Got a letter from the court administrator, you've been selected for jury duty. YA! (not) Just the initial letter and questioneer. My time is Jan 1st - April 30th, or 10 days of actual service, whichever come first.

I finally go tone last year.
I wanted to be on a jury,
but on the questioner they ask if you're in school,
which I still was.
So, i got a letter saying my request to be dismissed was approved.
Didn't requested.
Wouldn't have mattered, I never would have been chosen since I was in school for the legal field.

I got screwed out of doing jury duty because I was moving to Cali before the scheduled court dates.

i was called for jury duty a while back.

showed up, but wasnt selected. never even got questioned.

I just got a letter a week or so ago. I have to appear on Jan. 8th. It'* going to be such a waste of time if I have to sit there all day without being selected/questioned. Not that I want to or can afford to miss a possible good chunk of time from work if I went to trial. Whether I get selected or not it'* going to be a pain in the arse for me.

Jury duty may be your patriotic duty but believe me it sucks from a personal and monetary standpoint.

If you're in school, you will lose precious time and will probably force you to have to repeat the term or year.

If you work. You will not get paid for work and the jury duty pay is minimal.

You're personal life will suffer also, depending on how long the trial goes on for.

They put you up in a hotel and you can't converse with anyone.

Your life goes on hold for the whole time basically.

hm. for me, my work just asked i give them a statement saying how much they paid me, and my workplace paid me the difference between my normal pay per day and how much i got paid for jury duty.

Just tell them you believe in Jury Nullification and you won't have to go, it'* the one thing that pisses off every court/judge and they've tried to make it illegal but cannot

Very interesting..........
Result of a Google search......

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.

When has jury nullification been practiced?
The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty."
Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.


Do juries have the right to nullify?
Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.
Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. *. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney'* request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.


If jurors have the power to nullify, shouldn't they be told so?
That'* a good question. As it stands now, jurors must learn of their power to nullify from extra-legal sources such as televised legal dramas, novels, or articles about juries that they might have come across. Some juries will understand that they do have the power to nullify, while other juries may be misled by judges into thinking that they must apply the law exactly as it is given. Many commentators have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant'* fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.
Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.

On the other hand, jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid--it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.

I was called about 5 years back. My company paid the difference between my salary and the jury pay, which came to about one day'* pay, since I was dismissed after questioning. Apparently answering "Yes" to the question, "Do you believe that a criminal should be punished?" is grounds for disqualification.