# Jury Duty?



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I got called up recently to do jury duty,
Went down there today, But I was armed with a doctors note.

Sure, I got off, But it wasn't until I went through a lengthly orientation with 500 others.
I'm awaiting surgery on my knee after a workplace related injury and I can hardly walk.

Have you done your jury duty yet?

What are your thoughts on the process?


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Recent article in the star said that jury duty in most of Canada is basically medieval. They externalize all costs (meaning they won't call you to tell you you didn't make the final selection, they expect you to show up in person and wait to find out), expect you do do everything in person (no courtesy calls to tell you where and when to show up), and everywhere technology could be employed to speed up the process, it isn't. If even half of the article is true, it's disgraceful.


Toronto News: A Toronto juror?s story: ?It was Middle Ages. It really was.? - thestar.com


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

cap10subtext said:


> Recent article in the star said that jury duty in most of Canada is basically medieval. They externalize all costs (meaning they won't call you to tell you you didn't make the final selection, they expect you to show up in person and wait to find out), expect you do do everything in person (no courtesy calls to tell you where and when to show up), and everywhere technology could be employed to speed up the process, it isn't. If even half of the article is true, it's disgraceful.
> 
> 
> Toronto News: A Toronto juror?s story: ?It was Middle Ages. It really was.? - thestar.com


A couple of friends recently went through Jury Duty--and both completely agreed with this article.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I've been called twice now and both times wrote them back immediately, using their supplied form telling them of my heart attacks and orders from cardiologist to avoid stress. Both times I was excused, no doctor's certificate required.

EDIT:

When my wife was called, she had to go to the court house and wait for over four hours before she was released and told her services were no required. Sounds like AB is much like ON.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

cap10subtext said:


> They externalize all costs (meaning they won't call you to tell you you didn't make the final selection, they expect you to show up in person and wait to find out), expect you do do everything in person (no courtesy calls to tell you where and when to show up).


I find the above quoted part of your post unusual, when my wife was called she got a letter stating where and when to appear, and she knew before she left that selection panel that she had not been picked.
Not very difficult at all.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have been called three times -- once released due to being a single parent of a disabled 7 year old girl and a 4 year old boy with no family to help out; once called but then told to go home after two hours since the jury pool was filled up; once called, but was released when questioned by the defense attorney (not sure what the cause was to this day). 

I always wanted to be Henry Fonda's character in "Twelve Angry Men".

Twelve Angry Men Trailer - YouTube


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I was called twice, once in Nova Scotia and once in New Brunswick.

In Nova Scotia when I was called for the Jury Panel for the fall sitting of the court. The process called for the panel members to appear on various days through out the months of October and November to be selected or not.

In New Brunswick the Jury Panel is called for one trail only and in that case there were technical problems ie the accused failed to show for the trial.

In Nova Scotia I happened to know a legal aid lawyer personally so he would advise the Crown of Panel members he knew, so the Crown Prosecutor would "challenge" me which I would wait for and I then would go home.

At the other trails I was not picked. 

As I was a Union member and the Collective Agreement that I worked under had a provision that the Company paid all lost wages as a result of Jury Duty I was not concerned if I was picked. 

My wife was called for Jury Duty in Nova Scotia and she was excused as she was six months pregnant with our twins as a high risk medical condition.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Got the summons for the first time last year. Fortunately, I was listening when the case was described to us, so when I was selected, I was able to be excused for being the next-door neighbour of one of the officers involved.

Had to go back a second time, but this time the case was settled just before the selection process was to begin.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

It's a valuable public service that I would be happy to perform, but my concerns, as I'm sure is the case with most people, are with the compensation and the potential time demands. I'd like to think that when I am retired, I would serve.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Kazak said:


> It's a valuable public service that I would be happy to perform


+1. Rainy day funds exist for a reason, though I think employers should be obligated to pay you for jury duty - just like voting.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

John Clay said:


> +1. Rainy day funds exist for a reason, though I think employers should be obligated to pay you for jury duty - just like voting.


+1 and (Kazak) +1


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Kazak said:


> It's a valuable public service that I would be happy to perform, but my concerns, as I'm sure is the case with most people, are with the compensation and the potential time demands. I'd like to think that when I am retired, I would serve.


Been many years, but I recall being paid about $16/day + mileage one way. Spent two days on the jury. Was worth it, if only for the educational value. Would have been easy enough to avoid as one could fairly easily figure out how to answer a question in such a way as to make one side or the other want you anywhere but on the jury.

Spent two days on the jury and it took about two months for the cheque to arrive in the mail. 

I remember being absolutely positive that the main witness was lying. He started off by saying he was a good Christian. However, the defendant pretty much destroyed himself when he took the witness stand.


----------



## WCraig (Jul 28, 2004)

I served on a jury last year. 

I think there were about 100 of us called up. Lots of people had valid medical reasons not to serve. Quite a few people tried to tell the judge that it would cause them severe financial hardship. She allowed several people to defer their service until the fall. None of them got off altogether. The bailiff later told us that the big LONG trials start in the fall so these folks may have screwed themselves! After all that weeding out, there were about 50 panelists left for 12 positions on the jury. Therefore, I figured the odds of being selected were about 1 in 4...and then my name was pulled out the box first!! Why doesn't the lottery work that way for me??

If you get the chance you should do it! Fascinating both in the courtroom and the jury room! It was a domestic assault trial. A lot of it boiled down to "he said, she said"--neither one with much credibility. Given the rules about jury room confidentiality, that is about all I can say. Oh, and we were sequestered for a night as it took most of a day for the summations and judge's instructions and our jury couldn't reach a verdict (on the seven counts) in a reasonable time.

Craig


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

I just recently was called up. 2 court rooms were full of possible jurors for 9 cases. By the end of the morning 5 cases had been settled before any jurors were selected. For the remaining 4 I was called up 3 times. For the first 2 before I was rejected by counsel. 3rd time was a charm. Waited for phone call for when the cases was going to start and wouldn't you know it, it was settled out of court so I did not need to go. Was actually looking forward to doing it.

The whole jury selection process was long and was made long by people and their excuses, like they have something better to do or try to put off they don't speak English. The judge scolded a women who said she was in Canada for 30 years yet did not know how to speak or understand English. I have a full time job and cannot sit for long period of times due to my back and tail bone from a fall I had last year and yet I felt it was my duty to do it and do it properly. I would want the same if I needed to be in court. The case was for a traffic accident that happened over 10 years ago, do you believe that? 10 years!


----------



## Mac4me (Aug 26, 2005)

I was called just before Christmas to participate in jury selection for a trial that was scheduled to last 6 months!!! I spent the longest day of my life sitting with about 1,000 other potential jurors in the ballroom of an hotel here in Toronto.
They had everyone's name in a drum and over the course of the day, called out about 500-600 people. The remaining group were told they would be called if they hadn't selected 12 from the pool. Fortunately I was called and advised that I wouldn't be required.
What really ticked me off is that nowhere in the summons did they mention that there would be no lunch break, and all that was available was iced water. We had 3 x 10 minute breaks during which there was a stampede for the doors to get out. The worst part was getting back in each time - full search by police and a walk through one of those metal detector thingys. 
So from 9.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. I endured the mind numbing experience of listening to endless "Juror #xxxxx's" and then waiting for Juror #xxxxx to realize they were calling him/her, then waiting for them to get to the top of the ballroom, have their papers verified, and the process repeated over and over and over.
An ghastly experience for everyone there, and one that could be avoided if they'd modernize what is an antiquated process....and tell us to bring a lunch!!!


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Mac4me said:


> I was called just before Christmas to participate in jury selection for a trial that was scheduled to last 6 months!!! I spent the longest day of my life sitting with about 1,000 other potential jurors in the ballroom of an hotel here in Toronto.
> They had everyone's name in a drum and over the course of the day, called out about 500-600 people. The remaining group were told they would be called if they hadn't selected 12 from the pool. Fortunately I was called and advised that I wouldn't be required.
> What really ticked me off is that nowhere in the summons did they mention that there would be no lunch break, and all that was available was iced water. We had 3 x 10 minute breaks during which there was a stampede for the doors to get out. The worst part was getting back in each time - full search by police and a walk through one of those metal detector thingys.
> So from 9.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. I endured the mind numbing experience of listening to endless "Juror #xxxxx's" and then waiting for Juror #xxxxx to realize they were calling him/her, then waiting for them to get to the top of the ballroom, have their papers verified, and the process repeated over and over and over.
> An ghastly experience for everyone there, and one that could be avoided if they'd modernize what is an antiquated process*....and tell us to bring a lunch!!!*


You want 1000 people bringing stinking food to a hall? No thanks.

I have never heard of a lawyer or judge not taking an hour lunch and 15 mintute breaks in between. They are government and union employees they don't miss breaks.


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

My memory is a bit hazy, but I seem to remember getting a notice and replying that I was busy with school work and that seemed to go over OK. I got another notice that I would be placed on a list of people who would not be called for a year and a vaguely disapproving statement to the effect that eventually they would call me for duty. That was about eight years ago so I guess I've slipped off the radar 

Now that I've jinxed myself, I'll probably get a jury duty notice in the mail tomorrow.


----------



## Mac4me (Aug 26, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> You want 1000 people bringing stinking food to a hall? No thanks.
> 
> I have never heard of a lawyer or judge not taking an hour lunch and 15 mintute breaks in between. They are government and union employees they don't miss breaks.


They had so many people to process and as the judge reminded us constantly "better to have one tough day, than be called back again and again" - so we toughed it out. As for food odours, they could have at least told us to bring a sandwich and leave the butane camp fires at home.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> +1. Rainy day funds exist for a reason, though *I think employers should be obligated to pay you for jury duty* - just like voting.


I think the government should be obliged to pay for jury duty to compensate in full for lost wages.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> I think the government should be obligated to pay for jury duty to compensate in full for lost wages.


I agree. But can you imagine the fraud that would happen? I can say I charge $185/hour for my services and show them invoices to prove it. You expect the gov to pay those rates? I don't. Imagine if a lawyer with a $300/hour got called to jury duty. 

For me they should give jurors more notice that you are going to be on a jury. Currently you get a notice to appear in court for the possibility to get selected. It is sent to you well in advance. This can leave an employer and people in limbo in terms of planning for leave of absence. You show up for selection and your selected. The trial could start the next day, no time for you to put your affairs in order.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> I agree. But can you imagine *the fraud that would happen?* I can say I charge $185/hour for my services and show them invoices to prove it. You expect the gov to pay those rates? I don't. Imagine if a lawyer with a $300/hour got called to jury duty.


Obviously it would have to be based on a previous year's employment or total income and then averaged on a per hour basis, not on just a few recent invoices if self employed. This information is easily obtained and provided.

As for a lawyer being called for jury duty or even a pro athlete who cares? If the court wants to be fiscally prudent they will screen them out early on to avoid having to pay them so much.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> Obviously it would have to be based on a previous year's employment or total income and then averaged on a per hour basis, not on just a few recent invoices if self employed. This information is easily obtained and provided.
> 
> As for a lawyer being called for jury duty or even a pro athlete who cares? If the court wants to be fiscally prudent they will screen them out early on to avoid having to pay them so much.


Agree. But all to much work for the government. It would cost billions to put a system in place to do all that checking.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Agree. But all to much work for the government. It would cost billions to put a system in place to do all that checking.


I don't think it would cost that much at all, the court's already have finance department's in place. At most it would take a couple more employees per court to check on the tax filings of the successful jurors to authorize the amount they are to be compensated.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

screature, you have _no_ idea about bureaucracy, do you?

I think there are better things to spend my tax payer dollars on than checking the incomes of prospective jurors. Right now criminals are being released because the justice system moves too slowly to get them a trial in a 'reasonable' amount of time. This would just clog the wheels of justice even more.

BC has a somewhat adequate system in place:
$20 a day for each of the first 10 days;
$60 a day for the 11 to the 49 days; and
$100 a day commencing on the 50th day of sitting.

Your employer can choose to pay you your regular salary during jury duty, or not, but you cannot lose your job or any accrued benefits due to serving on a jury.

(It's doubtful I'll ever be called to jury duty, as all the cases that require a jury are transferred into the big smoke.)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> *screature, you have no idea about bureaucracy, do you?*
> 
> I think there are better things to spend my tax payer dollars on than checking the incomes of prospective jurors. Right now criminals are being released because the justice system moves too slowly to get them a trial in a 'reasonable' amount of time. This would just clog the wheels of justice even more.
> 
> ...


That is quite the laugh actually as I have a very intimate knowledge of bureaucracy. 

There was no suggestion of checking into the income of prospective jurors, only of those selected so that they are adequately and appropriately compensated (to avoid fraud as was suggested by Joker Eh) compensated... read more closely MLeh and don't be so presumptuous please.

The compensation you list is completely pathetic. The average Canadian makes $128/day. 

Why should your employer pay for a civic "duty"?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Your intimate knowledge of bureaucracy explains a lot. I only have the benefit of observing it from the outside.

First: I said it's the _choice_ of the employer whether or not to pay a regular wage while the employee is serving on a jury. I think most civic minded employers would consider some payment, and I'm sure any union worth its dues would have it written into a contract.

Notwithstanding: We all benefit from an adequately functioning justice system. It's one of those 'civilization' things. Sometimes sacrifices (yes, even financial ones) have to be made for the 'greater good'. 

No one should starve to death or lose their home because of serving on a jury, but there are exemptions for financial hardship which cover that. But I don't see why one person on a jury should get paid more than another just because they make more outside the courthouse. The legal system is supposed to be equal for all, and that would be for jurors as well.

The system BC has assumes that financial hardship increases as the length of the trial increases. I didn't say it was perfect, but I did say it was 'somewhat adequate'.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Interestingly (or not), I was able to be released from jury duty several years ago due to being self-employed. As far as I recall, that was permanent. I called, talked to someone, and was asked to send in a letter explaining why my business prevented me from performing jury duty. 

These days, there are times when I could do jury duty with no significant hardship, and times when I cannot. Doesn't seem like I can pick and choose though.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Disagree completely as to paying so called salary equivalent. When I was self employed the tax types expected me to be able to predict income a year ahed of time. Truthfully that was not even remotely possible.

Beyond that it would for all practical purposes mean high income earners would be automatically exempted just due to cost.

Better idea:
Jury call; Mileage only, employer on the hook for the days salary.
Jury Serve; 1-5 days modest stipend to cover meals+mileage, again employer on the hook.
Jury serve; 6+ days Minimum wage + 15% + mileage. Job must be kept open, employer 
responsible for the balance. Might be a real awakening for those that have no idea how completely inadequate minimum wage is.

I firmly believe that Jury trials should be kept to less than 10 days. I know many months can go into collecting evidence but if it takes more than a week to present, chances are pretty good that all that testimony will confuse rather than clarify. The OJ trial proved that very conclusively.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> Your intimate knowledge of bureaucracy explains a lot. I only have the benefit of observing it from the outside.
> 
> First: I said it's the _choice_ of the employer whether or not to pay a regular wage while the employee is serving on a jury. I think most civic minded employers would consider some payment, and I'm sure any union worth its dues would have it written into a contract.
> 
> ...


Fair enough... but then I think the reimbursement should then be equal to that of the average Canadian wage which is currently $128/day. Which would be more for some and substantially less for others than they make on average and infinitely more fair than what is the case for BC that you listed.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I know how to get out of jury duty: just tell the judge you should be on the jury because you can spot guilty people instantly.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> I know how to get out of jury duty: just tell the judge you should be on the jury because you can spot guilty people instantly.


lol, you would be incontempt of court.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> lol, you would be incontempt of court.


Not if you truly believed it, you would just be excused.

BWOE (by way of example)... Personally I knew Clinton was guilty as hell when at his press conference he said something to the effect of "I have not had sexual relations with that woman.", because of the way he looked back after he made the statement and left the podium. I said as much to my wife at the time... and I like Clinton.

Just sayin' sometimes you just know, or at least you think you do, it is instinctual and all the "evidence" in the world isn't going to change your opinion.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> I know how to get out of jury duty: just tell the judge you should be on the jury because you can spot guilty people instantly.


Apparently, once it comes to jury selection, lawyers are loathe have engineers and computer types; they're too darn logical. They also don't like anyone from the legal profession, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Paddy said:


> Apparently, once it comes to jury selection, lawyers are loathe have engineers and computer types; they're too darn logical. They also don't like anyone from the legal profession, for obvious reasons.


Well I wrote down as my profession "Chief Technology Officer/IT Manager/Programmer/DBA", it was funny when court officer had to read that out 3 times.

The only reason I was selected the 3rd time was due to both parties ran out of objections.


----------

