Jury duty worries

August 27, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Jury duty: it’s not glamorous, it can be time-consuming, and perhaps even boring, but it’s part of our duty as American citizens. A lot of people dread not only the process of being selected but possibly being seated for a long trial.

Being seated for a trial means you aren’t at work, which means you are losing money. What you get paid to serve doesn’t make up the difference, and some companies don’t pay you while you are gone. Many people worried about this before, but with the current economic situation, I wonder how many people try to dodge jury duty now

My “Lawyers” desk calendar had an entry this month of an actual jury selection transcript in which a potential juror told the court he didn’t want to serve because he didn’t want to be away from his job for too long. The court asked if they could do without him at work, to which the potential juror replied “Yes, but I don’t want them to know it.”

It’s a legitimate fear I’m sure a few people called to serve have: they don’t want their boss to find someone else to do their job while they are gone. If the company is looking to downsize, that could show that potential juror is expendable. Perhaps the potential juror is a small-business owner and has no one else to run the business.

You can’t be fired for serving on a jury, but perhaps down the road, when layoffs are coming, the boss will remember that someone else could do that juror’s job.

I’ve read a few articles this summer about people putting off vacations for the same reason.

Lawyers, how often are potential jurors asking to be excused because they are worried about getting time off or losing their jobs? Has it increased recently because of the economy?
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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT