Question, not troll

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Do you think it is ok for a high ranking official to be able to duck out of serving on a jury?<br /><br />Myself, I think it is everone's duty to carry out jury duty.<br />I have never ducked out of it but have seen some real lame excuses not to.<br /><br />What you all think?

 

[ZooMbr]

Re: Question, not troll

Problem is; it can be a distraction and their opinon may carry more weight than it should. Myself, have not would not duck jury duty, but would not like to see soneone/anyone be there that would be a distraction.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Question, not troll

I think high ranking public officials are already doing public service. I think maybe jruy's are better left to those who are not doing public service. Honestly, I only gave this about 30 seconds of thought, so no flames.<br />In reference to President Bush's jury summons- is that really where we want him right now?

 

[roscoe]

Re: Question, not troll

I think it just turns the jury into a circus, waste of time.<br />Do you think "W" would ever actually get seated on a jury?<br />Doubt it, too much of a distraction.<br />I want my jury to be concentrating on the case, not on the guy at the end of the row and his Secret Service ontourage.

 

[QC]

Re: Question, not troll

Simple answer, no, unless his/her duties or schedule or personal/public positions make him/her unqualified. With that list I see it as unlikely they could be qualified depnding on how "high ranking".<br /><br />I am continually sent Jury Duty notices. I call the 800 number, and they say thanks, but no thanks. I actually got all of the way to the courthouse door once before they said no thanks. I honestly believe if I ever get in the door they'll say no thanks yet again due to my travel schedule unless there is a one or two day trial ready to go.

 

[alden135]

Re: Question, not troll

Originally posted by SBN:<br /> Do you think it is ok for a high ranking official to be able to duck out of serving on a jury?<br /><br />What you all think?

I want them doing their job, especially in time of war. I just couldn't imagine FDR putting WW2 on hold to serve on a jury.<br /><br />This is only my opinion but, because I'm always right, it should be yours too.

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Question, not troll

Originally posted by SBN:<br /> Do you think it is ok for a high ranking official to be able to duck out of serving on a jury?<br /><br />Myself, I think it is everone's duty to carry out jury duty.<br />I have never ducked out of it but have seen some real lame excuses not to.<br /><br />What you all think?

Well Spinner, the way i see it is like this. If that high ranking official is not presently involved in carrying on with the nation's business, lets say that this official is on a few weeks vacation during the time needed for jury duty, then by all means they should serve, providing that they qualify.

 

[JB]

Re: Question, not troll

What attorney would accept a high ranking gov't official on a jury? Even if one did, what adversary attorney would then accept him?<br /><br />Too much influence equals an unbalanced jury. Guaranteed to be overturned by an apellate court.<br /><br />No way.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: Question, not troll

I concur that it would not happen.<br />I saw a report from that Texas judge that GW was suppose to server on and he said that he would set him maybe in Feb. or so.

 

[Link]

Re: Question, not troll

Spinner, you know me pretty well. No-one should be able to duck out of anything. But JB and others have it pretty much right on this one.<br />WITH the exception of the last couple months.. I'd rather be judged by people on iboats!

 

[tommays]

Re: Question, not troll

quiet <br /><br />interesting about your travel and there saying no here in NY they could care less if you have to travel or if your JOB PAYS YOU WHICH MANY DOnt<br /><br /> at some point(about 3 times) they will no longer excuse you for ANY REASON and will send the sheriff to make sure you get there<br /><br /><br />tommays

 

[QC]

Re: Question, not troll

tommays,<br /><br />Actually I can't get to the point where they say yes or no. I recall sending them a note from work with a reference to a business travel commitment. I think there is even a question on the form they send. Anyway, that'll get you a postponement, but probably not a dismissal.<br /><br />There is an 800 number here that you call the night before your scheduled appearance. I have called it three times in the last few years. First two times they said "You are not required to appear, your service is now considered complete" the third time the recording said, "you are still required". I went down there and some lady stopped me before the metal detector and said, "We already have enough, thank you".

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: Question, not troll

Jury Duty is selected from a list of registered voters.<br /><br />As I don't vote, and thus am not registered, I have never recieved a jury summons.

 

[Ron G]

Re: Question, not troll

is that it the way it works ou there??d#m if you get on jury duty here you can call a number and they tell ya yes or no to come in the next day,and if you dont you go to jail.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Question, not troll

Originally posted by SBN:<br /> Do you think it is ok for a high ranking official to be able to duck out of serving on a jury?<br /><br />Myself, I think it is everone's duty to carry out jury duty.<br />I have never ducked out of it but have seen some real lame excuses not to.<br /><br />What you all think?

I agree. I do not care if you're GW Bush, you have a duty...That's why it is called "jury DUTY".<br />No ecusses short of pal bearer duty should be admissable.

 

[ZooMbr]

Re: Question, not troll

QC22, if you call the 800 number or show up and they say you are not needed, means there was a settlement. In PHX one time I got through the paperwork and ??'s, we were wating to be selected (this was the 2'nd day) they came in and said we could all go home. There was a plea agreement worked out - name goes back in the file until it comes up next.

 

[KaGee]

Re: Question, not troll

Now c'mon fellas, you are going to get PW and the boys riled up about how much tax $$ it will cost to send him down there for his duty. They complain about everything else the man does.<br /><br />How come I don't recall any other President being called up??

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: Question, not troll

Everyone should be required to fulfill their civic duty. A public official already is IMO. And juries are supposed "of your peers." Who is a high ranking public official a peer to? I have never sat on jury duty, I want to however. I was called once and would have tried to be excused due to the financial hardship it would have caused (was supposed to be a two week trial). But I still want to serve as a juror, someday or two. <br />And IMO NEVER should a president or similarly notrious person be seated on a jury, or called as a potential juror. I share the same thoughts most of the rest of yo do as to why, too big a distraction, too much potential influence.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Question, not troll

Lets face it guys, there are some people that are more important than others.<br /><br />Not that many, but there are some.<br /><br />I think the president falls into this category.<br /><br />I didnt like Clinton at all, but I thought it was a mistake for a civil suit to be allowed while he was the president. It wasnt a serious crime and the trial should have been delayed until he was out of office.<br /><br />Ken

 

[JasonJ]

Re: Question, not troll

Jury of your peers. A high ranking official is going to have a different mindset than Joe-Bob from down the street, and he could adversly affect what is supposed to be an impartial jury. The jury would not function properly, it would just be a media funfest.