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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT