Jury Duty

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Are jurors allowed to tell people about the trials they've been involved in?

I know there is nothing to stop people blabbing but are you supposed to not talk about it.

I see no problem after a trial. I did not examine the Law on this matter tho

the beer revolu wrote: »

Two colleagues at work have been called in the last couple of weeks.
I'm lead to believe that a letter from your employer stating that you are important doesn't wash anymore.

The judge that was sitting in the case I was on told us that if any of our employers had an issue with us attending that they were come to see him directly in the High Court!
That solved that issue.

I would like to do it but being self employed I never will

Enzo Full Tourist wrote: »

Worked no problem for me at the start of the year and just over a year before that also. Sent in the letter and got my letter of excusal within a few days. Not sure why a judge would say “come in to see him” there judge is not involved at the stage of calling you for duty it’s just some officer in the court.

The fact is though it’s the truth my employer could not afford to have me gone for a period of time were I to get put on a long running case. Almost all my projects would come to a standstill. It’s totally unreasonable taking people out of work for jury duty in many situations.

Yes and why has the Juries Act not been updated. Too many in the "golden circle" exempt from Jury Duty

Served on one for an assault case years ago. Everyone said to me to get a letter from my job saying I couldn't do it - I couldn't understand why, much rather play Matlock for a few days than work. Boss even tried to give me a letter, but I told him I wasn't working on anything that couldn't wait a week. Selection took one day, then the trial 2, and half a day deliberation and verdict. I had long dreadlocks at the time and I was sure they were going to reject me, but I got selected. I'm not religious, and I would usually not opt to swear on the Bible, but I did that time as I didn't want to be seen to rock the boat in case I got rejected.

Glad I did it, and I'd do it again if called. Very interesting to see some of the mechanics of justice at work.

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Yes and why has the Juries Act not been updated. Too many in the "golden circle" exempt from Jury Duty

Is it still based on the electoral register? So if you're not bothered to vote, you won't be bothered by a jury summons?

Surely they could use other lists - Revenue, Social Welfare?

pgj2015 wrote: »

I got a letter asking me to be on a jury about 7 years ago, I was studying law at the time so I was interested in doing it. But then i got another letter to say they were PLEASED to inform me that I had been excused from jury duty. I wonder what the reason was, do defending solicitors have a look at the potential jury and object to say males from 25-30 or women from 45-55?

Maybe it was the persecution that objected?

To be honest, they were probably very unsure how someone who is both a man in in his late 20s and a woman in her late 40s would view the accused.

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

I wouldnt use the derogatory term "weasel out" when people have justifiable reasons for not attending. Perhaps the Legislators should tackle the huge amounts of professionals exempt from serving at trials for no justifiable reasons

"Weasel out" is accurate when you see the number of posters saying "get out of it" and having no reason other than not wanting to do it.

pgj2015 wrote: »

I got a letter asking me to be on a jury about 7 years ago, I was studying law at the time so I was interested in doing it. But then i got another letter to say they were PLEASED to inform me that I had been excused from jury duty. I wonder what the reason was, do defending solicitors have a look at the potential jury and object to say males from 25-30 or women from 45-55?

This is only from my experience in the Dublin Central Criminal Court, so it may be different elsewhere.

When you're called, you're just in a big pool with loads of other people - there was over 100 the day I went. You wait. Then you get called to a particular court with about 20 other people. Other people get called it other courts. Some people didn't turn up, so some people who were on the list for one court get called to a different one.

You go in to the court and the give you a bit of a spiell. Each person is called up to be sworn in. Just at that moment, either the prosecution or defence can reject you. They don't give a reason. Sometimes they don't even look up to see who they're rejecting - it's part of the randomisation process, and they'll reject some people for absolutely no reason. If they don't reject you, you swear in and you're on the jury.

If you were excused before you even turned up at court, neither the prosecution or defence would have even been aware of you at that point, so whatever the reason was, it wasn't that either side didn't want you or your demographic.

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

I wouldnt use the derogatory term "weasel out" when people have justifiable reasons for not attending. Perhaps the Legislators should tackle the huge amounts of professionals exempt from serving at trials for no justifiable reasons

See the previous post.

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

"Weasel out" is accurate when you see the number of posters saying "get out of it" and having no reason other than not wanting to do it.

Many had legitimate reasons for excusal

I'll see that Quimby kid hang for this.

Allinall wrote: »

These are just from the first page of this thread.

Youre being selective.What about the others who had legitimate reasons?

I've been called for the panel twice, selected to serve once.

It was quite a harrowing case, went on for 8 days and we all got a lifetime exemption from the judge afterwards, but I'd still serve again if called up.

I don't really understand why people try to weasel out of it. Sure if you have kids to mind or a struggling business to keep afloat, I get it but everyone else should be prepared to do their civic duty.