Jury questionnaire : I might be getting a contempt of court charge

[Bendrx]

1 Marital Status
Okay fair enough.

4 Extent of Education
Also reasonable.

5 Present Employer and Occupation
Ehh...Present Field of work would be okay to ask.

6 What other occupations have I had in the past 10 years
Hmmm...uh..I don't see a question 6 here. Seriously, fields worked in the last 10 years.

7 If Married spouses occupation and employer
Spouses field of work.

8 Do you or your spouse work for or have worked for an insurance company
No problem with this one.

9 Have you or any immediate family members been a party to a lawsuit
Yep, this one is good to.

17 List any clubs or organizations to which you belong
List what KIND of clubs or groups you belong to.

We have a "Give and Take" system. Everyone should give alittle and get alittle. IE: you have to be willing to give up some info so that the proper system of justice works right. The issue is for many of us the guberment Takes and Takes and the wastes and Takes some more. So I get why some are very much against this. They've probably already "gave" enought. On the other hand, some people the guberment Gives and Gives. "Oh, you lost your job because you were smoking crack at work while making french fries in front of customers...have some money for your tough break".

I do have a second issue, being forced to disarm. If you force me to a courthouse, you are basicly forcing me to disarm. I could alway not disarm, but then I'd loose the "generous priviliage that I've been granted by the powers that be" to carry a firearm.

In short, if you don't want to fill out the form, I don't blame you, BUT you are doing your fellow citizens a great disservice by dropping the ball, and the guberment has probably already screwed them enough as it is. Your lack of action may help or hurt the defendant, or it may not matter at all. That being said, as indicated above I'd have to be vauge about some of the answers, but I would answer them honestly, but no more descriptivly than listed above. That being said, I think it is a bit of an honor to be called for jury duty. I've not been there or done that so maybe I'm way off base.

 

[MinuteMan47]

i use magic markers buddy

...I bet if I used lip stick they would think it was from the wise guy in the room.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Last time I got one of those letters, in the part labeled "reasons you feel you shouldn't have to serve", my response was that I know many, many people that have never been called up. I have served multiple times and feel I have done my duty, let somebody else pick up the slack.

I have been a registered voter since I was 18, licensed driver since 16, and am 41 now and have only had two addresses since I was 15, and both of them were concurrent for a decade (city house, rural house, now just rural house for the last ten years). Granted both Lawrence and Monroe counties don't have that many jury trials, but I've never been called for jury duty and know many, many people who haven't been.

The only reason I would try to get out of serving would be if I have a contract job or am coordinating a seminar (maybe 2-4 weeks out of the year total). Otherwise as a civic obligation to living in our society I consider it an obligation not to be ducked simply because I don't want to.

 

[Eddie]

Last time I got one of those letters, in the part labeled "reasons you feel you shouldn't have to serve", my response was that I know many, many people that have never been called up. I have served multiple times and feel I have done my duty, let somebody else pick up the slack.

I haven't heard from them in 10 years.

Back to OP, if the judge gets wind of your response he will jack with you because he can!! Too bad, so sad, respect his authoritah!!!

On a lighter note:

I was clerking for a certain judge back in the 90's when a certain professor from the I.U. school of law was called for Jury duty. This prof. was old, gruff and frequently expressed his opinions about the shortcomings of others. He didn't try to get out of jury duty; he showed up just like everyone else. When the judge saw that professor sitting out there he called the two attorneys on the case into his chambers. The conversation went something like this:

"Did you guys go to IU?"

Both said yes.

"Did you see professor _____ sitting out there?"

Both nodded.

"Do you want him criticising everything we do in this trial in front of every class he teaches for the next twenty years?"

Both attorneys promptly agreed that they didn't want the law professor on their jury and he was sent home.

 

[dross]

Yes.



Yes and by the Haliburton Central Data Processing Center in Texas.



Standard questions and then the attorneys follow up with their own questions.

In state courts the attorneys are usually given more room for voire dire after the standard questions by the judge (know any of the witnesses, parties, attorneys? inter alia). In federal court voire dire is directed by the judge (mostly).

I fear no black helicopters, nor do I fear Dick Cheney, except perhaps in bird hunting situations.

My worry - which may be unfounded, and I'll accept enlightenment - is that those questions are used to so control the type of person who may sit on a jury that the wide spectrum of citizenship may not be represented much on juries.

For instance, if the prosecutor may remove all gun owners from a trial for a gun violation, he's stacking the process so that a law that may be judged harshly won't be.

As a follow up, do you believe that it is the jury's job to judge the law as well as the facts?

 

[88GT]

Actually not. Say they are putting together a pool for a trial related to a theft from a church. They want to know if you're a church elder, or if your wife is a curch secretary or not. They can kick you from the pool straight away, without you having to go in and waste a day.

Besides, courts have much wider latitude to ask probative questions when seating a jury. Your rights under the 4th amendment are severely limited if non-existent.

My rights are never non-existent. The historical usurpation of them does not nullify their existence or my ability to exercise them.

 

[88GT]

To All,



There is no government database regarding information given by jurors, so while the fear of this may be reasonable it is unreasonable once we understand that no such collection exists.

Doesn't mean it couldn't.

And for some that's enough not to give anyone the chance to abuse it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes.

Yes and by the Haliburton Central Data Processing Center in Texas.

Standard questions and then the attorneys follow up with their own questions.

In state courts the attorneys are usually given more room for voire dire after the standard questions by the judge (know any of the witnesses, parties, attorneys? inter alia). In federal court voire dire is directed by the judge (mostly).

I'm not too worried about Haliburton. I assume the judge has the power to strike a juror, correct?

The reason I asked if it was a standard form is because it has been posted here that people have received forms other than what the OP posted. Do you know if the form is standard statewide or varies by jurisdiction or by type of trial/charge?

What is your opinion on my opinion if you don't my me asking. That voir dire should be limited to standard questions? And why?

My worry - which may be unfounded, and I'll accept enlightenment - is that those questions are used to so control the type of person who may sit on a jury that the wide spectrum of citizenship may not be represented much on juries.

For instance, if the prosecutor may remove all gun owners from a trial for a gun violation, he's stacking the process so that a law that may be judged harshly won't be.

As a follow up, do you believe that it is the jury's job to judge the law as well as the facts?

It's my worry also. That is why I would like to see voir dire limited. Just enough questions to find out if they know any of the parties involved or if they have any prejudices or preconceived notions.

I would really like it if the attorneys involved never actually saw the prospective jurors before they were seated. They could submit questions in writing and have the answers received the same way. Preferable in multiple choice form. Get an actual random selection, at least as much as possible.

 

[Hiram2005]

To All,

I have to agree w/ most of what Kirk has said 100%.

There is no government database regarding information given by jurors, so while the fear of this may be reasonable it is unreasonable once we understand that no such collection exists.

The only people who give a bugs butt about the info are the attorneys. They will use this information only so far as they need to either prosecute their case or defend their client.

There have been ssssooooo many posts on these boards about the use of lethal force in a self defense situation. For thoughts sake let's consider the horrible possibility that you have been arrested and accused of murder and your defense is "self defense."

Who would you want on your jury?

Think about this. Really think about what kinds of questions you could ask to find people who would be understanding of the concept of exorcising your Article 1 Section 32 rights?

Now, put the shoe on the other foot. Who would the prosecution want to exclude? What questions would she ask if wanting to avoid people that are pro vigilante (in her opinion)?

Think of it this way: As a juror you will have tremendous power of life and potentially death over a person. Even in a civil trial you could harm a person. In a civil trial you could potentially harm hundreds of people with your decision. You could put an entire company out of business. It is the defendant who is truly being dissected and having their personal life spread out for all to see.

It is not unreasonable to scrutinize those doing the judging.

Kind Regards,

Doug

PS - If you think jury duty questionnaire is bad try going through a deposition! I just went through mine from an auto accident 2 1/2 years ago and the defense attorney is allowed to ask me ANYTHING! And I do mean anything! And I was the one who was hit by the drunk. But, they have a right to a good defense and that means he has a right to find out if I am lying about anything. Just goes w/ the territory.

Ah, yes the 'ole deposition! I was deposed once for a lawsuit, which was filed against the State of Indiana. I was NOT named in the suit, I was only thought to be a person with knowledge of what went on.

I was questioned for five and a half hours. I was told it took that long because I was not playing the defense attorneys' dog and pony show to his satisfaction.

I knew how the game was played but when you ask me a question and I asnswer your question and then I am asked the same question again 27 times, I tend to remain quiet.

He did not like that. When I then told him I did not like to be badgered....Katy bar the door!!!!!

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

So this weekend I received a brief survey from the county courts to be used for jury selection. The front half is not a big deal; Name, am I over 18, A US citizen, A county resident, To I speak English, Have my voting rights been revoked, am I a felon, etc.

But the back side blew me away. they were all kind of intrusive but these are the highlights.


1 Marital Status


4 Extent of Education

5 Present Employer and Occupation

6 What other occupations have I had in the past 10 years

7 If Married spouses occupation and employer

8 Do you or your spouse work for or have worked for an insurance company

9 Have you or any immediate family members been a party to a lawsuit

17 List any clubs or organizations to which you belong



So I called the Court House to find out the best way to write "None of your Damn Business" The lady I talked to on the phone got pissed at me when I told her I wasn't going to answer those questions. She said the government all ready knows my employer for taxes, and I retorted that the IRS handles that not the courts and I am still not big on the IRS or taxes. She threatened a judges order against me if I didn't fill it out properly and I told her this is an infringement on my 4th amendment rights to which she replied "what ever".


So I have 9 more days before I have to mail it back. Should I call the judge or just send it in blank?

It's a survery...not a Census...just toss it and forget it.

 

[Indyrich]

I too believe that it is a civic duty to serve if called for a jury. I would have no problem answering the questionaire in a vague manner. I would also like to think people on this board are more like minded than many others in the world and would want you on my jury versus the PETA protester who says whatever they need to get on a jury.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Hello,

The one time I was asked to serve on a jury, as opposed to testifying for the prosecution, I was otherwise indisposed. I talked to the paralegal, explained the situation, she asked the judge, and I was dismissed.

I asked to be called up again as the situation would be resolved soon. That was several years ago and I've not heard word one.

I did tell her that I had no intention of answering a few of these questions though. When she asked why, I told her that I didn't feel comfortable sending some of the answers through the mail. She understood.

As for your problem with answering the questions and the court representative's position of not being compassionate to your concerns, you might think about consulting a lawyer with Libertarian views.

Otherwise, find a way to secret a toilet paper tube and a condom on your person as you may need them.

Josh

 

[Amishman44]

Yes...you have to be careful because the courts will screw with you if they get pissed. I would either a) return it with the backside 'blank' and feign ignorance when they ask, or b) use short, one-word answer and state that I don't believe my personal life has anything to do with jury selection.

Yes...the courts can take a rather serious sense of arrogance when it comes to dealing with citizens (ie, 'pawns' as they perceive us). But, then again, they are lawyers and there's a day in law school where they tell them that they can be very arrogant people because they're lawyers. Their real problem is that they don't really have any power. Only a LEO and a judge have power over someone...it takes one of these two persons to enforce what a lawyer wants done. They are just full of bull, bullying (junior-high style) and BS.

I agree that I wouldn't want a 'survey' of my life placed on record for further scrutiny.

Your decision...but, remember, you have no 'rights' as a part of a jury pool.

 

[kludge]

The problem with the questions are the wording.

If they asked if I can be fair and impartial, what else matters? Whether or not I would convict or award damages has nothing to do with my marital status, religion, clubs and associations, what magazines I read, or whether I've sued anyone. The only thing that matters are the facts of the case and to apply the law if applicable to the situation.

 

[tenring]

I was called for jury duty for a murder trial many years ago, passed the test by the defense attorney after he asked if I had read anything about the crime in the local paper. Sure did I replied, with him asking what I thought about it. I said that you don't want to believe everything you read in that paper. The whole court room [with the exception of the local papers' reporter] including the judge cracked up laughing. The prosecutor asked if I had any problem with serving on the jury, none that I could think of, except that I was going to be married in Detroit in 3 weeks, and I'm got going to miss that. He said that it should take no longer than 2 weeks, but what if it took a lot longer. I politely told him that I would give him the address where I would be staying where he could send the Detroit police to arrest me, and according to my finance, now "you" would have a problem. The prosecutor then turned around to the judge [who was holding his hand over his face to hide the laughter] and said he would accept me. Be polite, tell the truth, but above all be firm and let no one trample on your rights. Trial was over in 2 weeks, but later got thrown out because we had two women on the jury, but then that's "a whole 'nuther story."

 

[Libertarian01]

How ALL of these questions are extremely reasonable

To All,

I just thought I would take a minute to consider these questions and how they might pertain to a jury, or more importantly to a plaintiff or defense lawyer.

#1) Marital Status: Easy enough. Married people may have more family commitments and feel pressure to "hurry up and end this trial" without giving proper thought to the case.

#2) Extent of Education: Extremely necessary. Many lawsuits may involve technical information that some folks may not be able to understand and be too embarrassed to ask about. Take a medical malpractice case you may need to sit on. Or a car accident where basic understanding of physics might be needed. Or an embezzlement case where a basic understanding of how the books are kept. The higher your level of education the more likely you would be in a variety of ares to understand more complex technical terms and ideas. This doesn't mean that a person with a lower education couldn't understand such things, but the probability would be lower.

#3) Present Employer and occupation: I am suing your company and might cost you your job. Do you think this might, maybe, somehow prejudice your views? Occupation? Are you a computer geek who can understand the damage a really bad program could do to a company, like putting them out of business or costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue? What about a construction worker who might not take too kindly to violating OSHA rules? Or the opposite, a construction worker who believes that OSHA is nothing more than a harassing gubermint bureaucrat?

#4) Occupations over the last 10 years? What potential knowledge and/or prejudices might you bring to the table as a prior confinement officer? Auto parts supplier? Debt collection worker? Bank employee?

#5) Spouses Occupation and Employer? Gee, I'm suing a company that isn't going to cost you your job but I might cost your spouse his/her job? No potential for bias here, eh? Spouse's occupation. A spouse that is an insurance adjuster who comes home every night and complains about greedy people... This might not prejudice your views? Hmm...?

#6) Do you or your spouse work for or have ever worked for an insurance company? As many lawsuits are civil it doesn't take a statistician to figure out that a lot of these suits will involve insurance at some level. Even if it is just a work comp loss an insurance company is likely to be involved.

#7) Have you or any immediate family members been a party to a lawsuit? As someone who might have known about a lawsuit you would likely form a bias toward or against certain viewpoints. Now that doesn't mean the bias couldn't be overcome but the reality is for most of us we DO have these biases. Heck, I would even include close personal friends in this! I am currently involved in a lawsuit w/ an insurance company and my friends are the first to hear what stage of the process I am at!

#8) List any clubs or organizations to which you belong? Gee, the range officer at the local gun club didn't stop someone from sweeping the crowd w/ a loaded weapon and a members friend was shot? You might not be biased? Especially considering that you just paid your $250 annual dues last week and if this case is won by the plaintiff you might not have a gun club anymore? Or you belong to a bowling league and someone tripped on the carpet where you bowl? Maybe your league will be canceled! Maybe your membership dues will increase? No bias here...? What if you belong to the Young Republicans and the case might involve Rep. Charles Rangle? No bias here I suppose...

All of these questions will help attorneys on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to weed out obvious biases. If unmarried then no need to worry about a spouse. They can focus their time on just the jury member.

Are these questions intrusive? Sure they are. But I believe the right to a fair trial for all is a far greater good. It IS the JURY that has ultimate power in a court room. They aren't well informed of their rights, but that is a separate issue altogether. A jury has the power to take someones freedom away, even their life in some cases. A jury can put thousands of people out of business if they rule a certain way on a civil matter. This isn't likely but that is the power they have.

It might sound silly but I remember an episode of "Happy Days" where the Fonz was on a jury involving a robbery and a motorcycle getaway. Everybody thought "the guy was guilty" until the Fonz figured out what was bothering him about the prosecutions story. Allegedly the guy was holding a gun in one hand while he sped off. Fonzie remembered that the particular motorcycle he was driving had the accelerator on the "gun hand" handle, thus meaning this couldn't have been the guy. This goes to show that all knowledge is useful. Long live the Fonz! Hhheeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyy!

Kind Regards,

Doug

 

[Lex Concord]

.

 

[rush176]

You could answer accurately though be very vague. Take a lesson from the great slippery one and his infamous quote "It depends on what the definition of is is"

1 Marital Status Some days I don't really know.


4 Extent of Education I have had a very thorough edication and I learn something new every day.

5 Present Employer and Occupation Whatever that jerk Joe the boss tells me to do.

6 What other occupations have I had in the past 10 years Sorry my memory isn't good enough to remember all the stuff I have done in the last 10 years.

7 If Married spouses occupation and employer
Not really sure but she leaves every day and comes home complaining about it every night.
8 Do you or your spouse work for or have worked for an insurance company
Not that I recall
9 Have you or any immediate family members been a party to a lawsuit
Ditto
17 List any clubs or organizations to which you belong No one wants me anymore.


If you are drug in and asked under oath you just need to be able to offer a blank stare (it comes easy to me) and then say in surprise "Oh is that what you were asking? I didn't understand the question that way. Sorry." Odds are you'll get kicked off by one side or the other. It just depends on how much time you want to waste on it.

So I have 9 more days before I have to mail it back. Should I call the judge or just send it in blank?

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes...you have to be careful because the courts will screw with you if they get pissed. I would either a) return it with the backside 'blank' and feign ignorance when they ask, or b) use short, one-word answer and state that I don't believe my personal life has anything to do with jury selection.

Yes...the courts can take a rather serious sense of arrogance when it comes to dealing with citizens (ie, 'pawns' as they perceive us). But, then again, they are lawyers and there's a day in law school where they tell them that they can be very arrogant people because they're lawyers. Their real problem is that they don't really have any power. Only a LEO and a judge have power over someone...it takes one of these two persons to enforce what a lawyer wants done. They are just full of bull, bullying (junior-high style) and BS.

I agree that I wouldn't want a 'survey' of my life placed on record for further scrutiny.

Your decision...but, remember, you have no 'rights' as a part of a jury pool.

Most court personnel other than the judge are NOT lawyers.

 

[dross]

It might sound silly but I remember an episode of "Happy Days" where the Fonz was on a jury involving a robbery and a motorcycle getaway. Everybody thought "the guy was guilty" until the Fonz figured out what was bothering him about the prosecutions story. Allegedly the guy was holding a gun in one hand while he sped off. Fonzie remembered that the particular motorcycle he was driving had the accelerator on the "gun hand" handle, thus meaning this couldn't have been the guy. This goes to show that all knowledge is useful. Long live the Fonz! Hhheeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyy!

Kind Regards,

Doug

So, the Fonz was all about the jury nullification? Aren't jurors instructed not to consider facts not in evidence? Lawyers?