Opinion split on whether lying to get out of jury duty is a crime

April 13, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A recent informal public opinion survey found that respondents were closely split on whether lying to get out of jury duty is grounds for arrest.

SodaHead.com – an opinion-based online community – polled its users to see if they thought lying to get out of jury duty should be punishable by arrest. Of those responding, 55 percent believe it should be considered a crime; 45 percent don’t think it’s “a big deal.”

Whether or not you think it is a crime could depend on your age. Nearly three-fourths of those over the age of 65 think it’s a crime. Only 54 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds think it should be a crime.

The poll results aren’t in-depth, but they do provide an interesting snapshot of what people think about jury duty. It’s definitely something that a lot of people dread. Just last week, I had a friend who lives in California ask on Facebook what he should say to get out of jury duty.

Must be a California thing, because of the states highlighted by SodaHead.com, California residents were more likely to say that lying to get out of jury duty shouldn’t be a crime. The four other states mentioned – New York, Nevada, Texas and Florida – all had higher response rates indicating those residents think it should be a crime.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT