Tee shirts are great ice breakers. I wore this one today to work out. It got a lot of looks. 
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Jury duty
- Thread starter Blue bio balls
- Start date
When you get it in the mail throw it away or just plain get OLD and you don't have to do it any more.
Legend..
My experience is you can get picked no matter what sometimes. Since both sides can pick a few and strike a few means you can be picked. Ask me how I know 
This is scary. The same folks I’d want on my jury are all talking about how to not get jury duty.
I've told my tale before, but the bottom line is the empaneling instructions today almost always include you agreeing to set aside all (ALL) personal (religious or moral or even just logical) beliefs and decide solely on the law as explained by the court.
I just can't and won't do that. If there is a law that is horrendous or even just illogical or prone to error, I'm not going to find someone guilty of breaking it.
John Jay, a chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the early days of our nation's history established the tradition in the US during the case of Georgia vs. Brailsford. His statement, was akin to: "Jay noted it as a "good old rule" that juries should judge questions of fact while deferring to the court on questions of law; yet he observed that the jury could, if it chose, judge both to arrive at a decision"
IIRC Chief Justice Jay actually used the terminology indicating that juries had purview over both the facts of a case and the actual validity of the law.
Later federal judges and cases have stated that federal courts had no obligation to give similar instructions to the juries. In the last 50 years there have been multiple cases of courts wishing to eliminate or mitigate the ability of jurors to utilize jury nullification.
I just can't and won't do that. If there is a law that is horrendous or even just illogical or prone to error, I'm not going to find someone guilty of breaking it.
John Jay, a chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the early days of our nation's history established the tradition in the US during the case of Georgia vs. Brailsford. His statement, was akin to: "Jay noted it as a "good old rule" that juries should judge questions of fact while deferring to the court on questions of law; yet he observed that the jury could, if it chose, judge both to arrive at a decision"
IIRC Chief Justice Jay actually used the terminology indicating that juries had purview over both the facts of a case and the actual validity of the law.
Later federal judges and cases have stated that federal courts had no obligation to give similar instructions to the juries. In the last 50 years there have been multiple cases of courts wishing to eliminate or mitigate the ability of jurors to utilize jury nullification.
Well, let’s see it so we can all go out and get the same tattoo so we can get out.
I always give it a Fair shot. I'd love nothing more to be on a jury trial where I could stick it to the "justice system".
But the three times I've been it's been all dumb boring stuff. Divorces, suing hospital over bed sores, dumb boring stuff like that and I want out.
If It was someone getting prosecuted by the state for some dumb stuff I'd definitely be trying to get selected without seeming to eager.
Was on a grand jury once and it was mostly boring with a few exciting cases we had to vote on - yes meant it went to trial, no meant it could be brought back up later before another grand jury. One was a guy who went to pick up his young daughter at his ex-wife's place. She was living with a scumbag and when the little girl mentioned mom's new 'boyfriend" touching her inappropriately, the guy went nuts. Later on we reviewed another case where some woman got half beat to death by a guy and another juror said, "Maybe we could just let that other guy who beat the scum bag over his little girl have 10 minutes with this one." Several male jurors smiled while two of the female jurors hinted that we were all nothing but cave men. If it was THEIR daughter getting molested I bet they would change their mind. A good beating might resolve issues a lot faster than a drawn out court battle and reduce the chance of future missteps.
Also had a drunk driving case where the GSP office brought in a 4-5 page print out of the suspected DUI's past criminal history. We sent that one to trial.
Also had a drunk driving case where the GSP office brought in a 4-5 page print out of the suspected DUI's past criminal history. We sent that one to trial.
