to be forearmed then ask the Judge during Jury selection what "jury nullification" is, you will be excused.

[firetrainer]

I was being sarcastic

[mcg]

OK, believe me, just call into their office and say you're attending University full time. Last year, I received a letter summoning me to court for duty. I thought I wasn't exempted so I actually went to the Supreme Court and when I finally got through the lineup the lady said I didn't have to do it. There were a couple of other students there too who didn't know, so it just wasted my morning. Somewhat of a cool experience though.

[Nikita]

I hardly ever get upset at a jury decision ... but most judges are incompetent when it comes to sentencing

I just love people who think they know better than judges. Those comments most often come from people with no knowledge of the system, or sentencing laws and guidelines, people who have no education to speak of compared to the vast education of judges, and people who think they know better than the judges who hear ALL of the evidence and the witness the demeanor of them, and are therefore the only ones making the decisions based on the entire case, not on what they read in newspapers. Simple arrogance at best, delusions or grandeur and pathetic at best.


And, of course, while they want to you do your civic duty they don't want you to know too much .... do a quick search to be forearmed then ask the Judge during Jury selection what "jury nullification" is, you will be excused.

And I can only say that to advise people that asking about jury nullification will automatically get them excused is a dangerous fallacy and terribly naive. Do you really think you've come up with something that hasn't been tried before?

Btw, one doesn't get the chance to ask the judge anything, or to ask even the lawyers picking the jury anything. They are asked questions, and in most cases nothing more than name and occupation, and are not permitted to ask questions.

If you lie to get out of jury duty, you are doing yourself a great disservice. Does being a liar to the court (which is perjury by the way, punishable up to 14 years in jail), hell does being a liar in any instance benefit to you in any way?

[hagbard]

.

Couldn't agree more. I'm also of the opinion that only criminal trials should be tried by juries, and civil trials by judge alone.

Not sure what you're agreeing with. I didn't say anything about who decides guilt, just that its politicized and too many laws.

[CheapScotsman]

I just love people who think they know better than judges. Those comments most often come from people with no knowledge of the system, or sentencing laws and guidelines, people who have no education to speak of compared to the vast education of judges, and people who think they know better than the judges who hear ALL of the evidence and the witness the demeanor of them, and are therefore the only ones making the decisions based on the entire case, not on what they read in newspapers. Simple arrogance at best, delusions or grandeur and pathetic at best.

Wow … I am so sorry. I just must have no knowledge of the system

They have sentencing laws and guidelines??? (originally developed by socialist biased liberal judicial appointments and now controlled more my acts) … wow. Next thing you know they will have prisons and parole systems too … :rolleyes:

And, of course, the vast scholar education of judges leaves little old me in awe of this bastion of power cause I don’t have a brain to comprehend the laws of this country. Good thing we have a cabal of ethical lawyers (check out a recent McLeans for more info) to run the gauntlet for us inferiors who can’t comprehend the system (and rape us in the pocketbook at the same time).

Its simple arrogance, elitism and delusions of grandeur of those in and associated with the legal system that leaves the system in disrepute and viewed with contempt by the average person they are supposed to be serving. Lawyers (of which judges are) along with politicians sit pretty well at the bottom of the most favorably viewed professions. Not much respect exists for judicial punishments either. More astounding is the inability of the legal profession to comprehend … but maybe not, given your post.

And I can only say that to advise people that asking about jury nullification will automatically get them excused is a dangerous fallacy and terribly naive. Do you really think you've come up with something that hasn't been tried before? Why it is dangerous and why is it naive. Of course , somebody has probably tried. What happened? Can you point me to the case? Why would a judge want to have somebody on jury who knows about Jury Nullification?

Do you have a better solution for getting out of Jury duty? At least I gave an answer that, I think, has a good chance of working. What is your suggestion?

Btw, one doesn't get the chance to ask the judge anything, or to ask even the lawyers picking the jury anything. They are asked questions, and in most cases nothing more than name and occupation, and are not permitted to ask questions.If you raise your hand during selection there is a pretty good chance the judge is going to ask you what your question is. I’ve seen that a number of times but its always possible for the Judge to power trip and ignore you or tell you to shut up.

If you lie to get out of jury duty, you are doing yourself a great disservice. Does being a liar to the court (which is perjury by the way, punishable up to 14 years in jail), hell does being a liar in any instance benefit to you in any way?And I never suggested anybody lie. That would definitely get you into trouble. I said to ask the Judge a question

I never took an oath before I was “interviewed” for jury duty so if I lied and they caught me I suspect that I would be held in contempt of court (with my uneducated understanding that perjury is against an oath to tell the truth and I never gave an oath), but, hey, you are the legal expert here.

Plus with our wonderful sentence guidelines, I would probably get a suspended sentence and few hrs of community service.

[Nikita]

Wow … I am so sorry. I just must have no knowledge of the system

You may have a kernel of knowledge of the system, but, if so, very little which you flaunt by your arrogant statement that judges are incompetent when it comes to sentencing. To imply one knows better what a particular sentence should be from the facts you've heard here or in the news, is arrogance in it's finest form. When you compare your so-called knowledge of the system to the years of education, the years of experience, the absolute firm grip judges have on sentencing laws and guidelines and precedent...most importantly the fact that they have heard ALL of the evidence, not just the sensational bits reported in the press and have witnessed the demeanor of the witness in a given trial....to think anyone is in a position to say a sentencing decision by a judge renders him incompetent is, yes arrogant to the nth degree.


And, of course, the vast scholar education of judges leaves little old me in awe of this bastion of power cause I don’t have a brain to comprehend the laws of this country. Good thing we have a cabal of ethical lawyers (check out a recent McLeans for more info) to run the gauntlet for us inferiors who can’t comprehend the system (and rape us in the pocketbook at the same time).

It is that ignorance and arrogance that makes you unable to comprehend the system and to ignore the fact that YES judges do have a vast education, both scholarly and through experience. Education is always a good thing, I don't understand your hate-on for those who have it, or your what sounds like enraged disrespect for those who do.

Its simple arrogance, elitism and delusions of grandeur of those in and associated with the legal system that leaves the system in disrepute and viewed with contempt by the average person they are supposed to be serving. Lawyers (of which judges are) along with politicians sit pretty well at the bottom of the most favorably viewed professions. Not much respect exists for judicial punishments either. More astounding is the inability of the legal profession to comprehend … but maybe not, given your post.

I can assure you that lawyers and judges could care less whether as a profession they are favourably viewed, popularity is inconsequential, doing good work is all that matters. Besides most recognize that those popularity contest outcomes are based on the vast lack of knowledge most people have about what really goes on in the system. So....meh....rail all you like, it falls on deaf ears. Nobody went to law school to be popular.

Why it is dangerous and why is it naive. Of course , somebody has probably tried. What happened? Can you point me to the case? Why would a judge want to have somebody on jury who knows about Jury Nullification?

False information is always dangerous. And your advice I call naive is just that because it just doesn't work.


Do you have a better solution for getting out of Jury duty? At least I gave an answer that, I think, has a good chance of working. What is your suggestion??

Yes, I know what will get one out of jury duty but it would be entirely unethical for me to suggest. I don't believe people should try to get out of jury duty. If they have a valid reason for not being able to do their duty, they will be excused. But the way you've suggested, besides being unethical, WON'T work.

If you raise your hand during selection there is a pretty good chance the judge is going to ask you what your question is. I’ve seen that a number of times but its always possible for the Judge to power trip and ignore you or tell you to shut up.??

Judges don't pick jurors, they have no say in who gets picked, nor should they. The Crown and defense lawyers pick the jurors. Only in very extreme cases are these lawyers able to ask questions beyond name and occupation, I can tell you they will never be allowed to ask if a potential juror knows about jury nullification (and really, in these days, who doesn't?) A judge's only role when presiding over jury selection is nothing more that of a referee, if you will, there to ensure the rules of jury selection are followed...in some rare instances to rule (before a jury panel is even brought in) if and what questions beyond name, age and occupation will be allowed to be asked.

I absoultey do not believe that 'you have seen a number of times' (except perhaps on TV) a potential juror raise their hand to ask the judge a question...lol. And I suggest you actually go watch a jury selection if you really want to understand that process. This isn't school, or a question and answer period. Potential jurors are not there to 'learn' anything, they are potential because this process is for the lawyers to learn what little they can about them to enable them to decide who to pick. In fact giving a juror the opportunity to question anybody, especially a judge, would taint the process and end up with the jury panel being dismissed and a whole new panel being called. Any any judge who intervened in the process to entertain questions from the jury would likely be recused for tainting the jury.

No I don't consider myself an expert at anything, but I do recognize expertise when I see it, and I see it in our judges everyday. I don't see it in you.

[goob3r]

I am a full time university student. I am living 2 hours away from my parents home and I received a Jury Duty letter at my parents address. My dad opened it for me and it says i must fill it out and sign within 5 days. This letter is 2 hours away and I dont currently have a vehicle. What the heck do i do? I cannot get home to sign the letter and i cannot go home for Jury Duty. I am a full time student. This would screw me over

This doesn't sound like a summons, it sounds like the sheet you have to fill out to be put in the pool.

[CheapScotsman]

You may have a kernel of knowledge of the system, but, if so, very little which you flaunt by your arrogant statement that judges are incompetent when it comes to sentencing. To imply one knows better what a particular sentence should be from the facts you've heard here or in the news, is arrogance in it's finest form. When you compare your so-called knowledge of the system to the years of education, the years of experience, the absolute firm grip judges have on sentencing laws and guidelines and precedent...most importantly the fact that they have heard ALL of the evidence, not just the sensational bits reported in the press and have witnessed the demeanor of the witness in a given trial....to think anyone is in a position to say a sentencing decision by a judge renders him incompetent is, yes arrogant to the nth degree.Arrogance implies something about my own abilities relative to somebody elses. I never said I could do a better job just that judges ability to do a good job in sentencing borders incompentency.

And if you think they have such an "absolute firm grip" after such exalted years of study then why do so many of their "decisions" get changed on appeal? Yeah, a real firm grip. If that level of wishy washy existed in the engineering fields; there would be disasters.

It is that ignorance and arrogance that makes you unable to comprehend the system and to ignore the fact that YES judges do have a vast education, both scholarly and through experience. Education is always a good thing, I don't understand your hate-on for those who have it, or your what sounds like enraged disrespect for those who do. I have lots of respect for professionals who study hard both during school and during their careers. I don't have lots of sympathy for those who don't do a good job ... Most judges do a great job during the trial then screw it up in sentencing ...

I can assure you that lawyers and judges could care less whether as a profession they are favourably viewed, popularity is inconsequential, doing good work is all that matters. Besides most recognize that those popularity contest outcomes are based on the vast lack of knowledge most people have about what really goes on in the system. So....meh....rail all you like, it falls on deaf ears. Nobody went to law school to be popular.well, people dont' think they do good work and while they aren't there to win a popularity contest, the legal system is a public institution ... slowly but surely being brought into contempt and disrepute not by the public that put them there but by their own arrogance and elitism .... The average person doesn't understand. We dont' have vast knowledge ... right.

False information is always dangerous. And your advice I call naive is just that because it just doesn't work.

Yes, I know what will get one out of jury duty but it would be entirely unethical for me to suggest. I don't believe people should try to get out of jury duty. If they have a valid reason for not being able to do their duty, they will be excused. But the way you've suggested, besides being unethical, WON'T work.Why won't it work? Come on, stop being a lawyer, tell me why it won't work.

If I actually got the point of being called onto a jury, I am doing to do my darndest to get out; I am not interested in wasting my time on a corrupt system; so if you don't have any better ideas; I'll use the best one I have ... and if it doesn't work, I'll use Jury Nullification in the trial and/or ensure the jury vote is not unanimous ...

Judges don't pick jurors, they have no say in who gets picked, nor should they. The Crown and defense lawyers pick the jurors. Only in very extreme cases are these lawyers able to ask questions beyond name and occupation, I can tell you they will never be allowed to ask if a potential juror knows about jury nullification (and really, in these days, who doesn't?) A judge's only role when presiding over jury selection is nothing more that of a referee, if you will, there to ensure the rules of jury selection are followed...in some rare instances to rule (before a jury panel is even brought in) if and what questions beyond name, age and occupation will be allowed to be asked.sigh ... thanks for telling me something I already knew.

I absoultey do not believe that 'you have seen a number of times' (except perhaps on TV) a potential juror raise their hand to ask the judge a question...lol. And I suggest you actually go watch a jury selection if you really want to understand that process. This isn't school, or a question and answer period. Potential jurors are not there to 'learn' anything, they are potential because this process is for the lawyers to learn what little they can about them to enable them to decide who to pick. In fact giving a juror the opportunity to question anybody, especially a judge, would taint the process and end up with the jury panel being dismissed and a whole new panel being called. Any any judge who intervened in the process to entertain questions from the jury would likely be recused for tainting the jury.Well, you can believe whatever you want. I've seen people raise their hands and the judge say "yes?" ... "how long will this trial take" type questions. Can't see why asking the question "what is Jury Nullification" won't get one of the lawyers to reject you.

No I don't consider myself an expert at anything, but I do recognize expertise when I see it, and I see it in our judges everyday. I don't see it in you.Nobody said I was an expert. but I know incompetence.

[Nikita]

Arrogance implies something about my own abilities relative to somebody elses. I never said I could do a better job just that judges ability to do a good job in sentencing borders incompentency.

To say someone is incomptent clearly implies others, yourself included, could do a better job. Else what else are they incompetent relative to?

And if you think they have such an "absolute firm grip" after such exalted years of study then why do so many of their "decisions" get changed on appeal? Yeah, a real firm grip. If that level of wishy washy existed in the engineering fields; there would be disasters.

Because *newsflash* Appeal courts only review the process, not the evidence and not whether the judge was right or wrong. Appeal courts give great deference to decisions made by trial court judges for the primary reason that they are the ones who witnessed the demeanor of the witnesses, etc. Their only concern is that the process in which the trial judge ran the trial and the sentencing hearing was fair. You will never see an appeal court change a trial judge's decision just because they think she or he was wrong, or because the appeal court judges would have done otherwise, only if the trial judge made a legal error in the process and even then only if that error caused actual prejudice to the accused.

I have lots of respect for professionals who study hard both during school and during their careers. I don't have lots of sympathy for those who don't do a good job ... Most judges do a great job during the trial then screw it up in sentencing ...

Since you insist on repeating that judges screw up sentencing, perhaps you could give an example, cite a source, name a case where a judge did just that. And I don't mean one where you simply think it was wrong or disagreed, because as I've said your opinion means relatively little if you haven't tried the case, heard the evidence and understand the rules of evidence and the rules of sentencing.

well, people dont' think they do good work and while they aren't there to win a popularity contest, the legal system is a public institution ... slowly but surely being brought into contempt and disrepute not by the public that put them there but by their own arrogance and elitism .... The average person doesn't understand. We dont' have vast knowledge ... right.

That's your opinion. In my experience the majority of people do NOT believe the legal system is being brought into contempt or disrepute and in fact more people than not have immense respect for our system (sometimes even moreso than I believe is warranted, much like they do law enforcement) and our judges. But, hey, if you have sources that prove me wrong, feel free to quote them. Credible sources would be preferred.

Why won't it work? Come on, stop being a lawyer, tell me why it won't work.

If I actually got the point of being called onto a jury, I am doing to do my darndest to get out; I am not interested in wasting my time on a corrupt system; so if you don't have any better ideas; I'll use the best one I have ... and if it doesn't work, I'll use Jury Nullification in the trial and/or ensure the jury vote is not unanimous ...

sigh ... thanks for telling me something I already knew.
I already answered that question. It won't work because you can't raise your hand and ask questions during jury selection. This isn't school, it's a court of law. And if you already know that, why are you posing the question??

Well, you can believe whatever you want. I've seen people raise their hands and the judge say "yes?" ... "how long will this trial take" type questions. Can't see why asking the question "what is Jury Nullification" won't get one of the lawyers to reject you.

Nobody said I was an expert. but I know incompetence.

Fine, whatever.... I know you didn't see any such thing, not in this country. Continuing to insist you saw this tells me very clearly that you're incompetent at one thing...telling the truth.

[CheapScotsman]

Since you insist on repeating that judges screw up sentencing, perhaps you could give an example, cite a source, name a case where a judge did just that. And I don't mean one where you simply think it was wrong or disagreed, because as I've said your opinion means relatively little if you haven't tried the case, heard the evidence and understand the rules of evidence and the rules of sentencing.Sure, here you go: http://www.madd.ca/english/news/stories/n20070403.htm

Notice how the appeal court overrode the SENTENCE of the original judge, despite years of extensive study, vast accumulations of knowledge and arcane demonstrations of experience, the judge (gasp) made an error. Shock, say it isn't so ... I'll let you go find the 100s more that occur on a annual basis.

And, yes, its a good thing we have appeal court cause the number of times these judges screw up, its good to have SOMEBODY trying to fix it although I'm not confidant that, half the time, the appeals court just doesn't make the situation worse.

That's your opinion. In my experience the majority of people do NOT believe the legal system is being brought into contempt or disrepute and in fact more people than not have immense respect for our system (sometimes even moreso than I believe is warranted, much like they do law enforcement) and our judges. But, hey, if you have sources that prove me wrong, feel free to quote them. Credible sources would be preferred.Is a poll from the Department of Justice good enough for you?
http://justicecanada.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2001/rr01-1a.pdf


From Page 10 ... a much smaller proportion of Canadians has a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court of Canada (Table 9). The current level of 20% is down eight points from 1988. Confidence in the provincial court system is even lower, with 12% of Canadians saying they have a lot of confidence in this particular institution. Support for judges (11%), and lawyers (7%) continue to drop as well.

From Page 14 ... Canadians' confidence in the various components of the criminal justice system has remained relatively unchanged over the past few years. The public also has a poor opinion of various criminal justice system personnel. Parole boards, lawyers and judges elicit the least, and the local police and RCMP elicit the most confidence from the public.

From the survey above, I wouldn't say the "some" column corresponds to "immense" ... the only ones I could find that were more recent cost $ and I'll let you pay for it to refute the justice departments own results above.

I already answered that question. It won't work because you can't raise your hand and ask questions during jury selection. This isn't school, it's a court of law. And if you already know that, why are you posing the question??Really?? ... Do they shackle potential jurors hands behind their backs? I can't raise my hand ??? wow ... didn't know that jury selection was that brutal in Ontario. I think we do it differently here in BC.

Fine, whatever.... I know you didn't see any such thing, not in this country. Continuing to insist you saw this tells me very clearly that you're incompetent at one thing...telling the truth.Well, Its been years since I've been called for Jury duty but I guess you have been far and wide with a long historical background (part of that vast knowledge and study and training and expertise shtick) and seen how it is done ...

[Shojin]

Question - my cousin got a jury summons letter recently to appear for the selection process. He has vacation starting about a week after the appearance date which was booked earlier this year, well before he received the letter. This could potentially be a problem if he gets picked for a trial and ends up 'on call' for 2 weeks.

What are the chances he can get a postponement? Should he write/fax in for a postponement ahead of the date, or appear on the day with all his proof in hand?

He called the courthouse and the not so helpful clerk told him to just show up on the day and 'see what happens'.

ps. Apologies for bumping an old thread but I figure it's better than creating a new one.

[Takami]

Since we have a few people who have some knowledge in this field, I was wondering what makes someone a good candidate for Jury Duty.

I know that the concept of a Jury is for the defendant to be judged by his/her peers. I also hear that a Juror should never have a belief system that is directly in conflict with the the court's beliefs or the defendant's actions. That is why policemen and priests cannot be in a Jury.

So I am guessing that if a high school drop out is being charged for robbing a wealthy family's home, then the Jury will not be made up of doctors, engineers, wealthy businessmen with high status/education and wealth?

edit: ohh shet, I didn't notice this is an old thread

[RenegadeX]

Question - my cousin got a jury summons letter recently to appear for the selection process. He has vacation starting about a week after the appearance date which was booked earlier this year, well before he received the letter. This could potentially be a problem if he gets picked for a trial and ends up 'on call' for 2 weeks.

What are the chances he can get a postponement? Should he write/fax in for a postponement ahead of the date, or appear on the day with all his proof in hand?

He called the courthouse and the not so helpful clerk told him to just show up on the day and 'see what happens'.

ps. Apologies for bumping an old thread but I figure it's better than creating a new one.Please see this thread on Jury Duty: http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=348592&p=4000596
(the first 2 pages are crap, so I'm linking to Page 3, where I started my multi-page detailed personal account of the Jury Selection process. In Post#49, you'll see that someone else was in a similar situation to your cousin and I share what we were told would have been the proper way to deal with it, and get out of serving.

If I was your cousin, I'd phone again..

Since we have a few people who have some knowledge in this field, I was wondering what makes someone a good candidate for Jury Duty.The above linked thread should also contain all you need to know.

[cgtlky]

Too bad Op is a student if Op is working you just show a copy of the jury letter to your employer and you still get paid even you are choosen to be a jury or not.

[felix]

I was in university 2.5 hours away when I had received a jury duty letter back home. I'm not sure what they did but they told them I was at school out of town and busy with exams (which was true). This was many years ago though.

[nickinto]

I am a full time university student. I am living 2 hours away from my parents home and I received a Jury Duty letter at my parents address. My dad opened it for me and it says i must fill it out and sign within 5 days. This letter is 2 hours away and I dont currently have a vehicle. What the heck do i do? I cannot get home to sign the letter and i cannot go home for Jury Duty. I am a full time student. This would screw me over

Justin, hate to break it to you...

http://a4.vox.com/6a00c2251d19928e1d00e398cfebfc0004-500pi

[iluvmikeharris]

Homer Simpson: Getting out of jury duty is easy. The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.