Jury Duty

Yyhhuuu

The state refer to it as Jury Service, rather than Jury Duty.

SEPT 23 1989

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Why aren't self employed jurors paid by the courts service for their time and work on Juries. Seems only fair.

It's not even the payment

You get into a serious case taking time and you won't have a business to come back to after it

One significant section of society is never represented in the courts of law

Pity

AndrewJRenko

For those who have served, does it get terminally boring listen to in-depth, sometimes technical detail?

I'm not sure how well I'd survive not being able to use the phone or the laptop for a full day? I'd also be stuck with note-taking, as I haven't used pen and paper for note-taking in 20 years.

SeaFields

Was called a few years ago along with Mrs Seafieds. The letters arrived the same day! Would have loved to have gone along as I think I would have found it interesting. We literally were just home with a new born baby so we were excused.

My father was on a jury for a murder trial years ago. He still mentions it from time to time. It's bound to take its toll on people for some of the more brutal crimes.

Gregor Samsa

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For those who have served, does it get terminally boring listen to in-depth, sometimes technical detail?

I'm not sure how well I'd survive not being able to use the phone or the laptop for a full day? I'd also be stuck with note-taking, as I haven't used pen and paper for note-taking in 20 years.

The one I was on wasn’t very technical. There was a bit of tedious detail gone over with a fine tooth comb. The whole thing is certainly nothing like TV - there’s no drama or theatrics, so from that point of view it’s far from exciting. So you do need to focus. But the sessions aren’t very long.

There’s no real need to take notes (although you can) - the judge sums up all the evidence at the end, and you’ve access to the transcripts of all testimony during deliberation.

Errashareesh

FarmerBrowne wrote: »

I'll see that Quimby kid hang for this.

How many s's in "innocent"?

YFlyer

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

A good old fashioned Irish one like!!!

A one where he won't have to shat it.

YFlyer

I would hang other jury members if they had a negative attitude to an accuse before all evidence was displayed.

YFlyer

mojesius wrote: »

I've been called for the panel twice, selected to serve once.

It was quite a harrowing case, went on for 8 days and we all got a lifetime exemption from the judge afterwards, but I'd still serve again if called up.

I don't really understand why people try to weasel out of it. Sure if you have kids to mind or a struggling business to keep afloat, I get it but everyone else should be prepared to do their civic duty.

Will you still get paid at your job?

Gregor Samsa

YFlyer wrote: »

I would hang other jury members if they had a negative attitude to an accuse before all evidence was displayed.

You wouldn’t know what anyone else’s opinion was until all the evidence is heard and you’re in the room deliberating. While the trial is ongoing, you’re told in no uncertain terms not to discuss the case with anyone. That includes other jurors. When we were brought out for lunch, we had someone with us at all times. We were bought in a Garda van to the restaurant, with someone from the court sitting with us, brought in through a back entrance down a lane way, sat in a private room, given a special menu and only allowed speak to the waiting staff to say what we wanted. There’s no scope for chatting about the case to the other jurors before the deliberation part (over lunch and in the van, we could chat about other things), and if it did happen, the court would certainly want to know about it.

YFlyer

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You wouldn’t know what anyone else’s opinion was until all the evidence is heard and you’re in the room deliberating. While the trial is ongoing, you’re told in no uncertain terms not to discuss the case with anyone. That includes other jurors. When we were brought out for lunch, we had someone with us at all times. We were bought in a Garda van to the restaurant, with someone from the court sitting with us, brought in through a back entrance down a lane way, sat in a private room, given a special menu and only allowed speak to the waiting staff to say what we wanted. There’s no scope for chatting about the case to the other jurors before the deliberation part (over lunch and in the van, we could chat about other things), and if it did happen, the court would certainly want to know about it.

People talk.

skooterblue2

RedXIV wrote: »

Due to go in a few weeks. Very much looking forward to it, be a nice break from work, even if I don't get selected

First time? Bring a book to read/ battery charger for the phone/cross word/ sudoku/ etc etc

You could be a whole day in the pool waiting to be called. Happened to my wife three times.

ED E

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You wouldn’t know what anyone else’s opinion was until all the evidence is heard and you’re in the room deliberating. While the trial is ongoing, you’re told in no uncertain terms not to discuss the case with anyone. That includes other jurors. When we were brought out for lunch, we had someone with us at all times. We were bought in a Garda van to the restaurant, with someone from the court sitting with us, brought in through a back entrance down a lane way, sat in a private room, given a special menu and only allowed speak to the waiting staff to say what we wanted. There’s no scope for chatting about the case to the other jurors before the deliberation part (over lunch and in the van, we could chat about other things), and if it did happen, the court would certainly want to know about it.

When you say a garda van are you talking the drunk bus or the minivans like the public order units arrive in? Id hope the latter.

skooterblue2

Anyone want to cut out Jury Duty?
Get rid of free legal aid. Sure you can smash a guys head in and you will get legal representation.
Here is the kicker, if found guilty all your solicitors fees will come out of your own pocket or social welfare at €100 a week.
There goes social welfare for solicitors.

Gregor Samsa

ED E wrote: »

When you say a garda van are you talking the drunk bus or the minivans like the public order units arrive in? Id hope the latter.

It was like a Transit minibus.

Pretty sure it was a Garda vehicle and not a Court Services one, but I could be wrong. It was a long time ago. I read an article about someone’s experience doing jury duty and they mention a “jury canteen”, but we were definitely taken out to a pub/restaurant - just weren’t allowed to mix with the public and were chaperoned at all times - even to the bathroom.

begbysback

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Anyone want to cut out Jury Duty?
Get rid of free legal aid. Sure you can smash a guys head in and you will get legal representation.
Here is the kicker, if found guilty all your solicitors fees will come out of your own pocket or social welfare at €100 a week.
There goes social welfare for solicitors.

So you think only the wealthy should have access to effective legal representation?

skooterblue2

YFlyer wrote: »

I would hang other jury members if they had a negative attitude to an accuse before all evidence was displayed.

You form an opinion from listening to deliberations and the evidence presented at the time. It is impossible to wait for ALL the evidence to be presented before you before you start to form an opinion. You can change your opinion during the trial but once you know that a person has been arrested by a guard and charged you then start to form an opinion.

skooterblue2

begbysback wrote: »

So you think only the wealthy should have access to effective legal representation?

That is not what I said.

You will get legal representation but before you commit a crime, you will think twice about the consequences.

BoroMan32

I was called up a few years ago, really didn't want to be selected but I was.

It was a rape/sexual abuse case involving some scruffy old bum and a teenage boy, so wouldn't have been an easy case to sit through.

As it turned out on the first day of the trial, we were informed that the trial wouldn't be proceeding. I can't remember the legal specifics, but I think it was based around a nolle prosequi on various charges after a changed plea to guilty on the more serious charge, or something along those lines.

Nexytus

begbysback wrote: »

So you think only the wealthy should have access to effective legal representation?

Anyone that pleads 'not guilty' and uses legal aid and is subsequently found guilty should be invoiced by the state for those legal services. Until the bill is paid then no more legal aid for the rest of your life.

skooterblue2

I got called up three times. I didnt want to do it, absolutely no fuppin' way.
My house is 40 miles from the city.

I got excused the first time because I was a serving member of the defence forces.
I got excused the second time because I was at college over 100 miles away and couldnt miss the time.
I got excused the third time because I was on disability and havent been called since.

I wouldnt put my trust in a jury who weren't smart enough to get out of service in the first place. My wife is dying to get called for service. She has an interest in law, I dont. If you read down through the list of exemption, you can get off. The only people who serve on juries are the ones who want to serve and the ones not bright enough to get off.

skooterblue2

Nexytus wrote: »

Anyone that pleads 'not guilty' and uses legal aid and is subsequently found guilty should be invoiced by the state for those legal services. Until the bill is paid then no more legal aid for the rest of your life.

How much is a solicitor? €500 an hour? 5 hours pretrial work and another day in court? That will put manners on you.

begbysback

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is not what I said.

You will get legal representation but before you commit a crime, you will think twice about the consequences.

Let me see if I have this right, a criminal who has no money as it is, is now going to have less money, and you think this will prevent them from committing another crime?

skooterblue2

begbysback wrote: »

Let me see if I have this right, a criminal who has no money as it is, is now going to have less money, and you think this will prevent them from committing another crime?

Should have thought of that before he did the crime.

Psychiatric Patrick

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You wouldn’t know what anyone else’s opinion was until all the evidence is heard and you’re in the room deliberating. While the trial is ongoing, you’re told in no uncertain terms not to discuss the case with anyone. That includes other jurors. When we were brought out for lunch, we had someone with us at all times. We were bought in a Garda van to the restaurant, with someone from the court sitting with us, brought in through a back entrance down a lane way, sat in a private room, given a special menu and only allowed speak to the waiting staff to say what we wanted. There’s no scope for chatting about the case to the other jurors before the deliberation part (over lunch and in the van, we could chat about other things), and if it did happen, the court would certainly want to know about it.

Were the Garda driver and the court official allowed to eat?

tringle

Ive was called 3 times in 10 years but never served. All the local court. Turned up first time and was about 100 people there called.. It was literally a raffle pulling numbers and i wasnt one of them. 2 people got excused as they knew those involved though im surprised it wasnt more. It was a death by accident and everyone knew about it. 3 people whose numbers were pulled werent in the courtroom, the judge said they would be contacted and fined. Neither legal side objected to anyone at all, in fact i wasnt even aware of them there. Second time i was excused due to work, as a teacher with timetabled classes i didnt have to attend. Third time i was excused on medical grounds.

Psychiatric Patrick

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I am not an ISL user. So am goosed.

Still no reply from the Courts Service to my pleading email. Will have to just turn up on the day and explain my predicament. It is stressful.

I did serve on a jury for two weeks back in the day, but really cannot do it anymore for the sake of the accused and the proceedings and the jury room stuff.

Did my bit. But am a bit concerned that if I am fined I might have a conviction. That is not what I want at all.

Fined for what?

You made several attempts at communication to explain the situation that have gone unanswered and are willing to show up on the day to do so again.

You cannot perform the task they are requesting you for so I don’t understand why you think you’ll get a fine or in trouble.

If you are worried why don’t you go to the court on your next available day and get it all sorted out?

skooterblue2

tringle wrote: »

Ive was called 3 times in 10 years but never served. All the local court. Turned up first time and was about 100 people there called.. It was literally a raffle pulling numbers and i wasnt one of them. 2 people got excused as they knew those involved though im surprised it wasnt more. It was a death by accident and everyone knew about it. 3 people whose numbers were pulled werent in the courtroom, the judge said they would be contacted and fined. Neither legal side objected to anyone at all, in fact i wasnt even aware of them there. Second time i was excused due to work, as a teacher with timetabled classes i didnt have to attend. Third time i was excused on medical grounds.

Once again, if you want to get out of it read between the lines. It is very possible if you are motivated. Only idiots and people with a deep interest in law serve on juries.

blackbox

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Once again, if you want to get out of it read between the lines. It is very possible if you are motivated. Only idiots and people with a deep interest in law serve on juries.

...and people with a sense of civic responsibility.

skooterblue2

blackbox wrote: »

...and people with a sense of civic responsibility.

That is the same thing as above. There are much more productive ways of showing civic responsibility than sitting in court.

el Fenomeno

el Fenomeno wrote: »

Drugs case years ago. Lad convicted over a drugs haul worth a couple of million. Daughter was in the car with him when they were busted, so it was her trial.

Two things didn't sit well with me.

(1) The prosecution's case was absolutely appalling, and was presented even worse. I always thought if a case went to court, it was likely the prosecution had a strong case. Definitely not in this instance. The defence tore apart the forensics team at one point.

(2) Fellow jurors were more interested in getting home. A couple of them said as much, saying they'd "vote" whatever the rest of us did so we could leave as quickly as possible.

Anyway, the judge instructed us that she was throwing the case out after a few days so we didn't have to decide in the end.

You don't know how much evidence was suppressed when you weren't present.

You don't get to trial if a district judge doesn't think there's a case to answer

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is the same thing as above. There are much more productive ways of showing civic responsibility than sitting in court.

It's important. It's a cornerstone of our entire criminal justice system. Along with judicial separation.

bnt

I'm not an Irish citizen, which (according to this) disqualifies me from jury duty here. I wonder why that is? I've been in Dublin for 20 years now, so I think I'd be able to understand what the skanger in the dock was trying to say, mostly. I wouldn't try to get out of it: I'd do it just for the experience, even if the experience was sitting on my bum for a fortnight. :rolleyes:

skooterblue2

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's important. It's a cornerstone of our entire criminal justice system. Along with judicial separation.

How many are real cases and how many are Damo reoffending for the 235th time in 5 years? Want to be a hero? Go be a scouts leader/soccer coach and prevent young Damo and Chantal from going down the drugs route.

skooterblue2

"It's a civic duty, if your family was the victim of a horrendous crime, would you be happy that prospective jurors were using every excuse under the sun to weasel out of it.
I find your views, and that of many others on the thread as that of a traitor to their country."

It is not my civic duty to do Jury duty if I have been excused for valid reasons. How would you feel if you were in the dock and me and 11 other members of my battalion turned up for Jury duty?
Being at college and taking an unspecified time off to do jury duty is not fair on me or my studies that the college will not set down replacement classes for me to catch up on. As for having a disability? That is not my fault and dont have the focus to serve on a trial. They were all legitimate excuses not to serve at a particular time.

Traitor? is a very strong word. I am not perverting the cause of justice or trying to subvert the government. Do you think the Irish State has been out of line? Trust me if I could buy a new passport and had my degree in the morning I would be gone(it can be done quite easily). I dont feel any loyalty to the Irish state, various Governments has sold out our sovereignty over the years. You are looking in the wrong place for traitors.

Yes my family was the victim of the state many years ago and three female judges thought she was wronged and the defence for the states was ineptly prepared. Our barrister and solicitor has the poor sap on the ropes and the judges had little time for his incompetence.

Spanish Eyes

I posted earlier in the thread, have severe hearing loss and could not do it now.

Anyway I have now been excused and what a relief that is ��

Served on a jury in the past before the hearing loss, it was an interesting experience, especially Sussing out the jury members and who was upfront wishing to be foreman. I have now been summoned 5 times so far.

skooterblue2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Served on a jury in the past before the hearing loss, it was an interesting experience, especially Sussing out the jury members and who was upfront wishing to be foreman. I have now been summoned 5 times so far.

I would like to do it but the proper time has never presented itself. I imagine there is nothing worse than having a jury member who is malcontent and being disruptive.

jaxxx

I'd like to get one of them letters. Just so I know people know I exist

*starts singing 'All by myself' by Celine Dion

skooterblue2

jaxxx wrote: »

I'd like to get one of them letters. Just so I know people know I exist

*starts singing 'All by myself' by Celine Dion

Really? You are one of 100 random people picked with no guarantee of selection for the final jury. You have more chance of getting a job in McDonalds than being picked for jury duty.

If you are feeling lonely, I will meet up with you for a cup of coffee and that will be me performing my civic duty since I dont do jury duty.

begbysback

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Once again, if you want to get out of it read between the lines. It is very possible if you are motivated. Only idiots and people with a deep interest in law serve on juries.

I got a couple of paid days off work, nice dinners, and a few morning strolls in the sunny Phoenix park, had some good craic too, no interest in the law and above average IQ. It seems to be a bit of a myth that everybody dodges jury duty.

skooterblue2

begbysback wrote: »

no interest in the law and above average IQ. It seems to be a bit of a myth that everybody dodges jury duty.

You were only lecturing me about the rights of offenders a few pages back. So that holds no water!

JustAThought

I was called a few times and wrote the letters from work to get out of it. About 10 years later I was called again and really wanted to do it and see how it ll worked- my boss gave me a letter to post to get out if it but I fancied a week off work so ‘forgot’ to post it and was selected!!! He’s still trying to work out how his golden charm letter didn’t work that time!

In short it was at first interesting, the daily process quickly became languid and a bore, the absolute waste of money and resources was shocking, and the security and facilities for jurors even worse. We ended up being chosen for a serious care with a high profile dangerous family, we were routinely followed being checked out and identified from the open public gallery to the door we exited from into the public street to our cars No underground security carpark for jurors.

I didn’t drive directly to my home a single night I served but looped and zig zagged around the county, as I didn’t want the risk of them knowing where I lived or where my family lived, there was jury intimidation and stalking and zero actual intervention or resources for us - just lip service from the judge and a room full of tight lipped strung out juriors who knew well in advance of the evidence being presented how it would end.
I would NEVER do it again.

Scrotes who havn’t seen the inside of a church since they collected their Holy Communion money swearing their honour on a bible.

Jurors refusing to swear in on the bible because it had no meaning for them and asking to be allowed swear on collections of spiritual poetry or the communist manifesto. I kid you not.

On top of all of that being locked in a room in sweltering heat hour after hour with no air conditioning and one stinking toilet opening into the room that everyone had to use and share with no air extraction and nothing left to the imagination when someone had to use the (one) toilet during ‘deliberations’.

The first thing we ALL did when we got to our deliberation room with our A5 spiral issue pads and bic biros was to whip out our iphones and google the mans name - and read out his violent past and lengthy string of a lifetime of vicious and violent crimes and endless litany of suspended sentences. That wiped the smile off all our faces.

As for the ‘jury of peers’ - there were one or two people innthat room so slow they must have been either seriously mentally deficient or frighteningly medicated. Having served in a jury I would be seriously frightened to sit before one and be judged. And thats before I mention the guy who got the security to put his bets on from the canteen every day and spent the afternoon reading the results in the Herald and doing the crossword. He knew what way he was voting as did most of the room - no need for discussion or any reflection on the days ‘work’.

Our bosses were obliged to pay us for the time we spent there ( 3 1/2 weeks).

Never again and never willingly.

When you see the massive massive amounts of public money that is absolutely squandered daily in this process - and thats before solicitors or judges fees - you will grind your teeth in rage every time you hear ‘suspended sentence’ for serious and violent crimes and violent deaths.

If criminals were trying to set up a system to benefit themselves and provide a courtly pantomime of absurdity they would invent our Itish system.

begbysback

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You were only lecturing me about the rights of offenders a few pages back. So that holds no water!

So, believing offenders are entitled to have rights, and sitting on a jury is incompatible?

And I don’t lecture, I merely make a point.

skooterblue2

begbysback wrote: »

So, believing offenders are entitled to have rights, and sitting on a jury is incompatible?

And I don’t lecture, I merely make a point.

Believing offenders have rights and saying they have no interest in the workings of the law do not make sense.

begbysback

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Believing offenders have rights and saying they have no interest in the workings of the law do not make sense.

Whether somebody, who is accused of committing a crime, is entitled to rights or not is more of a moral dilemma than a legal question. For only if it’s seen as morally correct in a society is it then entered into law.

skooterblue2

begbysback wrote: »

Whether somebody, who is accused of committing a crime, is entitled to rights or not is more of a moral dilemma than a legal question. For only if it’s seen as morally correct in a society is it then entered into law.

That sounds like someone with an interest in law. I hate to point you but you have comment in the last `12 hours on Connor McGregor sexual assault, teen getting done for with no priors for possession of cannabis and twice on Jury duty....... what do the members of the jury say? I am guessing you wanted to study law but never got a chance or you had some interaction with a guard?

begbysback

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That sounds like someone with an interest in law. I hate to point you but you have comment in the last `12 hours on Connor McGregor sexual assault, teen getting done for with no priors for possession of cannabis and twice on Jury duty....... what do the members of the jury say? I am guessing you wanted to study law but never got a chance or you had some interaction with a guard?

Very good, I’ve posted that I’d batter Conor McGregor and Katie Taylor together at the same time, added #RHLM red head lives matter in the cannabis teen thread, and laughed at someone for believing that drug dealers are walking around the city with suitcases stuffed with money looking to get someone killed.

Read the posts kid, it’s just random crap for the lolz. Accusing me of having interest in the law is laughable. And if I did give you a lecture some time ago then I’m now thinking you most likely deserved it.

skooterblue2

begbysback wrote: »

Read the posts kid, it’s just random crap for the lolz. Accusing me of having interest in the law is laughable. And if I did give you a lecture some time ago then I’m now thinking you most likely deserved it.

So have you ever had an interaction with a guard?

tringle

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Once again, if you want to get out of it read between the lines. It is very possible if you are motivated. Only idiots and people with a deep interest in law serve on juries.

.


So if you are on trial you would be happy to be judged by a jury of idiots.

I dont have a deep interest in the law and can assure you I am no idiot and find your comment offensive.

IamMetaldave

Got called last year for the first time, went in sat about waiting... hoping I wasn't called.. my number came up to be in the reserve bunch as so many people talked their way out of it. Ended up being sent back to the room and no sooner had I sat down, my number was called again... Talk about bad luck... I had asked my boss before going in for a letter but he told me to go do my civic duty and the company (American corporation) would support their staff to do it. The case I was on what was supposed to be an 8 day trial that went on over 4 weeks. Got 5 year exemptment from being called at the end. To be fair it was pretty interesting seeing how it all works. There was a huge amount of time wasted and sitting in the jury room.