Have you ever done jury duty

Called three times - picked for service three times. First trial was stopped shortly after starting on a technicality. Second one the guy changed his plea after day one. Third one we got to reach a verdict - very minor case though.

I was called last year. Eventually was called for a case where some young fella ran over a gaurd in his car. The prosecution objected to me so I didnt even get to do it. They were trying to fill the jury with little old ladies and not young fellas like me. I think each side can object to a certain amount of jurors to try and fill the jury with their target demographic.

Yeah, I got summoned 8 years ago and got chosen to serve. Case only lasted two days.

Got my second summons in the post only last week to appear next month. Hopefully I'll not be called this time!

I got called and picked but we got sent home after lunch because the guy changed his plea to guilty

I got picked for a jury a few years ago. The guy had allegedly stolen 50 euro worth of dirty oil from his workplace. The gardai then lost the barrel of oil so there was no evidence other than that of an elderly security guard and the arresting guard. We sat there baffled as to how this even made it to a court. The gardai who arrested him kept throwing his eyes to heaven when the man was testifying in full sight of the jury and tbh I think that swayed anyone who may have been leaning towards a guilty. The killer for me was that I had to travel 50 km each way for a full week at my own expense. We did get free lunch and plenty of biscuits so that was nice.

Couldn't believe the fuddy duddy practices still going on.

Wig wearing, gown wearing, "everyone rise" nonsense and then to top it all, producing bibles to swear on.

This is a dysfunctional cosy cartel of outrageously overpaid pompous, self regulated circle of contacts, who simply have a god given aptitude for memorizing large volumes of law rules and self adoration.

I was called for a kidnapping case. My heart froze; I had visions of young children being dragged into cars. But it was nowhere near as bad as that.

Two lads (mid-twenties) from the smoke had come down to visit relatives in the sticks and gone to a local night club. Somehow they'd ended up getting a good kicking in the car park from up to ten local youths. Police photos from the time were passed around of the one on trial; he was badly bruised about the face.

His friend was almost unconscious. The defendant had driven him home and, on the way back, spotted what he believed was one of the youths involved, a boy of eighteen. He'd bundled the boy into the car, driven him to the beach, threatened him with a hammer, and made the boy strip naked. Then the defendant had driven off.

The boy had had to run home in the nip. His mum found him climbing in through a window (it was summer then, but the case was just before Christmas). If she hadn't, I doubt the case would ever have happened. But she did and she called the police.

The judge said kidnapping was a serious charge that could result in up to twenty years inside. He also said he would only take a unanimous verdict.

I was the youngest juror by far: a baby-faced 25-year-old. I was also the only one who affirmed rather than swore on the Bible. Everyone else (bar one) was resolute; the defendant was guilty. But they were fair, too. They didn't try to pressurise me in any way when I said 'not guilty'. The other holdout lasted an hour and then, without explanation, changed his mind.

So me against the rest of them.

I told them the problem I had. I thought the kidnapping charge was disproportionate. It seemed to me that the young boy was part of the gang that had assaulted the outsiders. In return, he'd basically got a stag-night prank with menaces; unpleasant, but not as bad as being beaten senseless. So why was he the victim? I also felt that the defendant's reaction was merely an anger-fuelled moment of madness. It seemed harsh to punish him in a way that could ruin his life.

The others patiently explained that we were just there to confirm that the boy had been taken into a car against his will, threatened, and made to strip. It was then up to the judge regarding sentencing. And they were right of course, so I voted guilty.

I felt terrible as we returned to the box, but then the defendant's previous form was read out. His first charge was as an adolescent, when he'd punched a policewoman in the face. He'd continued along the path of thuggishness and criminality, even getting a jail sentence in his teens. And as all this came to light, a huge pressure lifted from me. He wasn't just an innocent getting caught up in circumstances, making a silly decision to act as a vigilante after an injustice; he was a career thug.

He got two and a half years, which was still a long sentence for the crime, but they took into account that he was already on probation for stealing something.

What surprised me was how badly presented the cases for prosecution and defence were. One prosecution witness - a young man - was called to state that he had heard a noise in his garden - dustbins rattling - and gone to investigate. He saw nothing, but later presumed it was the naked boy hiding on his way home. We jurors listened bemused; what had his speculation got to do with anything? The judge himself in his summing up remarked, perplexed, that the youth had been called for no apparent reason.

Also, the circumstances of the nightclub fight were never explored. Had the locals descended on the city boys for no reason? Had the city boys started on someone and then had that person's mates join in? No idea.

The defence barrister also snapped at the judge at one point, implying that he was leading the jury. Angered, the judge asked for the jury to retire for a few minutes, presumably so he could rebuke her.

So, to sum up - as a judge might say - it was an interesting four days, and I think the verdict was reached correctly, but I was left feeling vaguely dissatisfied by certain aspects, mostly the work of the two barristers (a haughty bearded man and a snooty young woman). The judge seemed OK, though; certainly not the blustering out-of-touch buffoon you hear of in the media.

thankfully im not eligible for jury duty.

ixoy wrote: »

There is no assessment process in Ireland. They only object as you walk up past them and it's based purely on your appearance.

I'm in so! Bit worrying that any nutter can stand if that's the case.

Got called two years ago and became the foreman of the jury. A wide spread of ages and skillsets, I felt we worked well together. It was a difficult case because of the content. All jury contributed, and we were happy with our verdict was fair.

Interesting to see the workings of the court. The judge was very good directing us regarding the law.

What professions exempt people from jury duty?

ETA: google told me.
It seems odd that some of the certain professions are exempt.

Got called the day after I left the country, my sister was called about a week after she moved away as well :P