Computer Consultant Bills His Worth For Jury Duty
	found on The Washington Post written by MAYORBOB, edited by Tim (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 13 Aug 11:11am
		"David Williamson of San Antonio Texas received a notice to report for federal jury duty and was told to leave the entire month of August open," writes MAYORBOB. "He responded by sending a notice to the court that he would be willing to do so, but only if the government paid him a bit more than the usual jury duty stipend - quite a bit more. As he calculated it at $100 an hour, the government would owe him $16,800 and, if they were late with the payment they could expect the meter to run for an additional 2% in interest per month. Not receiving an answer to his initial offer, he resent the same notice twice more."

	"The federal judge who oversees the court that Williamson corresponded to is less than pleased with Williamson's act. Adding to his pique is the fact that, when the court did get around to telling him that he would be serving (but not offering to pay his fee), Williamson shot back the following note, 'If you would like to meet and discuss this, please have his honor call and schedule an appointment.' The judge responded with a note of his own, informing Williamson that he should report to the court to show some reason why he should not be held in contempt of court. What advice would you give Mr. Williamson to employ while pleading his case?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 113 commentsmost: 18 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Getting out of jury duty   by sapienza       at Tue 13 Aug 11:22am score of 1     My first impression on reading this was to ask "How hard is it really to get out of jury duty? I've seen comedians joke about it all the time." I don't know myself, though. Can he just go to the jury interview, act like he's completely biased and get out of it that easy? sapienza   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  You have to watch yourself.   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 13 Aug 11:37am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 1     In most cases, you probably won't be asked if you have any biases. You might be asked if you know of any of the parties to the action before the court but you will have to demonstrate to the judge's satisfaction that this is the case. You usually can get out of jury duty by claiming personal hardship of some sort or that you are irreplaceable to your employer. Once again, you will need to provide proof of that. The last thing you want to do is to show up for jury duty and start spouting, "I can't serve because I hate all (insert ethnic or racial group) because the judge, if he or she is not amused, can decide that you're in contempt of the court. The best thing to do, if you can't find those outs, is to suck it up, show up and serve if you're selected. In most cases, it will be the only time you're picked and, even if you are again, it will likely be no sooner than another three or four years before you get summoned again. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: You have to watch yourself.   by bitflip       at Tue 13 Aug 3:49pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 13     If its so easy to get out of jury duty, then wouldn't that tend to increase the number of jurors who were too dumb to get out of jury duty? I'm not psychotic. I'm disturbed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: You have to watch yourself.   by TheMCP       at Tue 13 Aug 6:50pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 13     In most cases, you probably won't be asked if you have any biases. Funny, but I've been called for both state and federal jury duty multiple times and every single time, in every single courtroom I went into, we were all asked if we had any biases in regard to the case. In one case I actually did have a bias: at the time, I had been helping a friend with her emotional recovery from crack addiction following her hospital stay. The case was about an alleged crack dealer. I told the judge, honestly, that as a juror I would listen to the case and honestly evaluate the evidence but that if I came to believe the defendant was guilty I would want to personally nail him to a wall. She released me from the jury. In regular MA state and federal jury duty, you show up for the day, and if you don't end up on a case you go home at the end of the day and that's that, you're done for a couple years. However, I'm informed that for federal grand jury duty, you're stuck there for a specified minimum term, and they put case after case before you until that term is up. Frankly, while I would be happy to serve on a jury to help try to make the justice system work in America for a change, I do think the way it's done is a form of organized government sanctioned slavery. They tell you when and where you will show up, and don't ask for your permission. If you don't they can send you to jail. They tell you how long you will serve. They tell you what they're willing to give you for compensation, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reality in terms of what you need to make to pay your rent or mortgage or grocery bill. It's a pittance. In this particular case, my sympathy is with the consultant. If they paid a living wage for the work, and allowed you to schedule a time to serve within a nice broad timeframe, and did a better job of taking your life's needs into account, I would have more respect for the system. Oh yeah, and the hour of propaganda they always give me about how wonderful our jury duty system is and how proud I should be that they've drafted me into temporary slavery every time I show up to serve doesn't help my attitude either. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   118.  Re: You have to watch yourself.   by Delphis       at Wed 14 Aug 11:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 65     'Trial by ones peers' becomes more like 'Trial by stupid people' ... joy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by maml       at Tue 13 Aug 11:46am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 1     Can he just go to the jury interview, act like he's completely biased and get out of it that easy? Yes. It really is that easy. It usually takes up a lot of a day, but when they start asking you questions, you can say "I'm an anarchist and will find in the defendant's favor no matter what the facts because I can not participate in the coercive justice system." and they will probably politely thank you for your time. Or maybe you'll get a lecture from the judge on citizenship, but you'll still be free to go. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by Tapin       at Tue 13 Aug 4:00pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 17     I've heard that the easiest way to get yourself excused from any given jury selection process is to mention casually that you're a member of the Fully Informed Jury Association, and that you know what "jury nullification" is. Of course, if you don't mention this (or, if you've read this far, you don't mention even casual knowledge of jury nullification), you could be on the hook for four-plus years of legal bills while the judge prosecutes you for contempt of court. Makes a deal with a smile, knowing all the while that his lie's a mile   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by Nephthys       at Tue 13 Aug 11:54am score of 2.5 informative   in reply to comment 1     The best ways to get out of jury duty are to be a convicted felon, be the victim of a violent crime, claim hardship (single parent of a young child), or show yourself to be completely biased (wear a t-shirt that says "Kill them all and let God sort them out"). Other excuses can be found here. A very tattooed and pierced friend of mine was released from jury duty recently on the grounds that he "frightened the other jurors". Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by jjgiddes       at Tue 13 Aug 1:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     ...or be a lawyer. My supposition is that neither side really wants a lawyer in the jury, mainly because a lawyer would be too good a filtering through the bullshit that each side would engage in. (I've been called only once, but I've never served, even though I've wanted to.) "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by dewdrops       at Tue 13 Aug 2:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     very true. this is also why college students are very rarely picked as jurors; they're unpredictable and think for themselves. dd, whose gone to jury duty 3 times in 6 years and always been thrown off.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by malvoisin       at Wed 14 Aug 7:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     um. you're being ironic, right?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by deeluxx       at Tue 13 Aug 11:56am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 1     I was called in for a drug case. Pissed off because I work freelance and was losing days of work, when asked if I had any biases or any reason why I couldn't render a just verdict, I told the judge I didn't believe in the constitutionality of the U.S. drug laws. The judge told me to "get out of here". I still lost two days of work, but better that than a few weeks.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  That's a shame   by LostBoyJim       at Tue 13 Aug 12:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     Shame on you. You had an opportunity to take a punch at the War On Some Drugs, and you skip out instead. jim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   104.  Re: Getting out-long winded post alert!   by bigeyes       at Wed 14 Aug 2:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     It helps if you're a little strange to begin with. When I was bartending (no paid time off, no sick leave, etc.) I was called up for jury duty. The first case was like yours, a guy busted by an undercover cop for possession with intent to sell cocaine. When asked if anyone on the jury knew any police officers, I raised my hand. When they asked me to elaborate, I told them I worked in bars, so I had lots of opportunities to meet police officers. I also took karate, and several of my instructors were policemen. If this didn't freak them out enough, I had gone straight to jury duty after closing the bar and winding down for a couple of hours, so I imagine my eyes were looking pretty bloodshot, in addition to that attractive too much caffiene, not enough sleep appearance. The 2nd question they asked of all of us was do any of you know anyone who has been arrested or served jail time for drugs? Up goes my hand again. Why? The short version is, I had a boyfriend who got arrested for cocaine possession and got probation. Suddenly made a lot of things make sense to me, Oh, so that's why he's always broke, irritable and doesn't need much sleep! Duh. Suffice it to say they didn't quite know who I would sympathize with, but they weren't taking any chances. It was also helpful that I dozed off while one of the attorneys was questioning me! Uh, sorry, I work nights, having trouble keeping my eyes open. I guess they didn't call it contempt because I wasn't doing it on purpose? Anyway, the next case I got thrown off of was an insurance suit. When asked about bias, I told them I thought insurance companies were bloodsuckers and inherently dishonest. After a couple more questions, they were glad to let me go, but the plaintiff's attorney gave me a big grin as I left, thanks honey, you contaminated that jury just fine! Like you, I lost much less money by spending 1 day there instead of who knows how many. I found them to be pretty unsympathetic to the plight of the self-employed or people like me, but having big sleepy Manson eyes and a strange lifestyle is a good way to get released! I also worked with a guy in Florida we all called Psycho Man (because he looked crazy and had a disturbing way of looking at you when you had a discussion with him) who said he always got released by asking Well, he's guilty, right? I mean, he was arrested or by saying I can tell by looking whether or not they're guilty.... What is sad about this whole thing is, I know it's my civic duty and all, but the way they inconvenience people and cost them money is indeed like slavery, whoever made that connection earlier. I also agree that we should be frightened by a jury of 12 who couldn't get out of jury duty.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: That's a shame   by deeluxx       at Tue 13 Aug 12:49pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 33     Hey man, I'm not loaded here, I've got bills to pay. The case was never going to go to court, anyway (it didn't) because the 'accused' was a cop who sold drugs to an undercover detective and they had the whole thing on video. The court cost me nearly a weeks work in a month where work is slow all for a trial the defense never had any intention of proceeding with. You may say 'shame on me', but the entire charade pissed me off, wasted my time and cost me money. Halls of Justice my ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: That's a shame   by catfood       at Wed 14 Aug 5:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     You don't think that the threat of a jury trial gave the perp an incentive to plead guilty? Well, the prosecution can't threaten that until they have... a jury, you know? Not going to trial is part of the justice system too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   125.  Re: That's a shame   by TheMCP       at Thu 15 Aug 8:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 106     You don't think that the threat of a jury trial gave the perp an incentive to plead guilty? And this relates to whether or not the people who are being forced to be jurors can afford to survive after being forced into involuntary servitude on the jury how? Look, I got called to jury duty once when I was unemployed but had lined up some freelance work. Jury duty was preventing me from going to work, which was preventing me from getting paid, which was preventing me from paying my rent. If I didn't get out of jury duty, I would lose my home. When I got to jury duty, they told me financial hardship was not considered a valid excuse. WTF? If "I will lose my home if you don't let me go" isn't a valid excuse what is? Fortunately for me, a couple hours after I arrived they announced that they weren't going to be seating any juries that day and we could all go home, so I was off the hook. If they had stuck me on a jury, I would have been homeless. I don't give a damn how useful having a jury is in the justice system if I have to worry about where I'm going to find a big enough cardboard box to sleep under. By ignoring my needs, the system has no respect for me... why should I have any respect for it? End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  Re: That's a shame   by bigeyes       at Sat 17 Aug 4:16am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 125     Excellent point. Am I the only one who reads true crime stories? I often hear of juries making a decision just so they can all go home. I'd bet it happens more often than not. And don't forget the clueless factor. A friend once spent an entire day discussing her sex life with fellow jurors to convince them that yes, it was possible for the accused rapist to spend x amount of minutes raping the plaintiff. Seems there were a couple of women on the jury who were married to minutemen, so they disbelieved the plaintiff's story because of the length of time he spent actually raping her. yeeeesh.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by jandrese       at Tue 13 Aug 12:10pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 1     I once heard that the easiest way to get out of Jury duty was to wear a bow tie to the screening. The Judge/lawyers would assume that anybody who still wears a bow tie in this day and age is obviously not living in the real world. There's some entertainment value in watching people juggle nitroglycerin. -- Larry Wall   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by snarkism       at Wed 14 Aug 12:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     The Judge/lawyers would assume that anybody who still wears a bow tie in this day and age is obviously not living in the real world. Hang on, isn't that exactly who they want? The last people they want on a jury are those who are in touch with the real world. people who are in touch might actually make a decision based on reality, rather than what the lawyers tell them. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Would-be lawyers need not apply   by sglover910       at Tue 13 Aug 1:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I served on a jury last year, in Maryland. For the trial I was involved with, jurors were selected out of a pool of 40-60 candidates. Relatives of cops and victims of crimes weren't automatically excluded, but everyone who'd ever been to law school got a quick "Thank you for coming, have a nice day" from the judge. An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  more advice from George Carlin   by jjgiddes       at Tue 13 Aug 1:52pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 1     "Many people try to get out of jury duty by lying... you don't have to lie! Tell the judge the truth! Tell 'em you'll make a terrific juror because you can spot guilty people *SNAP!* just like that!" "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: more advice from George Carlin   by MacGregor       at Tue 13 Aug 3:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 46     Then you're supposed to point at the judge and say "like HIM!" "Though I look old, yet I am strong and lusty" --As you like it, Act 2, Scene 3   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: Getting out of jury duty   by catfood       at Wed 14 Aug 4:36am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     I was in that dude's position once a couple of years ago. I had a summons for two days of jury duty in the city court, to start the same day I had been scheduled to start work with a new client on a 3-month on-site contract. All it took was a nice letter to the jury commission explaining that it would be really bad for business to not show up my first day on a new engagement, but I wouldn't mind serving some other time. They let me off the hook, no problem. This dude, well, sorry, jury duty is part of being a citizen in a democratic republic. Too bad for him.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Jury duty's always bothered me.   by cinnamon       at Tue 13 Aug 11:23am score of 2 compelling     I don't understand why there isn't a federal (or uniform state) law forcing employers to pay employees their normal hourly/salaried rate while going to jury duty. It's the only, as far as I know, compulsory civil service we have, and one that offers almost no legal protections to the person forced to engage in it. I think? Am I wrong on this? In this case the guy's a small business owner, so such laws wouldn't help him, but maybe people like him being out-and-out exempt is appropriate. I mean, c'mon, they tell this guy to leave August open? How the is he supposed to do his job?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Re: Jury duty's always bothered me.   by andy p       at Tue 13 Aug 12:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Think about the OJ trial, that lasted a long time right. Could you imagine having to pay your worker for that long, and also pay for a replacement? That would break the bank of a lot of small businesses. Barrels are just crates with delusions of grandeur   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Jury duty's always bothered me.   by lblack       at Tue 13 Aug 12:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     That circumstance should result in you not being required to serve jury duty, as does being too valuable to your employer to be away. Most small businesses with small cashflows would have no trouble supporting that statement and proving it - by definition, every employee in a small, struggling business is essential to its survival.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Jury duty's always bothered me.   by Misch       at Tue 13 Aug 2:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     From what I remember, if you work for a company in New York, and you have more than 10 employees, the compay is required to pay you at least $40/day for jury duty. If your company has less, or you're a contractor/freelancer, the government pays the $40/day. Since I had a student exemption, coming home for the summer, I got called. 3 days on a civil suit trial. Defenses' main witness craps out on 'em and decides to settle. Easiest $120 I earned.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Jury duty's always bothered me.   by Russ Morrison       at Tue 13 Aug 2:35pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 2     I don't understand why there isn't a ... law forcing employers to pay employees ... Am I wrong on this? Yes, you are, and for the obvious reason: you're asking the wrong person to pay. Jury duty is a service performed for the government; by rights, the government (i.e., the taxpayer) should pay for time served. In most jurisdictions, the government does, indeed, pay jurors a stipend, though most often the amount won't cover parking in the City Hall parking lot. Want to make it really fair? If the taxpayers, through their elected representatives, are asking me to serve, then they should reimburse the full amount of my lost wages. I would have to prove the loss (say, with a couple of weeks/months worth of paycheck stubs, or with an invoice to a current client that has been paid). The Constitution mandates that, when the government confiscates my property, it must pay me the "just compensation"; since my time is my property, at least in theory, I should be "justly compensated" for its "confiscation". But just try and get the courts to recognize the Constitution. Yeah, that'll happen.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Sorry, Buddy   by Zi       at Tue 13 Aug 11:23am score of 1     "What advice would you give Mr. Williamson to employ while pleading his case?" Well, I would refer him to this web site, and tell him that life's not always fair. So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  hmmm   by eidilon       at Tue 13 Aug 11:23am score of 2 obnoxious     He doesn't seem too clear on the concept of society. Maybe next time this guy is about to be raped and murdered in a dark alley and a cop happens along the scene the cop will tell the guy to schedule an appointment to talk about rates rather than intervening. Or maybe an ex-girlfriend will falsely accuse him of child molestation but he won't be able to get a trial by jury without first offering to pay lost wages for all of the jurors. What advice would you give Mr. Williamson to employ while pleading his case? I would advise him to be argumentative and confrontational. Because I like it when people like get some jail time and a fine for contempt of court.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Suck it up   by Subtle Trouble       at Tue 13 Aug 11:25am score of 4 helpful     My man Mr. Williamson needs to suck it up and report for duty as instructed. Sure, he will incur the opportunity cost of those lost wages, but there are a couple of things he might want to consider. Mr. Williams is a consultant, which means that he relies on contracts to secure work, payment, etc. Were it not for our judicial system, which relies on jurors heavily in many cases, Mr. Williams would not be able to function as a consultant, since there would be no judicial enforcement of contracts. Without such enforcement of contracts, the only economic activity that would be viable is barter. He should consider pulling jury duty as part of his overhead cost. This guy appears to be one of those (many) people who enjoys freeloading off of the system until it is time to pay up. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Suck it up   by slippytoad       at Tue 13 Aug 11:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     But if Mr Williamson has to go into bankruptcy to defend the ever-so-delicate balance you've outlined, what good is it? Also, even if he's got a month of lay-by cash, if his clients keep calling him and he can't do the work, he will lose his clients to someone who can. People who want their computers fixed want them fixed now, not in three weeks. There are a million self-employed "consultants" out there. Only a percentage of them are worth a shit, and of those only the ones who can sell themselves successfully get to keep doing it. Your ideals, and the system, are incompatible with reality. Woohoo!!!!! FUCK YEAH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Suck it up   by Subtle Trouble       at Tue 13 Aug 11:51am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 10     Really this is no different than a military draft. During wartime, when the country's safety or other interest is deemed to be at risk, able-bodied men were called into action and forced to leave their livelihoods behind. This is the same thing, just with less dire consequences. Individuals sometimes must make sacrifices on behalf of the societal good. But if you read the article, you really should have no sympathy for this particular guy. He had been called for jury duty on numerous prior occasions. That would have put him on notice that such a call could come again and perhaps he should prepare for it. I will grant you that the justice system could stand some reform. One idea is to charge litigants higher filing fees in order to increase juror compensation, as long as the filing fees can be waived or eliminated for lower-income litigants. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Suck it up   by Thalia       at Tue 13 Aug 12:07pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 10     Actually, you can get out of jury duty if you can show that it will significantly affect your business. For example, small restaurant owners are rarely on jury duty because they can show that if they're not there, the restaurant closes, and the restaurant might not survive the experience. In reality, judges are perfectly reasonable about letting people out for "undue hardship." Mr. Williams should get a clue, and stop being obnoxious. If he IS called for jury duty, then he can discuss whether he can afford to take the time off from work or not. Another good way of getting out of jury duty, I've found, is to be an attorney. For some reason that tends to get me kicked out as the first peremptory challenge (challenge that provides no reason for removing someone from the jury pool... as opposed to a challenge for cause, e.g. bias or pre-conceived notions.) Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Suck it up   by Bearpaw       at Tue 13 Aug 12:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     This is the same thing, just with less dire consequences. Individuals sometimes must make sacrifices on behalf of the societal good. I wholeheartedly agree, though we seem to be in the minority. After two previous occasions when I was told I wasn't need for one reason or t'other, I finally got to serve on a jury last winter and was happy to do so. Though the judge's speech -- on civic duty and the importance of jury service and the Judicial branch in the US -- was tough to take after walking past an oversized portrait of Dubya in the lobby. Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Suck it up   by Subtle Trouble       at Tue 13 Aug 2:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Thalia, Yeah, I'd always heard that being an attorney was a good way to get out of jury duty, but it's not true in some jurisdictions. Back a while, I was lawyering in Nashville, TN and during my tenure there, two or three of my fellow counselors were called for jury duty, as was I. I never got out of the jury pool, but two of my lawyer friends were actually empaneled and heard cases. It seems that there is enough need for jurors in Davidson County that litigants will even accept attorneys as jurors. Your results may vary. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Suck it up   by snarkism       at Wed 14 Aug 12:23am score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 19     This is the same thing, just with less dire consequences. Individuals sometimes must make sacrifices on behalf of the societal good. "The societal good"??????? So throwing kids in jail for petty drug charges, and performing ambulance chasing frivilous lawsuits is in society's best interest? Bullshit. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Suck it up   by snarkism       at Wed 14 Aug 12:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Were it not for our judicial system, which relies on jurors heavily in many cases, Mr. Williams would not be able to function as a consultant, since there would be no judicial enforcement of contracts. Why not just eliminate juries? It's not as if they do any good. Better justice would be served without them. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   108.  Re: Suck it up   by Subtle Trouble       at Wed 14 Aug 5:33am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 100     That would work were in not for this document called the Constitution. You may have heard of it. It's kind of old, has lots of weird words that people don't really use much anymore, and it guarantees a right to criminal trial heard by a jury of your peers. Now for civil trials, you may have a point, depending on state and federal statutes. But there is a trend away from jury trials in many civil cases and towards arbitration and mediation. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   128.  Re: Suck it up   by OmnipotenceNet       at Thu 15 Aug 5:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 100     Snark, I'd post the whole thing here, but it's big, so please read The Juror's Handbook It illuminates quite well the need for a jury composed of the people and separate from governmental officials. I know I'd rather have a trial by jury than by some bored judge who'd just as soon throw me in jail to make his caseload shorter. Please read up on the protections from tyranny that an informed jury affords us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  Re: Suck it up   by snarkism       at Wed 14 Aug 6:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 108     That would work were in not for this document called the Constitution. You may have heard of it. It's kind of old, has lots of weird words that people don't really use much anymore, and it guarantees a right to criminal trial heard by a jury of your peers. Well, normally I like the constitution. However, in this case, the ideals of it simply are not working. You can amend the constitution, it is a living document. There is no way that juries work in this day and age. This stupid stipend also shows how out of touch with the economics of working life the courts are. A jury is probably about the stupidest way of deciding justice that I have ever heard of. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: Suck it up   by Subtle Trouble       at Thu 15 Aug 8:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 119     Snark, You're right when you say that the jury system has flaws, but what is the alternative? Without a jury, a person's fate (civil or criminal) will end up being decided by a judge. That's a lot of power for one man or woman, especially where they may be nothing more than a politician who must run for reelection, or a political appointee who got his or her job by being connected to the right people, or they may actually be an upstanding jurist who tries to do their best. You never know. That's why we have juries, to ensure that a person's fate is decided by more than one person. By involving more people, you have a greater chance of a fair decision. This system is failing, not because of inherent flaws, but rather the attitude of the citizens when called for jury duty (like this Williamson fellow) and the policy of the local, state and federal governments that fail to make jury duty pratical for working people. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   129.  Study!   by LoRes       at Fri 16 Aug 8:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 123     Well, it's pretty easy to decide: study under which system (decision by jury, by a number of judges, and a combination of both) there are the less innocents who go to jail and the less guilty who walk away. Agreed, the latter is pretty tough to determine, but we could use the proportion of acquitted people later incriminated. And actually, this article states that judges -professionally trained- believe juries get it wrong in *25%* of the cases. That's HUGE. Another notable quote clearly put in doubt the intelligence/willingness of jurors: "[wrongful acquittals] appear to result from a failure of the jury to apply to the evidence the intellectual rigour necessary" Juries acquit much, much more often than judges (13:1 if the article is to be believed). Maybe they aren't too lax in the same proportion than judges are too severe, but clearly it is all in the interest of the innocent that the juries remain. Unless of course you object to have thousands of swindlers, thieves and murderers released against the opinion of the judge. I always feel nauseous when I hear that a man was wrongly imprisoned for years. But as far as society as a whole is concerned, juries do not seem the most adequate system for fair justice.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  A little more tact would have been in order...   by geekybob       at Tue 13 Aug 11:27am score of 2 astute     I've been excused from jury duty several times for similar reasons, but never have I tried to play it so high-handedly. My replies to each jury summons ran along these lines: "I am unable to lose the income that I would normally earn during the period of jury duty for which I have been summoned. Serving this period would cause severe financial hardship. Please excuse me from service unless I can be paid the same as I would make in my current employment." Of course, computer consultants are not in high demand right now... so maybe the judge understands this, and figures that Mr. Williamson is working at Wal-Mart right now while he papers the world with résumés. I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

78.  Time to eat your hat   by ryandcs ucsc       at Tue 13 Aug 5:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Of course, computer consultants are not in high demand right now... so maybe the judge understands this, and figures that Mr. Williamson is working at Wal-Mart right now while he papers the world with résumés. I'm currently a computer consultant who is working and living here. "Egg whites are good for a lot of things; lemon merangue pie, angel food cake, and clogging up radiators." -- MacGyver   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  No, time to eat yours.   by A. H. Cretin       at Wed 14 Aug 2:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 78     Of course, computer consultants are not in high demand right now I'm currently a computer consultant who is working and living here. Bully for you. Unless geekybob is speaking a new dialect of English, "not in high demand" != "not in any demand at all". You're one of the good and/or lucky ones; I know several (and know of lots more) computer consultants & programmers who've been under/unemployed since the .bomb went off. To try to bring this back around to the topic at hand, what do you think of Williamson's actions? Could your consulting business survive if you were told to "keep August free" for jury duty? Your insight would be appreciated, as you're much closer to Williamson's state than those of us who aren't computer consultants and have minimal knowledge of the industry. -A Humorless Cretin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: No, time to eat yours.   by ryandcs ucsc       at Wed 14 Aug 9:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 103     "not in high demand" != "not in any demand at all" Indeed. However geekybob stated that: given that computer consultants aren't in high demand, the judge should assume that Williamson works at Walmart. I was merely pointing out that this assumption just doesn't hold water. Could your consulting business survive if you were told to "keep August free" for jury duty? Being employed by Instructional Computing, here at the University of California, I seriously doubt my employer going belly-up. That being said, with the high cost of living here, I'd have problems if I sat in a court-room for a week: let alone an entire month. Even if I were registered to vote in this area, I can't imagine still be forced to serve: in my situation. I honestly, don't know Williamson's financial situation, but I can say that there is something to be said for using more indirect approaches. "Egg whites are good for a lot of things; lemon merangue pie, angel food cake, and clogging up radiators." -- MacGyver   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Threats and coercion equal bad justice   by scotay       at Tue 13 Aug 11:29am score of 5 compelling     There's nothing that arrogant asshole lawyers and lawyers in robes hate more than uppity arrogant citizens that would dare stand up to their coercive tactics. This guy is going to get slammed if he doesn't show up. I was a foreman on a minor civil trial. I got to keep my pittance of a jury's salary in addition to what my employer was paying me. My duty was a profitable vacation as far as I was concerned. A self-employed carpenter and woman who was a clown at kid's parties were losing their shirts during the course of the trail. They explained their situations to the judge, but he rebuffed them in an arrogant manor. Unless they were in immanent threat of physical death, this judge was going to make them serve. As we deliberated, things got heated. I noticed the retired and employed people were willing to stick to their guns, forcing us to really consider the evidence to get agreement. The self-employed folks were basically willing to flow with the tide to get the hell out of there. I don't fault them, and now that I am self-employed, I can appreciate their situation even more. I blame the judge for putting them at an unfair disadvantage compared to other the jurors who could afford to defend their positions however long it took. The end result of the trail was having an enraged plaintiff, who we just awarded a small sum to, turn bright red and ask to have us polled. Turns out our few $1000 wasn't the 100K victory his client had been promised. The whole case left our jury angry, filled with questions and doubt, and feeling downright soiled by a controlling justice system. The case was an example of grays with no easy black-and-white answers. I felt the judges and lawyers were argumentative and arrogant and threatening with little concern for the jury, other than managing us through the case. Justice and fairness took second place to filling the seats with warm bodies. The only clear thing in my case was that the coercing unwilling citizens into jury duty makes for shitty justice.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: Threats and coercion equal bad justice   by Subtle Trouble       at Tue 13 Aug 11:36am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 8     Sure, some people have a hard time serving on a jury, especially where there is such small compensation. Last time I served, I got something like $5/day plus parking. The article, however, says that this joker had requested and been granted exemptions from duty on at least two previous occasions, and records indicated that he may have avoided jury duty for as long as 7 years. That's too much and I can't feel sorry for him. We, as citizens who reap the benefits of the court system every day, need to do our duty when called upon. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  2 previous occasions?   by LostBoyJim       at Tue 13 Aug 12:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     I am 34 and have received ONE notice for jury duty (state), but was not required to even go to the courthouse. I phoned in with my raffle number and was told not to come in. 3 summons seems a bit high, even for a 7 year period. jim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: 2 previous occasions?   by Subtle Trouble       at Tue 13 Aug 2:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     It's luck of the draw as to when you get picked for duty. During my college years, my "lost" year, and the beginning of law school (a six year span, roughly), I lived in about four or five different locations and received a summons in three of them. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Lack of courage and character equal bad justice   by rickcolosimo       at Tue 13 Aug 3:18pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 8     First, I'm surprised that you place the blame for your "poor results" on the judges who are simply applying the system as it is designed. You seem knowledgeable and coherent. Do you think that the judiciary has the ability to set the jury duty compensation, or has the funds to pay it? Maybe there's a state somewhere with a different system, but it's the legislature, i.e., Congress, that makes federal law and dispenses funds. You want more money, you petition Congress. That's how the system works. Second, don't you think that it's fair that every citizen do her duty and be available to serve on juries? Maybe the burden falls unfairly on some at certain times, but judges do have a certain amount of latitude in this regard. If every person were able to skip out on jury duty just by saying he might lose some salary, who would serve? Don't you think a jury made up of either unemployed people or the independently wealthy might lead to even worse miscarriages of justice? What if the unemployed let all criminals go free, and the wealthy convicted them all? Third, shame on you for letting the jurors' morals be so easily trampled. As the foreperson, it's your duty to see that all jurors are afforded an equal voice. If you really thought that a juror was holding out because he could "afford" to, and another gave in not because he agreed but because of the monetary hardship, you had a responsibility (indeed, any juror would, but it should have been readily apparent to you) to inform the judge. Then, you can post here and say that the system is screwy, having at least taken some action. Perhaps your description of the event was ellipsed and the pertinent details omitted, in which case please accept my apology. I do think, though, that yours should stand as a cautionary tale to others who might lack the moral courage to do what they think is right. Finally, remember that jurors are not the only ones with interests inside the courtroom, civil or criminal. The parties have a right to a jury of their peers, and the people at large have a similar interest in seeing well-formed juries. For many of the same reasons that we have (belatedly) outlawed race-based jury selection, financial and other reasons (including, finally, being a lawyer itself) are not considered valid reasons for excluding potential jurors.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Lack of courage and character equal bad   by zanzibar       at Tue 13 Aug 9:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 62     First, I'm surprised that you place the blame for your "poor results" on the judges who are simply applying the system as it is designed. You seem knowledgeable and coherent. Do you think that the judiciary has the ability to set the jury duty compensation, or has the funds to pay it? Judges don't set jury compensation, but they have enormous discretion to excuse those potential jurors who may not be able to do their jobs thoroughly and carefully. I've seen individuals excused because they had "too much work to do", and I've seen others forced to serve when they did a bad job (read rude and hasty) of explaining their very legitimate reasons. Second, don't you think that it's fair that every citizen do her duty and be available to serve on juries? Maybe the burden falls unfairly on some at certain times, but judges do have a certain amount of latitude in this regard. If every person were able to skip out on jury duty just by saying he might lose some salary, who would serve? Again, the issue here is not one of fairness to the juror, it's one of fairness to the defendant (or the State, or the Plaintiff, for that matter.) A Judge has a critical responsibility to provide a jury that's capable of processing and evaluating the facts. Don't you think a jury made up of either unemployed people or the independently wealthy might lead to even worse miscarriages of justice? If the situation were that dire, it would certainly be understandable for the Judge to compel those members to serve. And if I were the last man on earth, Letitia Casta might sleep with me. Let's not speculate about extreme cases.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Lack of courage and character equal bad   by scotay       at Wed 14 Aug 8:23am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 62     The judge charged me to listen attentively, not discuss the case until deliberation, and follow a procedure outlined in a judgment worksheet. The justice system never charged me with being another man's moral compass. After we had a unanimous vote, I offered another chance to continue deliberations. That's about all I could be expected to do. Who was I, as this punk-ass, twenty-something single guy who was making a profit, to pass judgment on a middle-aged, married dude concerned about feeding his kids. I remember how he stormed out of there, clearly unsatisfied with a compromise verdict. As it turns out, I think he was right in the beginning of the deliberations when he didn't want to award the plaintiff a single cent. In our case, the plaintiff claimed his foot was run over by the defendant. We heard testimony of the incident, medical experts from the plaintiff, and a few post-emergency room photos. We get no police report or emergency room report. As a jury we had already decided to assign 40% of the blame to the plaintiff. The main issue of concern was making the medical evidence jibe with the testimony we had heard and struggled to remember sans notes. The lack of contradictory medical testimony by the defense left us to make a vaguely educated guess. If the defense had presented a single piece of rebuttal medical testimony, the plaintiff's case might have fallen apart. After the trial, I took the opportunity to talk to the Judge and the defense attorney. He was happy as a clam, despite having lost. His insurance company client had offered to settle for much more than we awarded the plaintiff. We asked him about the lack of medical testimony from his side. He said it was a cost issue. I asked the Judge about the denied police report and what he thought about the case. He said he didn't believe the plaintiff was injured per his story, but he had the benefit of seeing the police report we didn't. Turns out the cop was friends with one of them and his report was withheld from us. For a jury that couldn't take notes, question witnesses, or have access to police reports, we did pretty damn good. We were hand-picked novices thrown to the legal sharks. It was just the way the lawyers wanted it. We came out of the legal chum line with all of our extremities intact, but we hardly felt clean.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   126.  Re: Lack of courage and character equal bad   by TheMCP       at Thu 15 Aug 9:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 113     In our case, the plaintiff claimed his foot was run over by the defendant. [snip] We get no police report or emergency room report. As a jury we had already decided to assign 40% of the blame to the plaintiff. [snip] I asked the Judge about the denied police report and what he thought about the case. He said he didn't believe the plaintiff was injured per his story, but he had the benefit of seeing the police report we didn't. [snip] For a jury that couldn't take notes, question witnesses, or have access to police reports, we did pretty damn good. Idunno about that, it sounds a lot more like "we did no worse than could be expected given the difficult circumstances imposed on us" to me. It sounds like your jury awarded a few thousand dollars to a liar and fraud from a relatively innocent party because you weren't given the relevant police report. This could be characterized as "we didn't hurt the innocent guy very much." (Of course, it depends on the life of the guy whose few thousand dollars it was you awarded to the liar/fraud. If he was rich it's no big deal. If he was poor, well, you might have ruined his life.) End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  I have thought of doing this...   by VesuviusDC       at Tue 13 Aug 11:31am score of 1.5 nuanced     On the one hand, it seems one should serve on a jury, to make sure that the jury is composed of the accused' peers. On the other hand, many people are paid hourly, and not on a salary. So for them to serve on a jury, they take a severe financial hardship. This seems grossly unfair. He handled it all wrong, however. He sent them an invoice before he even served. What he should have done is ask for one of two things: 1. A court order asking that his current client be made to pay him for the time spent on the jury. 2. A court note excusing him from serving due to financial hardship. I'd love to serve on a jury, but I simply can't afford to do so, because I am not salaried. To send them a bill up front billing them for time not served yet not only was dumb, but was fraud (charging for services not actually delivered).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  My suggestion   by philipmarlowe       at Tue 13 Aug 11:35am score of 1     Well, he could have taken a little time a while back and gone straight through the reasons that he couldn't take time off of his work for jury duty, but it's too late now. So, if he's gonna be a jerk, he might as well go the whole way. Here's a speech for him to start with. "Well, judge whoever you are, I have a VERY important job. I'm sure that you can't relate. But I have to do big things like tell people what to do with their computers. So let me off the hook, got it.." That will probably work. this is not a sig   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Wouldn't You Know It   by Saint_Waldo       at Tue 13 Aug 11:41am score of 3.5 astute     From an already linked source Contempt penalties range from a $100.00 fine to three (3) days imprisonment; or both. Looks like the contempt charge is actually cheaper. 1-73 hours of payment is better than ~720. Saint Waldo …the Renaissance will not be Midævalized…   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Re: Wouldn't You Know It   by Dredd       at Tue 13 Aug 11:49am score of 4.5 funny   in reply to comment 14     From paperwork not yet filed... ;-) "Would Your Honor simply let me know what penalty is to be assessed. It is, at its maximum, a significant cost-savings for me to tell Your Honor to go fuck himself, as I will spend a maximum of three days with my dick in my hand as opposed to the seven weeks you previously demanded. That way I can get back to business instead of listening to you drone on about miniscule points of law that the average layman probably understands better than you do. Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter. Blow Me, Computer Guy"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Wouldn't You Know It   by hilker       at Tue 13 Aug 12:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     What makes you so sure the judge wouldn't fine the guy, imprison him, and then make him serve on the jury anyway? Or find him in contempt again if he still refuses? Rinse, repeat...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Wouldn't You Know It   by lblack       at Tue 13 Aug 12:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     Because that would immediately exempt him from having to serve jury duty, as he would obviously have a bias against the judge, or against the court itself. Is why.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Reform the jury system entirely   by Dredd       at Tue 13 Aug 11:44am score of 4 brilliant     What the heck is this independent business man supposed to? Lodge his thumb up his ass and not work for the entire month of August because he "might get called up for jury duty"? I'm a firm believer that the jury system needs complete reform. Here's how. Twelve jurors are selected randomly (plus alternates). You MUST show up. If you are a W2 employee, your employer MUST pay you full wages for the duration of your jury duty. The court must provide child-care facilities for children of jurors. If you are an 1099 or contract employee, provide documentation of your average hourly rate for the last calendar year, and the court must pay the average rate for any business day they expect you to be on call and available for jury duty. Lawyers get NO ability to weed out jurors. A jury of your client's peers is going to have biases and personal opinions. They're going to have preconceived notions. Nothing in the Constitution says you get to have a collection of idiot savants for jurors. Too often, our jurors are poor, uneducated, folks who simply have nothing better to do than to show up for jury duty. Everyone who is smart or wealthy has gotten themself excused via a trumped-up "economic hardship", or is smart enough to sound biased against a defendant (without sounding like they're obviously faking it), etc. We need to get back to "twelve random folks", and make sure that those twelve random folks don't pay the price for some frivolous lawsuit. The court's time is reimbursed in the way of realistic (often outrageous) fees, so why aren't the jurors guaranteed to not take a loss on it as well?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by eidilon       at Tue 13 Aug 11:54am score of 3 succinct   in reply to comment 15     Everyone who is smart or wealthy has gotten themself excused via a trumped-up "economic hardship", or is smart enough to sound biased against a defendant (without sounding like they're obviously faking it), etc. Every one of my friends has gone in for jury duty when called and served when a jury was seated without complaining, even when we are making minium wage at a bookstore. But we're just a bunch of selfish Gen X types that don't know anything about civic duty or responsibility.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by bjrubble       at Tue 13 Aug 3:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Who said anything about selfish Gen X types? You're just not smart or wealthy. I guess one person *can* make a difference, but most of the time they probably shouldn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by Anywhere       at Tue 13 Aug 6:44pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 20     Well, let's see. From my own jury summons, and some of the examples given in this thread, I'd be willing to say that jury duty pays ~$40/day. So, someone "making minium (sic) wage at a bookstore" isn't actually losing money by serving jury duty (assuming, of course, that you actually work an eight hour shift; if you work less, you're actually gaining money). Therefore, it isn't any type of economic hardship. When serving on jury duty actually will cause you some form of economic hardship, you can probably get on your soap box about civic duty and responsibility. Gateway computers are pieces of shit, and their customer service is abysmal. Ask me why if you want to hear me vent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by LostBoyJim       at Tue 13 Aug 12:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Too often, our jurors are poor, uneducated, folks who simply have nothing better to do than to show up for jury duty. Everyone who is smart or wealthy has gotten themself excused via a trumped-up "economic hardship", or is smart enough to sound biased against a defendant (without sounding like they're obviously faking it), etc. -1 Strawman Most salaried employees are paid by thier company to take jury duty. There is no financial reason for them NOT to go. And while you smugly sit there an preach about "smart or wealthy" people avoiding jury duty, most people in the US are more than vaguely patriotic, and view jury duty as a DUTY. Hell, some of us were raised by our parents to view it as a PRIVILEGE! That includes is smart, not really wealthy 30 somethings too. LostBoy jim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Lies Our Parents Told Us   by mischief       at Tue 13 Aug 12:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     some of us were raised by our parents to view it as a PRIVILEGE! I stopped believing everything my parents said when I was 5. "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by Dredd       at Tue 13 Aug 12:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Most salaried employees are paid by thier company to take jury duty. There is no financial reason for them NOT to go. Cite your source of statistic for the use of the word "most". I've worked in salaried positions at a number of companies, and they were split fairly evenly between "paid normal wage", "paid a stipend", and "you're on your own, but we won't hold it against you for the unpaid time off". And while you smugly sit there an preach about "smart or wealthy" people avoiding jury duty, most people in the US are more than vaguely patriotic, and view jury duty as a DUTY. Again with this "most" thing... I think if you actually were to watch jury selection (as I have), you'd notice that the folks on the jury who seemed to possess clue were also the ones coming up with creative ways to get out of it. I agree with you that it IS a privilege and a duty, but the reality is that I don't think the evidence bears out that you and I are in the majority, and that means that reform of the system is necessary to make it something people don't (or can't) avoid.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Lies Our Parents Told Us   by stankow       at Tue 13 Aug 1:25pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 35     So you ate a lot of crayons in the first grade, in between your bouts of crawling onto hot stovetops, playing in traffic and killing your siblings?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: Lies Our Parents Told Us   by snarkism       at Wed 14 Aug 12:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     So you ate a lot of crayons in the first grade, in between your bouts of crawling onto hot stovetops, playing in traffic and killing your siblings? He said by the age of 5, damnit. You already know all those things by then. Heck, I could read novels and basic scientific literature by that age. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by lordsatan       at Tue 13 Aug 1:51pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 15     Too often, our jurors are poor, uneducated, folks who simply have nothing better to do than to show up for jury duty. Everyone who is smart or wealthy has gotten themself excused via a trumped-up "economic hardship", or is smart enough to sound biased against a defendant (without sounding like they're obviously faking it), etc. well, now we finally know how o.j. got off   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by dylanr       at Tue 13 Aug 2:11pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 15     If you are a W2 employee, your employer MUST pay you full wages for the duration of your jury duty. You're not making as much of a distinction as you think. You're equating the self-employed with sole proprietors. Under sole proprietorship, the owner is the business and the business is them. Sole proprietorship is for chumps, however, as one or two years of actually doing it will make clear to anyone... you pay more tax, incur greater liability, and gain zero perks in the process. It really isn't a smart way to do business. What the savvier self-employed do is incorporate and have the business hire them as... yes, a W2 employee. That way, the corporation can buy things like health insurance and retirement plans while the owner collects regular wages. So when you're talking about small business people or even single-person shops, realize that many of them are actually working for corporations which may not be any better-resourced than they are. In other respects, I agree that jurors should be more adequately compensated... but realize that consultants charge 2x what they expect to make since they pay taxes at about 50%. Thus, a $100/hr. consultant is actually earning $50 and paying $50 in taxes. Perhaps a happy middle point could be reached by making juror compensation non-taxable. In theory there should be no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there usually is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by Dredd       at Tue 13 Aug 2:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 52     I liked the idea someone else posted of "the court must pay you your prevailing wage, as documented by pay stubs, etc." You're right that my plan would hurt small businesses and sole proprietors. Put the cost where it belongs. The problem, of course, is that when $BIG_CEO's name comes up, his week of time will be worth about $20,000, and the court would be obliged by law to pay it (heaven help them if he gets called up for a long trial).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by stankow       at Tue 13 Aug 4:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 56     Re paying juror's prevailing wage: How about doing it only for non-salaried workers? As for high-priced consultants, set a reasonable upper limit, based on the area.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by eidilon       at Tue 13 Aug 7:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Lawyers get NO ability to weed out jurors. What if one of those randomly selected jurors is the spouse of accused? Or an employee of the accused? Do you really want those people sitting on the jury? Under your system, not only is there no way to remove those people from the jury but there is no reason that the other jurors would even know of those prejudicing factors. I don't think many people would agree to a system that lets the spouse of the accused sit on the jury. Rather than write up a bunch of rules saying who can and cannot be excused and under what circumstances, which may leave some unfortunate loopholes (what if you as a juror believe the accused raped your sister 10 years ago and was unjustly acquitted?), why not just provide a simple system for removing biased jurors? Which is pretty much what we have right now. What the heck is this independent business man supposed to? Lodge his thumb up his ass and not work for the entire month of August because he "might get called up for jury duty"? What happens if the country is at war and he gets drafted? There are some obligations that come with living in this country. Your solution still doesn't seem to help a whole lot with the independent businessperson. They can't close up their shop for a day, the difference in revenue might make the difference between bankruptcy and solvency. They can't delegate to someone else (or rather, they could, but they could do so under the current system as well). And they only have to look into the mirror if they want to complain about not getting paid normal wages while on jury duty under the current system.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   114.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by Dredd       at Wed 14 Aug 8:43am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 88     What if one of those randomly selected jurors is the spouse of accused? Or an employee of the accused? Do you really want those people sitting on the jury? Under your system, not only is there no way to remove those people from the jury but there is no reason that the other jurors would even know of those prejudicing factors. Absolutely. First off, the chances of it happening are fairly slim. Second, that's the price you pay. These are your peers, randomly selected. Some of them are going to have racist thoughts, some of them are going to have sexist thoughts, some of them are not going to like you because you look like some German who tried to kill them in WW2. It doesn't matter. You know, going in, that the jury will have twelve completely random individuals, and there is zero discretion in who they can/will be. The lawyers of the world have shown that giving them and the court discretion only leads to, by and large, stupid juries. What happens if the country is at war and he gets drafted? You want to argue the draft? Start a new topic, and I'll happily go down that road with you as well. Government conscription of its citizenry to fight a war is wrong, plain and simple. If the people don't want to volunteer to fight the war, the country has a hard time defending the position that it's doing what the people want.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: Reform the jury system entirely   by Aquaplane       at Wed 14 Aug 6:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Twelve jurors are selected randomly (plus alternates). You MUST show up... Bravo. I vote for you. At the risk of sounding like a 7th-grade essay-contest-winner, serving on a jury is a privilege and a duty, not to mention a rare learning experience. The system needs to be redesigned to make it easier for people to serve. And, somehow, we need to instill in people from an early age that civic duty is not an inconvenience but the cost of living in a democratic republic. God, that sounds really dorky, but I believe every word of it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  What not to do when trying to get out of jury duty   by hudibrastic       at Tue 13 Aug 11:45am score of 3 funny     I can understand the guy sending smart-ass letters to the court. Some people are just assholes. But why contact the paper with the story? Why give a reporter the (presumably) private correspondence from the judge? Why pose for a picture grinning like a smug dipshit? I imagine the judge seeing the article and spit-taking his morning coffee into his cornflakes. Williamson is going to be a world of hurt. I'm not Anonymous. Can't you see my username?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Well aren't jury lists compiled   by Henry Fnord       at Tue 13 Aug 12:24pm score of 1     from registered voters? Yet another reason for the self-employed not to vote it seems. "This comment has been brought to you by a grant from the Fnord Foundation, and viewers like you."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Re: Well aren't jury lists compiled   by elforman       at Tue 13 Aug 12:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Are jury lists compiled from lists of registered voters? Well, no, not always. In many instances at the state and county level, the lists are generated from data provided by the state's Department of Motor Vehicles. That greatly increases the number of eligible jurors.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: Well aren't jury lists compiled   by Jojo       at Tue 13 Aug 5:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     I can vouch for that. In LA County I have been called for Jury service 3 times in 3 years. I am not a citizen, so I'm not registered as a voter, and I'm not eligible to do Jury Duty. However I do have a California driving license, so that must be where they get my name. Every time, I dutifully send back the little form with my alien registration number, but apparently they don't take people off the list of potential jurors just because they are ineligible. Jojo   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: Well aren't jury lists compiled   by elforman       at Tue 13 Aug 6:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 81     Maybe they're keeping you on the list figuring you may become a citizen someday?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   127.  Re: Well aren't jury lists compiled   by Jojo       at Thu 15 Aug 12:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 82     They've got a long wait then. My green card hasn't been approved yet, and after that I would still have to wait 5 years. What's more efficient, sending out jury duty callups only to people on the registered voters list, or paying for the extra postage costs and manpower to process and reprocess the "I am ineligible" replies every time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Draftlike?   by dug4000       at Tue 13 Aug 12:30pm score of 2.5 compelling     Subtle Trouble made the point earlier that this is in essence no different from a military draft. I feel that this is accurate with one exception - Drafted soldiers are adequately paid. I do feel that Jury Duty is the responsibility of every citizen and should not be shirked. But it is not unreasonable for jurors to be paid decently. And minimum wage doesn't count. Spring Theatreworks   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  Minimum wage, you wish.   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 13 Aug 12:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     In Delaware, the jury duty stipend is a princely $20, regardless of the length of the trial. Even for one day on the jury, you're talking $2.50 per hour. But, as has been pointed out upthread, most people who serve on juries who are employed are paid their regular pay by their employer. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Minimum wage, you wish.   by weave       at Wed 14 Aug 12:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 39     I just did my jury duty two months ago in Delaware. It's $20 a day, but the first day you show up is not paid. The reason is, in Delaware, they call a large number of people each day, but if you don't get a case that day, your duty is done for at least two years. If you get excused from a case, you go back "downstairs" and wait for another. Of the seven cases that were on the docket that day, all of them save one was settled before the jury got called out of the room. The one that was not settled happened to be one that I got picked for. However, while sitting in the courtroom I saw a good friend poke his head in who was a lawyer. I had no idea if he was involved in the case. The court attendant rattled off the long list of reasons why you might be excused, ask for those who felt they met any to come forward. I did, mainly to ask if my friend was involved in the case. I wasn't given a chance to ask, was told "excused." It sucks, but if I was ever falsely accused of a crime and stood trial, I would hope that I'd have a panel of jurors who were something better than homeless people with no education. I figure it's just a cost of being a citizen of a free country, although we were told the U.S. is the last country with juries comprised of the public (that true?!)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  question   by jjgiddes       at Tue 13 Aug 2:07pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 31     I do feel that Jury Duty is the responsibility of every citizen and should not be shirked. But it is not unreasonable for jurors to be paid decently. And minimum wage doesn't count. OK -- I'm with you. How are you going to pay for it? Higher income tax? Sales tax? Sin taxes? Moreover, is increasing wages for jurors more important than other worthy considerations once that money is in the county's coffers -- such as hospital staffing, education, adding more police officers, environmental protection, etc? "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Re: question   by Kope       at Tue 13 Aug 5:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Here's a unique idea ... cut back on un-necessary discretionary spending. Oh God .. fiscal responsibility? No! not that!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   116.  here's another unique idea   by jjgiddes       at Wed 14 Aug 10:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 79     ...NIMBY. Let's take the example of my birthplace, Kern County, CA (I know, I've heard it all). Take a look at its Summary of Budget Recommendations, or more specifically, its graph of Use of Funds by Function. OK, you're saying, what's that fund for General Government doing there, or that Recreation and Culture fund? General Government? Administrative functions and offices which are arguably necessary to the functioning of local government. Recreation and Culture? Park upkeep, as well as discretionary spending, buried in a pie chart. 3.9% of the Recreation and Culture budget is discretionary. Using my rudimentary math skills (or Windows' calculator), 3.9% of $8,437,925 is $329,079.08. Now: given that Kern County is one of the most conservative (fiscally and socially) places in all California (with the possible exception of Orange County), one would think that public funds would be used to supplant the court system a little better -- $300K isn't going to go very far for increasing juror compensation given the number of trials that take place in any county. But they don't. Why? Because Kern County, like many counties, is notoriously adverse to increasing taxes in any sphere to pay for public services. These people want to keep their jobs, after all. Sure, maybe these county supervisors are increasing their salaries, as many do, so they can live large off of public largesse. But the solution definitely isn't as simple as your glib statement would have me believe. "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  basic pie chart interpretation 101   by jjgiddes       at Wed 14 Aug 10:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 116     $8,437,925 is probably the whole 3.9% of the county's discretionary spending. The point remains the same, however. It's never going to be enough to pay for an increase in juror compensation and have enough in the kitty left over to pay for other things the county sets its sights on. "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Draftlike?   by Subtle Trouble       at Tue 13 Aug 2:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     I think "adequately paid" should be qualified. Certainly, in an absolute sense, a draftee is better compensated than a juror. In a relative sense, however, a draftee's compensation varies based on what money he was making before that he must now sacrifice to serve in the military, as well as the value the draftee places on giving up his sense of safety and taking up armed combat. In that sense, a middle-class draftee is probably no better off than a middle-class juror. In the case of this Williamson dude, he is not asking for compensation based on an absolute measure, but rather based on his regular salary that must be sacrificed by serving. In a previous post, I agreed that juror compensation could be improved. My proposal was that the filing fees be raised in jury trials, as long as lower income litigants could be accounted for. Obviously, this would only apply to civil and not criminal trials. Higher fees would also lower the number of litigants requesting jury trials, which wouldn't be bad, since there is some evidence that jury trials are not always the best way to resolve certain disputes. de asini umbra disceptare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Draftlike?   by kindall       at Tue 13 Aug 3:59pm score of 1.5 novel   in reply to comment 31     One solution to this would be to simply have unemployment cover time spent on a jury (without, of course, the requirement to make X number of job contacts per week). No, it's not going to replace a $100K a year salary, but it'd certainly be better than what people get now, and in most cases it will be enough to squeak by. The self-employed could also be made eligible upon presentation of tax returns or somesuch. This would raise the rates businesses pay for unemployment insurance marginally, but I don't think there are generally so many people on jury duty at any one time as to make this a major problem. I'm not incoherent, you're just dumb.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  small change would solve this   by dewdrops       at Tue 13 Aug 2:19pm score of 1.5 astute     Problems like this could be solved if Texas did what many other states do, which is to make each juror have to only set aside 1 day. No one's business is going to go down the tubes from being away for only 1 day at a time. Massachusetts switched to this system a few years ago and most people that live here prefer it. It's more likely that you'll get called (I've been called 3 times in 6 years), but you only have to miss a day of work (usually only a morning actually) so it works out better. For multi-day trials, the judge asks potential jurors if being away will cause them undue hardship and they are almost always willing to let someone who's self-employed go.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

57.  Re: small change would solve this   by elforman       at Tue 13 Aug 3:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     The Los Angeles County Superior courts have adopted the one-day, one-trial system. If you're not selected on the first day you're there, you're done. However, they are incredibly difficult when it comes to getting out due to financial hardship or self-employment. Unless you're at or near the poverty line, don't expect to be excused. The best you'll be able to hope for is a postponement of service, and even then they'll hold you to it. Also, they're recently increased the juror stipend from $5 to $10, plus mileage. But you don't get paid for the first day, so you only get paid if you're seated on a jury. Even the small $5 increase has cost the courts millions of dollars with no corresponding increase in their budget.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

58.  maybe jurors should get a fee percentage   by CynThetiQ       at Tue 13 Aug 3:10pm score of 1     Seems to me that there are court fees, judges fees, lawyers fees, why not a juror fee? Paying them because the city owes them the stipend is ridiculous in these times. Pay them something that someone will be able to leave. Take the median income of the USofA or their w2 from the previous year, and then give them that hourly wage. Instead of increasing taxes, fee gets picked up by LOSING party. Plastic is synthetic, and so are mine. ( . Y . )   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

70.  the seductive lure of "loser pays"   by jjgiddes       at Tue 13 Aug 4:12pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 58     Imagine you're a plaintiff suing, say, an energy company for dumping lots of chromium in the water and releasing toxic compounds in the air. Your attorney is working on contingency, so that's a relief, but you've got mounting medical bills to pay. In this sort of situation, there are a few adverse outcomes that exist with "loser pays" laws: 1) You settle when you shouldn't, or you abandon your case when you shouldn't. If, say, your case has merit but you're suing someone who can outspend you in court, it's in the powerful party's best interest to prolong litigation as long as possible -- the better to spend the opposing party into accepting a bogus settlement or simply browbeating them into an adverse judgement. Now, I'm not saying this doesn't happen in the present system, but I think under a "loser pays" system it would be even worse. 2) Again, assuming merit, you never bring your case to begin with. Why would you, if you're not even reasonably sure you'd get your judgement? A lot can happen in a trial. Maybe there is a case for reform, but there's that proverb about babies and bath water. 3) Explosive litigation. OK, let's assume that you've prevailed at the trial court level and you've scored for the little guy. The powerful defendant is now doubly motivated to appeal -- the better to recoup judgement and court costs from you, if successful. That's just a few I can think of for now... "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

63.  Military Draft, Jury Duty, and Taxes   by the_nameles_one       at Tue 13 Aug 3:37pm score of 1     You see if it was a draft for the Army he'd be losing his income anyway. Jury duty, taxes and possible military service are the price we citizens pay to run our government. Now I suppose we could pay more taxes and have that pay folks on jury duty a reasonable wage, but somehow I don't think that would be all that popular with folks paying taxes... So instead we all play the anti-lottery with jury duty wondering when the jury tax will fall.. "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

71.  Hehe   by Weezul       at Tue 13 Aug 4:21pm score of 1     I can tell you that if I were summoned to Jury duty for a non-violent drug offence trial, I would try like hell to get on the Jury by not making any noise.. and I would vote not guilty (unless there were extenuating circumstances). Frankly, getting a non-violent drug offender off is worth a day or so of my time. The point of the Jury system is to help keep the criminal justice system in check.. and this can only be done if juries are willing to refuse to convice based on unjust laws.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

73.  Why didn't I think of this?!   by mad_clown       at Tue 13 Aug 4:29pm score of 2 funny     I have two jobs, both which can certainly be classified as "computer consultant." When I got my summons, I didn't really want to go, but I did anyways. But hell, if I'd known being a big, important computer consultant trumped my civic duty to appear for jury duty (and honestly, being eligible every two years is an outrage! It makes it practically impossible to get things done!) I would've just told them off. After all, I'm a computer consultant!!! Why doesn't the justice system understand that I'm important!? Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

74.  i may be overestimating this man . .   by athenaj       at Tue 13 Aug 4:30pm score of 1.5 astute     but doesn't his little scheme make for great free publicity?? What's that expression, even bad publicity is good publicity, or something like that? The fact that he is an independent consultant in not so good times lends even more credence to this theory, imho. Plus the fact that he took his story to the papers himself. Now thousands of people know who he is, all at no (monetary) cost to him.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

83.  Re: i may be overestimating this man . .   by Tessera       at Tue 13 Aug 6:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 74     "There's no such thing as bad publicity."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

80.  This is a great idea!   by rockstar69       at Tue 13 Aug 5:35pm score of 1     I just get done reading about Dubya and his meeting down in Waco, where we, the taxpayers, foot the bill, and people think that Williamson is crazy? This would make jury duty not only a privilege, but a vacation from work. Just simply provide proof of employment and how much wages are being paid for that period. Consultants must provide contracts, etc.... I've always thought this was the way it should have been. I guess that is too fair and simple though.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

90.  Duty   by PinkMoose23       at Tue 13 Aug 8:23pm score of 1 obnoxious     As a citizen, do you not have certain obligations to your nation, like voting or jury duty ? This man seems selfish and greedy. eat rice;wash bowl   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

91.  Of course   by Oakenshield       at Tue 13 Aug 9:17pm score of 1     As a citizen, do you not have certain obligations to your nation, like voting or jury duty ? This man seems selfish and greedy. Well of COURSE he's selfish and greedy. He's American! Poor lad - must be new to Plastic.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

93.  not like being drafted   by KOMPRESSOR       at Tue 13 Aug 9:38pm score of 1     A lot of people are saying that jury duty is like being drafted by the military. But what about the fact that the average juror still has to pay bills, EAT, etc.? In the military, you don't pay for the roof over your head, the food you eat, or basically anything else. $5/day is not really enough to pay for basic needs. I think that more fairly compensating jurors will lead to better-formed juries because it won't be such a hardship to serve. "KOMPRESSOR IN CONTROL/KOMPRESSOR KRUSH YOUR SOUL" apple: not just a different way, a better way   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

124.  Re: not like being drafted   by WufPup       at Thu 15 Aug 8:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 93     Yeah, tell that to the Marines down in Virginia who need to apply for food stamps because his salary can't cover his expenditures. But definitely, provisions need to be made so that serving on a jury isn't such an economic hardship for many. -------------------kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the entire chicken.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

94.  I got called for jury duty once...   by McDLT       at Tue 13 Aug 10:10pm score of 1     I was supposed to mail back this form or some shit. Seemed like a lot of work so I threw it away. Never got another letter again... My dandy voice makes the most anti-choice granny's panties moist   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

109.  Something smells in the state of the, er, union   by vish       at Wed 14 Aug 5:35am score of 1     [side a] I can't say jury duty is the most fun you can have with your clothes on, but doesn't anyone feel that this is one of the few realms in modern society that one can actually have an effect in? Mister Williamson's bill is actually a pretentious way of complaining. It does suck that freelancers will lose out, but life sucks and unless he's going lose his house over it, I can't see why he should be exempt from jury duty. Apart from the fact that he's obviously a plonker. [side b] Still, not much compared to the corporate swine who routinely write to the government and complain that they're not making enough money so could the government please send them a little something to tide them over? When Space Shrew finally reached Glue Moon, she lay down and thought to herself, 'Shit! Glue Moon!'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

120.  Great   by Mr. Option       at Wed 14 Aug 7:23pm score of 1     Then I won't feel bad for this guy goes to trial for fraud or something and he's sent straight to jail since none of his peers could be bothered to show up at the trail to judge the facts. $50 a day too little to maintain his lifestyle? Then by all means, get involved in politics, and campaign for a jury salary increase. Then don't complain when your taxes go up. Think the courts should match whatever salary you get on the outside when you serve? How about you volunteer to be one of the army of auditors it will take to control the fraud. Or just admit that you don't think rich people should have to lower themselves to mingle with the common man in the jury room. Serving on a jury is an honor and a privilege. It should remind you that you don't live in the big bad world outside. I know how crumbling and fucked up our society seems to us, but consider the other 75% of the world's population, who can only fantasize about having fair trials and functioning criminal justice. There won't be a follow-up to this article, which is too bad, because I'd really enjoy reading how quick this guy will turn to mush within 30 seconds of meeting the judge and honestly considering doing a 30 day stretch for his "principles."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

121.  ADD   by Topaz       at Wed 14 Aug 8:44pm score of 1     Just tell them quietly that you have Attention Deficit Disorder. If you speak quietly enough the Judge will ask you to speak up at which point you say "HUH? I forgot the question."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]