Jury Selection is bullsh!t

Sheeps

I was summoned to court for jury selection yesterday. Out of four cases scheduled this week, two were settled out of court. Two jurys were picked yesterday and for some reason everyone who was summoned yesterday was ordered back in for today at 10:30 again.

They packed the 150 or so jury candidates in to the court at which point an apology was read to the court on behalf of the defendant of the case which was settled. The judge ordered everyone back in again tomorrow for the same time for another potential jury picking session and then everyone was let go. We were in the court for approximately eight and a half minutes.

The whole system seems rather inefficient. Assuming the average commute time for people in Dublin is 35 minutes that's at least 174 man hours lost or 198 including the time spent in court.

My question is instead of wasting the time of 150 - 200 people why wasn't the potential jury picking moved forward to today when everyone was there in court ready to go? The whole system seems bull****.

This is more of a rant than a question thread.

Sheeps

Also, it should be said that these cases were civil cases and seem like they could be settled with out a jury. It's Judge Judy type shite.

We need juries and we also need to encourage people to settle in Civil matters where possible to avoid unnecessary costs. Jury duty is a civic duty and should be viewed as such. While the system may seem inefficient there is no way around it; people must actually be there to be on a jury and so the system remains.

Rather than ranting why not suggest an alternative?

Tom Young

So what would your proposed amendment and reform be to the selection system then?

The mode of trial by jury related to a number of limited civil actions, e.g., Defamation (not absolute and confined to High Court), False Imprisonment and Trespass to the person/Civil Assault.

Tom

Sheeps

My alternative would be to get the lawyers who are representing either side of the case to come in for the 30 minutes needed to pick a jury, pick the jury while everyone is still there and then taking the contact details of everyone on that jury so that they can be told the next day if the case is going ahead instead of calling 150 people back in the next day for another 8 minutes.

Tom Young

Three points:

1. The Jury should not know in advance which case they are being assigned to;
2. The Jurors are not supposed to know one another; and
3. Selection should be at random and be a representative sampling of 'peers' from the community.

The issue of prejudice can arise in the simplest of ways.

It is a civic duty as Kayroo highlights.

We could go out and herd people up off O'Connell Street!

Sheeps

There's no reason that those three points can't be upheld by picking a potential jury a day in advance.

Tom Young

Sheeps wrote: »

There's no reason that those three points can't be upheld by picking a potential jury a day in advance.

I think there are a few reasons actually.

Sheeps

Tom Young wrote: »

I think there are a few reasons actually.

How is it any different to a jury going home after a day in court for cases that take longer than a day?

johnnyskeleton

Why can't jurys be selected over the internet?

The judge and counsel look at the potential juror's facebook/myspace page and decide from the look of it whether there would be any potential conflict, whether the juror will be able to make it in on time and whether the juror knows any of the witnesses.

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

We could go out and herd people up off O'Connell Street!

Isn't there old common law that if a jury panel is exhausted without filling the jury, a judge's crier/tipstaff is entitled to stand outside the courthouse and pick people randomly to serve on it? I think it has fallen into disuse though.

Tom Young

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Isn't there old common law that if a jury panel is exhausted without filling the jury, a judge's crier/tipstaff is entitled to stand outside the courthouse and pick people randomly to serve on it? I think it has fallen into disuse though.

Slips you a 20 for a liquor license!

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

Slips you a 20 for a liquor license!

Ah, the perks of tipstaffery never end.

TheNewMe

Deleted User wrote: »

We need juries and we also need to encourage people to settle in Civil matters where possible to avoid unnecessary costs. Jury duty is a civic duty and should be viewed as such. While the system may seem inefficient there is no way around it; people must actually be there to be on a jury and so the system remains.

Rather than ranting why not suggest an alternative?

There's a very easy alternative that is used in many jurisdictions within the US. When potential jurors receive a summons in the mail they also get an individual juror number and a phone number to call at the courthouse.

The way it works is :
1. The summons says you are on the jury panel for certain dates for courthouse X
2. Every morning of that period you call the number given and key in your juror id
3. You get an automated message indicating whether you will be required for that day or not.

Now there are some restrictions if you want to be able to do your juror service on the phone - you have to be able to get to the courthouse by a certain time you are called - e.g. 10am.

The system works great for taxpaying citizens who have jobs and other requirements on their time as experience shows that most who are called do not have to serve. However it requires the courts service have the technology, the will and the capability to reasonably predict juror requirements by looking at the order of business for the day.

I don't know if it'd ever work here as I've never seen the inside of an Irish court

Reloc8

Sheeps wrote: »

There's no reason that those three points can't be upheld by picking a potential jury a day in advance.

That's exactly what happens, frequently, in criminal trials, with no difficulty at all. There is no reason why this couldn't be done in civil matters.