# Jury duty



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Eek! I just got a letter from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

I realize that this is just to see if you qualify, 
but what can I expect after the form is sent out?

Should I include some N-bombs in the form? 8P

I shall not be sequestered! lol


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Unless there is a date to appear than nothing may come of it. Jury pools are normally pretty big and there will be several cases from that group who got letters. I remember when I went there were like 200 people and I had to go back I think 3 times before I was selected for a case. Few days before the trial the dude plead guilty and we were dismissed


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

If it's just a questionnaire, your chances are still pretty good. I got a questionnaire a couple of years ago and nothing ever came of it. My wife got one last spring and got a summons last month, but just half an hour ago, got a phone call saying that she no longer has to appear. 

Apparently, even if you are summoned to appear, relatively few get chosen.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Yes, just the questionairre so far.

My sister got called up last year and wasn't chosen.

So, let's say that you are selected.
Would you be sequestered? Are you allowed to go home?
I have animals to tend to. What happens there?

The Halloween Nazi costume might have another purpose. 8P


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

sulphur said:


> Yes, just the questionairre so far.
> 
> My sister got called up last year and wasn't chosen.
> 
> ...


99.9% of cases are not sequestered. Those are for the OJ cases of the world


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Good to know, thanks.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

My wife served on a jury earlier this year. She quite enjoyed the experience.

What she noted to me was that easily 3/4 of those who show up in response to the same letter will be dismissed in very short order. 

If one is self-employed, or has child-rearing duties, or is attending university, you get excused. 
If you can't sit for long periods, you get excused. 
If your hearing or your English comprehension is not so good, you get excused. 
If you know the accused or work in an organization connected with the case or have any other case-relevant conflict of interest, you get excused. 

Basically, what they look for is:
a) people who will be able to see and hear and remember things said in court (i.e., the jury members should have ALL the evidence to work with when rendering a verdict), 
b) people whose presence will not compromise the trial, and 
c) people who will not be unduly penalized by participation in a trial.

By the time all those filters are applied there aren't many people left. Which is why, she noted to me, juries have a tendency to be made up of middle-aged public sector employees, or similar. Young enough to have their hearing and eyesight. No child-rearing duties and not attending school. Employers and collective agreements that give them paid leave. If the case requires more than 10 working days, and your employment does not provide paid leave for jury duty, then there is a stipend provided. I don't know the exact amount, but I've heard it is something equivalent to welfare or pogey rates.

Sequestering during the trial itself is a largely American phenomenon since they don't have the same kinds of publication bans that our legal system does. So, since contaminating information will not be made available on the news or other media, you come home every night, with the exception of when you enter deliberations. In my wife's case (a series of unarmed bank holdups), the jury was instructed to simply stay away from discussing the case with others (including jury members), or reading material that might be related to the case. They had their lunch on their own, which might mean sitting on opposite side of the nearby Wendy's. Once the verdict is rendered, all the evidence presented goes on the public record, so you can chat away, although what happens in the jury chamber stays there - a teeny little Vegas. My wife would occasionally recount something humorous that had happened in court that day, like a spoonerism that everyone, including the judge had laughed at, or the fact that there had been a fascinating presentation of scientific evidence by an expert witness (without ever mentioning the evidence itself), or that the judge had a laptop for taking notes. But it was relatively easy to stay off topic, particularly since the case only went for about 2 weeks, and we both knew it wouldn't be long before she could chat about it more directly. A little self-discipline is all it takes.

The jury CAN be sequestered during deliberation. Unless it is a VERY heavy case with lots of charges, such that it takes days to come to concensus, the worst case scenario is they put you up in a hotel for a night (no TV or phone), and you surrender any mobile devices to the officer in charge. I imagine in many instances, they instruct the jury to bring an overnight bag just in case, and the jury convenes for a couple hours, reaches agreement and they all go home with the overnight bag never having been unpacked. There are an awful lot of jury cases that never hit the headlines because they're short.

If the jury does get sequestered, there will always be someone on duty to relay any critical messages to jury members. One thing my wife did find kind of kooky was that, while sequestered, they had to either be in their rooms, or in the group. So, if one of the jury members had to go out for a smoke, they all had to go outside with that person, accompanied by an officer.

is that a little less catastrophic than what you were anticipating?


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

I went through the (Toronto) process several years back...
First, you get that letter to see if you qualify for duty (this is where you are now).

After what can be a l_ong _time, you're asked, by summons, to appear at the court house, where they add you to a group in a waiting area (bring something to read). The groups are assigned colour names, e.g Red group, Blue group, etc.

Your group _may_ be called to proceed to a court room. There, they call up to the front each individual, and the Crown and Defense each can ask limited questions, and you have an opportunity to beg-out (self-employed, dependants, critical family situation, etc.)
Or, if _either_ side doesn't like you by: your answers, age, sex, appearance, colour, nationality, etc. you will be rejected. (I think you then have to re-join the 'colours' pool - I'm not sure: at this point, you've only been rejected for this one trial).

Depending on the plea, a trial may then begin. Mine lasted 11 days.
You go home each day, but are warned not to discuss ANYTHING related to what is going on in the court with anyone.

When the trial finishes, the jury goes into their room to deliberate. If dinner time comes up you will be fed well (escorted to a nearby restaurant (walking distance) , where you eat as a separate group, with a court officer). If necessary, same goes for overnight accomodation, nearby, walking distance. Repeat, as necessary we arrived at a verdict after the first dinner - went home that night.

There are two types of trial: criminal and civil. Mine was criminal - don't know how civil is handled.

Once you serve, you are off their lists for three years. After that, you're just as (un)likely to go through the procedure as anyone else - maybe again, maybe never. If you serve, you will get a small compensation payment sent to you eventually.

*Oops, looks like I was composing this almost at the same time as mhammer was replying too.

- oh well, say: la-vee! (er, too-shay?)*


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Still, nice to know there is consistency across the province, right? 

The jury my wife was on stayed one night at a hotel across the street from the court, and dined a block down the street. The restaurant likely regularly deals with juries, so they cleared an area for them upstairs to dine as a group, but separate from other customers.

No reason to expect justice in the Big Nickel to proceed any differently.

One thing you can more or less rely on about courts is that there will usually be decent restaurants nearby to accommodate all those lawyers and their corporate clients. So, even if Sudbury may not be viewed by those in larger cities as the place for fine dining, if you DO get picked for jury duty (which, again, is not a foregone conclusion), there may be a decent meal in it for you on the taxpayer's...er...nickel.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Volunteer Fire Depts are exempt .... find one :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Getting "challenged" by the defence is an easy way to get out of jury duty. There are some creative ways of achieving this.

1. Look like a skinhead.
2. Wear a "Bring back Capital Punishment" T shirt
3. Ask them to repeat every question they ask you three times.
4. When the accused is brought before you, ask him "Hey, do'ya remember me?"
5. Get a regulation haircut and look and act like a cop wannabe.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Liz Lemon has her Princess Leia costume.

But seriously, the odds of getting picked are slim, and if you do get picked, from what I heard it can be a rewarding and enlightening experience. And since you"re in Sudbury, I suspect the odds of the case involving having to look at stomach-churning photos of dismembered corpses is unlikely. Not that folks from Sudbury are far too nice to do anything like that, but those sorts of cases take a long time to come to trial, and I haven't heard of any events like that in the last few years in your area.


----------



## Kenmac (Jan 24, 2007)

I also received a questionnaire last month and sent it in. My sister was telling me she was called in for selection a few years ago but they didn't pick her for jury duty and as Mark Hammer said the odds of you getting picked are pretty slim so don't worry too much about the cats. )


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanks for the info guys.

lol 
Krelf, I got a few of those down already!

I do think that it might be an interesting experience.
Yes, not a heavily serious crime area here.
The trial my sister was turned down for was a murder case though.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

People hold a LOT of opinions about the justice system, "government", and many other things they tend not to have too much direct contact with. Mostly, they tend not to have an appreciation for how much care is taken, and how involved the protocol for some things is, and needs to be.

That's the long way of saying that - barring the sort of case that can give one nightmares, thankfully a rarity - there is much to be learned by participation in jury duty. Frankly, I was kind of envious of my wife, having never been called up myself in all my 60 years. She kept saying how much I probably would have enjoyed it.

People tend to chat about it amongst themselves as if it is some godawful chore that everyone would and should want to avoid as much as possible, but from what I learned, it seems like a fascinating experience. Should you get selected, embrace the role and express your citizenship!


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Can you request Chinese food for lunch?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Well, given that you provide your own lunch while the case is in court, yeah. Once you get sequestered for deliberations, it would depend on your jury-mates and what's available nearby. You have to eat together.

But I gather you were joking, right?


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

I got that same questionnaire about a month ago, too.

I'm not hoping to get summoned, but if I do, I look forward to participating. I think it would be an interesting experience.

I do worry about sitting all day, though. Sitting too much really does a number on my back.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm sure it does a number on the judge's back too. They're more concerned with, how shall I put it, folks who have bladder issues, or otherwise have to get up frequently. No one is expecting you to sit for 4 hrs at a shot, and no one is expecting any lawyers or jury members who happen to be smokers to go cold turkey. Any requirement to be able to sit a while will be well within reason. Twenty minutes between breaks can put a crimp in the presentation of evidence or continuity of testimony. 70-90 minutes between stretches is sufficient to let people say what they have to say.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

It annoys me that Ive been called in twice (once for that st catharines serial killer trial), and yet other ppl I know have never been summoned.
Punishment for voting in elections?


----------



## Clean Channel (Apr 18, 2011)

Diablo said:


> It annoys me that Ive been called in twice (once for that st catharines serial killer trial), and yet other ppl I know have never been summoned.
> Punishment for voting in elections?


In the past 14 years I've been called three times!

Maybe they think us folk from Mississauga make particularly good jurors?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Random selection can have a way of appearing more like deliberate selection sometimes. I've been involved with a government survey for 7 years, that we used to do every 6 months (annually, now), and although we really DID draw a 12% random sample of everybody, some folks would end up getting drawn several times in a row. We would get angry and paranoid e-mails from them, wondering if they were being audited.

The "randomness" is at the macro-level - i.e., what happens over longer stretches of time and sampling - and is not "managed" at the micro level. I'm 60 and I've never been contacted for jury duty, and some folks have probably been hit up several times before the hit 30. It happens... that's chance for ya.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

It seems that guitar players are the group getting "randomly" chosen this year. I got my notice in Sept. Hopefully my past law enforcement career will get me off the hook. I'd hate to be sequestered with a few "free spirits" and "independent thinkers"
when all evidence shows the accused is guilty as hell. My tolerance levels are weak in those situations.


----------



## Clean Channel (Apr 18, 2011)

mhammer said:


> Random selection can have a way of appearing more like deliberate selection sometimes. I've been involved with a government survey for 7 years, that we used to do every 6 months (annually, now), and although we really DID draw a 12% random sample of everybody, some folks would end up getting drawn several times in a row. We would get angry and paranoid e-mails from them, wondering if they were being audited.
> 
> The "randomness" is at the macro-level - i.e., what happens over longer stretches of time and sampling - and is not "managed" at the micro level. I'm 60 and I've never been contacted for jury duty, and some folks have probably been hit up several times before the hit 30. It happens... that's chance for ya.


Oh yeah, I'm with ya. I'm no conspiracy theorist; just kidding around about them targeting people from Mississauga.


----------



## Big_Daddy (Apr 2, 2009)

mhammer said:


> People hold a LOT of opinions about the justice system, "government", and many other things they tend not to have too much direct contact with. Mostly, they tend not to have an appreciation for how much care is taken, and how involved the protocol for some things is, and needs to be.
> 
> That's the long way of saying that - barring the sort of case that can give one nightmares, thankfully a rarity - there is much to be learned by participation in jury duty. Frankly, I was kind of envious of my wife, having never been called up myself in all my 60 years. She kept saying how much I probably would have enjoyed it.
> 
> People tend to chat about it amongst themselves as if it is some godawful chore that everyone would and should want to avoid as much as possible, but from what I learned, it seems like a fascinating experience. Should you get selected, embrace the role and express your citizenship!


You are absolutely right. Two years ago I was called up for jury selection, for the first time in my life ( I was 60). It was a fairly high profile case in which a local man lost his life in a fight during a concert on the river. I wound up getting selected and also wound up becoming jury foreman. The case lasted almost 6 weeks and, when we finally went to deliberation, we were sequestered for 2 1/2 days because one juror did not have the heart to convict the guy, despite all the evidence. Eventually he came around and the trial came to an end. Fortunately for me, my employer continued to pay me over the course of the trial and didn't even deduct the $40/day stipend we were given after things went on longer than a couple of weeks. I found it to be an extremely rewarding and educational experience, and, now that I am retired, would gladly do it again (maybe in another 60 years when my name comes up again, lol).


----------



## Clean Channel (Apr 18, 2011)

Just in defense of my wanting to skirt my duties as a Canadian citizen:

I own and operate a music school with just under twenty employees (private teachers). I'm the only administrator and the only one with the ability to run the operation. If I were tied up in a trial, it would not only cripple my ability to work, but likely disrupt the work of my employees as well.

If I worked in a more traditional setting, and thus was able to maintain my income and not cause a major disruption to the business (as in the case of Big Daddy), I'd be very interested in becoming a juror. 

The first time I was called (I've been called three times now) was when I was in my second year of university. It was for an attempted murder trial, and I was told that if I was selected I would likely need to forfeit my year of school. Normally, considering my circumstances they would have excused me pretty quickly, however this trial was to be conducted entirely in french. They immediately excused all non-french speaking people, which was about 90% of the room. It left me (I had been in french immersion in school) and a handful of other potential jurors. I had to plea with the judge, entirely in french I should add, to let me go. He _reluctantly _excused me, but I knew that was a near miss. I doubt the UofT would have refunded me the $5000 in tuition I had already paid, so I was glad I got out of there!


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I believe that our CBA covers time spent on a jury, or it used to.
I'll have to look further into that.

You'd think that it would be that way across the board.
You shouldn't have to be shorted financially if you're called up to do your duty as a citizen.
I can see owning a business and it interfering in the running of it, or schooling.
There are exemptions for those, but I don't think that you should have to go without a paycheque,
especially if it's a long and drawn out trial.


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

Small business owners are regularly excused from Jury Duty if serving during the course of a lengthy Trial would lead to catastrophic financial consequences. The Judge, the Crown Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel only want citizens on the panel that can devote the time required to render a just verdict. No one wants a Jury member who is going to rush to judgment.


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

Just one more thing. Someone made a comment about getting paid for Jury duty. The Law in Ontario offers the following compensation for jurors who are presiding over a Trial:
(1) From day 1 to 10. No fee 
(2) From day 11 to 49. $40.00 per day
(3) From day 50 to the last day of trial. $100.00 per day. 

There is no compensation for child care and travelling allowance is only allowed if you reside more than 40k from the Court House. They do provide a nourishing lunch.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

"Bring back Capital Punishment" Tshirt is on order!


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Random selection can have a way of appearing more like deliberate selection sometimes. I've been involved with a government survey for 7 years, that we used to do every 6 months (annually, now), and although we really DID draw a 12% random sample of everybody, some folks would end up getting drawn several times in a row. We would get angry and paranoid e-mails from them, wondering if they were being audited.
> 
> The "randomness" is at the macro-level - i.e., what happens over longer stretches of time and sampling - and is not "managed" at the micro level. I'm 60 and I've never been contacted for jury duty, and some folks have probably been hit up several times before the hit 30. It happens... that's chance for ya.


Good point. I guess to me, that process seems unfair/flawed. What would make more sense is if you are selected from that random pool, once done, your name should go into a "secondary pool". And once everyone in that primary pool has gone through the experience, than selection should begin from the secondary pool again. Still random. More fair. Plus, I dont think its fair to the accused to have someone with multiple experiences in jury duty.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Reasonable suggestions.

I would simply note that, keeping track of who has and hasn't participated, and how many years ago, is a more complex task than you might imagine. It's also true that the cases people get called up for can be very different, both in the nature and number of the charges, the gravity of the case, the kinds of evidence, and the composition of the jury. I don't know that anyone really acquires some kind of expertise over cases that would typically introduce prejudice, although lawyers for the Crown, plaintiff or defense might be able to mount a defensible argument in specific cases that jurors should not have had any prior jury experience in cases of such and such a type. That really wouldn't be any different than the normal scrutiny for potential conflicts of interest or bias in jurors. For instance, in the case my wife was a juror for, they eliminated people who worked in certain professions, like banks, from what I gather (it was a bank holdup case).

Keep in mind that all stakeholders have a vested interest in having the case be above reproach, such that the odds of having to go to appeal are reduced. EVERYBODY wants a problem-free jury. If repeat-jurors might be potential cause for appeal, then nobody wants them in there. But if a person had been a juror in a civil suit case 3 years ago, and this was an attempted homicide, it's hard to see what sort of conflict or prejudice might be present....other than resentment for being called up again.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Reasonable suggestions.
> 
> I would simply note that, keeping track of who has and hasn't participated, and how many years ago, is a more complex task than you might imagine. It's also true that the cases people get called up for can be very different, both in the nature and number of the charges, the gravity of the case, the kinds of evidence, and the composition of the jury. I don't know that anyone really acquires some kind of expertise over cases that would typically introduce prejudice, although lawyers for the Crown, plaintiff or defense might be able to mount a defensible argument in specific cases that jurors should not have had any prior jury experience in cases of such and such a type. That really wouldn't be any different than the normal scrutiny for potential conflicts of interest or bias in jurors. For instance, in the case my wife was a juror for, they eliminated people who worked in certain professions, like banks, from what I gather (it was a bank holdup case).
> 
> Keep in mind that all stakeholders have a vested interest in having the case be above reproach, such that the odds of having to go to appeal are reduced. EVERYBODY wants a problem-free jury. *If repeat-jurors might be potential cause for appeal, then nobody wants them in there. But if a person had been a juror in a civil suit case 3 years ago, and this was an attempted homicide, it's hard to see what sort of conflict or prejudice might be present....other than resentment for being called up again*.


what im thinking of, is that someone whos been through the process a couple times just might be too savvy of the system for what the intent of a jury is for. IMO a "jury vet" should be excluded for having a fair amount of knowledge of the process, perhaps even bias, in the same way that ppl from certain professions are.

And I really dont think it is that complex of a task...its simply associating a code in the system to an individuals file, and then in the future searching for or filtering out those codes. No harder than filtering based on geography or other criteria. couldnt be simpler with todays technology.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

People move, so you can't rely on things like postal codes for a filtering system. There's also the matter of what constitutes a delay period where someone "resets" as juror, vs intervals that are perceived as inconvenient vs nonproblematic for jurors. Since one's eligibility status is not a permanent thing - people DO eventually finish school, switch employers, go from good hearing to impaired, children grow up, etc. - you can't rely on that either. Basically, you have to pick from the electoral list or whatever they use. Trust me, if there was a better or more efficient way, they'd be using it by now.

I'm not sure what sort of "savvy-ness" would be expected to occur. There's the rules. There's the evidence. If anything, a repeat juror would be better equipped to know what they need to pay attention to during testimony, maybe take better notes since they know what will help them during deliberations, be less preoccupied with "When are we gonna break so I can take a whiz?", and be less apprehensive about the overall process. Like anything, there are helpful skills to be acquired, and practice makes better.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> People move, so you can't rely on things like postal codes for a filtering system. There's also the matter of what constitutes a delay period where someone "resets" as juror, vs intervals that are perceived as inconvenient vs nonproblematic for jurors. Since one's eligibility status is not a permanent thing - people DO eventually finish school, switch employers, go from good hearing to impaired, children grow up, etc. - you can't rely on that either. Basically, you have to pick from the electoral list or whatever they use. Trust me, if there was a better or more efficient way, they'd be using it by now.


Yup, so, ummm, how about your SIN and a checkbox on a "Do Not Contact LIst"?

Because it's Government -the onus is on the citizen. Same as when Revcan wants your old T4s for audit - they already have all of your information in a box in a massive warehouse but place the onus on you to keep/get copies - for no other reason than they can.............. and have no qualms about freezing your life until you do.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> People move, so you can't rely on things like postal codes for a filtering system. There's also the matter of what constitutes a delay period where someone "resets" as juror, vs intervals that are perceived as inconvenient vs nonproblematic for jurors. Since one's eligibility status is not a permanent thing - people DO eventually finish school, switch employers, go from good hearing to impaired, children grow up, etc. - you can't rely on that either. Basically, you have to pick from the electoral list or whatever they use. Trust me, if there was a better or more efficient way, they'd be using it by now.
> 
> I'm not sure what sort of "savvy-ness" would be expected to occur. There's the rules. There's the evidence. If anything, a repeat juror would be better equipped to know what they need to pay attention to during testimony, maybe take better notes since they know what will help them during deliberations, be less preoccupied with "When are we gonna break so I can take a whiz?", and be less apprehensive about the overall process.* Like anything, there are helpful skills to be acquired, and practice makes better*.


so, in that case, why not have professional jurors?  turn it into an occupation 



> Trust me, if there was a better or more efficient way, they'd be using it by now.


riiiiiiight....cuz thats what bureaucracies are known for...rock-solid flawless efficiency 
why even have elections anymore? everything is already being done perfectly...we all should just sit back and accept what we're told is best for us.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Citizens have the obligation AS citizens to be a "peer", so "Do not contact" ain't happening, by law.

S.I.N. alone won't cut it without current address and linkage to whether you are alive or dead. Dead people and peole in comas have S.I.N.s too. It's not as easy as people think. I regularly deal with managers who declare "Well all you have to do is such-and-such", and it turns out to be not nearly as feasible as they imagined.

That governments and instiututions have not changed how they do something does not mean they are _disinterested_ in changing it. It may well mean they have considered many different ways of changing it, but some stakeholder group or some technical or legal impediment, has held it up.

There is a government-wide survey that gets conducted every 3 years. I've been involved with it since 1999. People kept saying "We should be able to do this electronically. Why are we printing out all these survey forms and paying people to scan or hand-enter the data?". StatsCan (who administers the survey and processes the data) were all set to do it in 2005, and were highly motivated to do so. You would have thought that by 2005, what with Survey Monkey and similar, it should have been a no-brainer to put a survey up on the web, but try as they might, there were simply too many practical obstacles, and they pulled the plug. There were firewall issues, the security of P.I.N.s sent out to people, and other server issues. It's not because they were stupid. It's because when someone has a bright idea, you can't rely on everyone else having set up hospitable circumstances for implementing that idea 10 years earlier.

I'm not arguing for "professional jurors", merely arguing against concerns that when the same person gets called up more than once within some given time period, there is very little to be concerned about with respect to it corrupting the process. It can be an_ inconvenience _to the person, no doubt, but it's not breaking "justice" like an eggshell.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> It can be an_ inconvenience _to the person, no doubt, but it's not breaking "justice" like an eggshell.


i dont think anyones saying justice is broken (as far as this topic goes), just that there is probably room for improvement and better balance within the process. Laws and policies need to be revisitted periodically in order to stay relevant. Otherwise we'd still be hanging horse thieves or stoning adulterers.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Agreed. (space space space)


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Yarg! I got a call up letter to go the middle of March, nine AM no less.
Don't they knnow that I'm not a morning person?

Time to shave the old noggin' and get that temporary swastika tattoo on the forehead. 8P

I was half-assed planning to go out of the country around that time, so much for that idea.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Don't shave for a few days, wear your oldest rattiest clothes and wear a skull cap.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Remember, neither the crown nor the judge can reveal a defendant's criminal record during the trial. That's because a jury cannot be biased against an accused by knowing he has a criminal past. They have to convict or acquit only on the evidence presented.

However if the accused has no prior convictions the defence will make sure the jury knows this, as it works to his client's advantage. But if the defense doesn't extol his client's clean record, in all likelihood the accused has prior convictions.


----------



## snacker (Jun 26, 2008)

if you show up drunk for jury selection, i bet your chances for getting the gig are low


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> Don't shave for a few days, wear your oldest rattiest clothes and wear a skull cap.


That just another day around here.

The drunk thing may work, that method worked for other things as well.
Alas, fouteen years of soberiety takes priority over that strategy.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

If you do the drunk thing, don't go back to your car after being discharged. The courts are full of cops and you could find yourself in an embarrassing situation when they do the breathalyzer and find you totally sober!

"Honestly officer, I'm not drunk. I was merely evading my civic duty by appearing unfit to sit on a jury." They may be tempted to hit you with an obstructing justice charge!


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

Digging up an old thread, but...

I did my tour of duty yesterday.

I actually got selected and sat in the jury stand for a couple of hours while they went through the rest of the selection process.

At lunch break, I texted my daughter and asked her for a lunch recommendation in the area.
She works in a law office a couple doors down from the courthouse.

Her return text mentioned that one the lawyers from her office was doing jury selection and asked if it was him.

It was.

I figured that I should tell someone before it was ever found out and mucked things up.

So, I told the bailiff after lunch. He informed, I assume, the clerk, who in turn, informed the judge.

Court reconvened without the jury for about a half hour. They then brought us in and the judge announced the issue and excused me from the jury and ushered me out of the court room.

Everything is cool with my daughter and with me since no evidence was presented, it was before opening statements, we didn't discuss the case at all, and anything either of us knew at that point in time is public record already.

I don't think the judge was too happy because we almost didn't get a full jury and ended up going with just one alternate instead of two. The judge said that they were confident that there was little risk of losing any of the12 jurors...then I came back from lunch. 

In the end, it was the right thing to do. Even though I know I wouldn't have done anything to screw up the process, anyone looking at the situation might have a concern and any little concern can be made big enough to cause a mis-trial and that's their right and their job. I didn't feel that it was a conflict, but others could use it as an excuse if things didn't go their way.

It was an interesting process to go through. I don't regret the experience.
I am glad that I was excused because I think it would be a tough case to sit through because of the charges made.
And it was scheduled to go at least two weeks.
If the case was different, I think I'd feel a little disappointed right now.

One thing that struck me as odd is that, while I had to bring my summons with me, no one ever looked at it and I was never asked to present identification.

Another thing that was a surprise is that about 20 summoned people didn't show up.

Oh, another thing that freaked me out a bit is that the accused wandered around amongst the jury selection panel during break AFTER the charges had been read. I know that the accused are not in custody at that point and they are innocent until proven guilty, but mixing with potential jurors seems odd. And what if one of the potential jurors freaks out on them after hearing the charges? It just seems smarter to keep them separate. 
Hell, the selected jurors are cooped up more than the accused.


I will miss out on some free fudge though.
Juror number 1 is a 79 year old lady that sells stuff at flea markets and craft shows. Her latest gig is fudge and she promised to bring some in.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks for the follow-up, and good on ya for being honest.

Fudge aside (do look up comedian Dave Hemstad's routine about women's names and pie, and what you find if you Google "Ruth's pie" vs "Candy's pie"), pity you missed out on the opportunity in the end.

And yeah, it seems like the bailiff were not doing their job particularly well.


----------



## Solaceguitars (May 3, 2010)

I am on their jury hot list, being summoned every two years like clockwork. I am self employed and am always excused, but it's as if I fit their juror profile and they continuously try to wrangle me in. It's very annoying as I have taken enough law to realize that trials are uncomfortable environments, and lawyers and judges make far too much money for what they do. The $20 per day a juror receives is insulting.
end rant


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

A friend of mine was called a little while ago. She teaches piano for a living and made the mistake of answering "music teacher" when asked about employment. That ended up being recorded as just "teacher" so they thought she could easily take time off from work. For any of you who teach make sure you put "self-employed musician" if you're ever in that situation.


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

kat_ said:


> A friend of mine was called a little while ago. She teaches piano for a living and made the mistake of answering "music teacher" when asked about employment. That ended up being recorded as just "teacher" so they thought she could easily take time off from work. For any of you who teach make sure you put "self-employed musician" if you're ever in that situation.


That's good advice, but it may not get you excused right away.

Several people in the selection panel made that statement and the judge asked them to stand aside for now. If they didn't get a full jury from the remaining panel members, they'd revisit those that were asked to stand aside.

That almost happened in this case... and probably should have since my being excused after being selected put the count to an even 12. One more, and there's a problem.
And apparently, this is the second time this case has come to trial because the last time - they couldn't get a full jury together.

The judge really presses on the fact that this is a civic duty and giving up a couple of weeks work should not be a big hardship.... Yeah, I'd still get paid and I wasn't buying that.
But he wasn't completely without empathy. He did just have them sit back down for now. So, they were ALMOST out the door, but not quite.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I guess that I didn't update this thread.

The selection was supposed to start on a Monday.
The Friday before the process, I got a phone message that the trial was cancelled.
Cancelled, or my services weren't required, it was a while ago now.

I wouldn't shirk the opportunity, I actually think that it would be an interesting process.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Ugh....I got a summons in the mail yesterday at a place I used to live....Im pissed off because its the THIRD TIME ive been summoned, and I know so many ppl who've never been summoned even once. It isn't right, and it isn't fair.


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

Raising the thread again.

I just got the eligibility questionnaire in the mail and came here to search up the date when I was called. 
More than two years ago... So, I'm probably going to get on the list again.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Diablo said:


> Ugh....I got a summons in the mail yesterday at a place I used to live....Im pissed off because its the THIRD TIME ive been summoned, and I know so many ppl who've never been summoned even once. It isn't right, and it isn't fair.


We used to do a survey of government managers that really and truly involved random selection. It was very hard to persuade some folks who were contacted three times in two years that it really was random. They were sure they were being audited or something.

Chance is a funny thing.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

My wife has been called for Monday - second time in four years. Last time they called us the day before and told her to stay home. Hopefully that will happen again - we only have one vehicle and if she has to drive to Oshawa every day, it's going to be a pain. Apparently they don't like teachers, so she may not have to serve either way. 

I was short-listed once, but I've never actually been called.


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

I was summoned about 5 years ago and I was actually eager to do it because I'm curious about the whole process. They called the day before and told me I wasn't needed.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I got a letter in the mail today for potential duty. I always thought that only occurred once in each persons lifetime. Heard that somewhere, sometime. In my twenties I was summoned, was put on a case but the dude pleade guilty the day the trial was to begin. Don't mind doing it, but I thought that was my one and only.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

I was a witness once and the judge was unbelievably disrespectful of my time. And they did not reimburse my parking, which was insulting because it was fifteen dollar a day at the Ottawa court house. Never again, now I know why people are reluctant to give statements.

Oh, and the guy was let off. He was drunk and hit a young girl crossing the street but then took off after the accident. As it turns out he was a civil servant and had needed some sort of security clearance to do his job. If he was convicted of a criminal offence, he wouldn't hav been able to work anymore and this was his first offence. The whole experience was a complete waste of time and money. I was left with a very cynical view of our justice system - at least at the provincial level or whatever this was.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I have received the notice for it-the trial never happened.
But yeah--it could happen again.


----------

