Juror selection process
||The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with USA and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
The prosecutor and defense can dismiss potential jurors for various reasons, which can vary from one state to another, and they can have a specific number of arbitrary dismissals, or unconditional peremptory challenge, which does not require specific reasons. The judge can also dismiss potential jurors.
Some courts had been sympathetic to jurors' privacy concerns and refer to jurors by number, and conduct voir dire in camera (i.e., in private). In the United States, there have also been Fifth Amendment challenges and medical privacy (e.g., HIPAA) objections to this.
New South Wales
The jury system in New South Wales is administered by the Jury Services Branch of the Office of the Sheriff of New South Wales, an office in the New South Wales Department of Attorney General and Justice, and operates in accordance with the Jury Act 1977 and Jury Amendment Act 2010. These laws detail persons who are disqualified, ineligible, or may be excused from jury service are detailed. In addition, the Jury Exemption Act 1965 and section 7, "Excuse for cause", of LRC Report 117 (2007) details other persons who can or may not serve as jurors or otherwise claim exemption.
Individuals who are blind and/or deaf may be excluded from jury service.
During the juror selection process, both parties can object to up to three potential jurors without providing reasons.
Judicial proceeding means any action or suit, including any condemnation, preliminary, informational, or other proceeding of a judicial nature, but does not include an administrative proceeding (a summons or subpoena, to serve as a witness, by an administrative law judge). Administrative proceedings do not have juries; they are not informational or preliminary in nature and the judge makes the ultimate decisions.
When a person is called for jury duty in the United States, that service is mandatory and the person summoned for jury duty must attend. Failing to report for jury duty is not technically illegal and usually results in an individual simply being placed back into the selection pool to be called for another trial. However repeatedly ignoring a jury summons will result in strict penalties, which may include being fined or jailed for contempt of court. Employers are not allowed to fire an employee for being called to jury duty, but they are typically not required to pay salaries during this time. When attended, potential jurors may be asked to serve as a juror in a trial, or they may be dismissed.
In the United States, government employees are in a paid status of leave (in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 6322) for the duration spent serving as a juror (also known as court duty or court leave by some organizations). Many quasi-governmental organizations have adopted this provision into their contract manuals. Accordingly, government employees are in a paid status as long as they have received a summons in connection with a judicial proceeding, by a court or authority responsible for the conduct of that proceeding to serve as a juror (or witness) in the District of Columbia or a state, territory, or possession of the United States, Puerto Rico, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
The Supreme Court of the United States has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.".
Although jury duty is regarded as vital to the administration of justice and, as such, is considered a condition of U.S. citizenship, jury duty has been criticized by some libertarian groups as a form of involuntary servitude akin to conscription. Jurors are essentially conscripts rather than volunteers; however, as a practical matter, jurors unwilling to sit in cases expected to last months are excused.
In both the United States and Canada jurors having conscientious objection to service are generally excused from service. This chiefly includes groups like the Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and Conservative Mennonites.
Jury scam in the United States
In recent years, citizens of the United States have been targets of a "jury scam", wherein they are called by persons posing as officers from a court, claiming that the person did not show up for jury duty and that charges will be pressed. Targets are then told that the matter can be resolved if personal information is given.
Jury duty as a model
Some see the practice of jury duty as a model for other types of civic service. National civic discussions about how to "fix political gridlock and corruption" in the United States, for instance, might benefit from deliberate structure.
|Look up jury duty in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.|
- Hannaford P. L. (2001.) "Making the Case for Juror Privacy: A New Framework for Court Policies and Procedures", State Justice Institute.
- "NSW Legislation". Legislation.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2012-02-14.
- Jury Exemption Act 1965 — ComLaw, Australian Government
- Jury Exemption Act 1965 (Cth)
- Report 117 (2007) - Jury selection: 7. "Excuse for cause" — Law Reform Commission — Lawlink NSW
- Report 117 (2007) - Jury selection — Law Reform Commission — Lawlink NSW]
- McCallum R. (2011.) "Participating in Political and Public Life", Alternative Law Journal.
- Discussion Paper 12 (1985) - Criminal Procedure: The Jury in a Criminal Trial — Law Reform Commission — Lawlink NSW
- Jury Service — CaTS Corporate New South Wales
- Payment for jury service — CaTS Corporate New South Wales
- "Title 5: Government Organization and Employees — Justia". Law.justia.com. Retrieved 2012-02-14.
- Abramson, Jeffrey B., We, the jury: the jury system and the ideal of democracy, Harvard University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-674-00430-2
- "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard". Mises.org. Retrieved 2012-02-14.
- "Abolish Jury "Draft" | James A. Dorn | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary". Cato.org. Retrieved 2012-02-14.
- U.S. v. Blagojevich (7th Circ. 2010)]
- "Juror Scams". Uscourts.gov. Retrieved 2012-02-14.
- Lawrence Lessig (November 8, 2012). "Seizing 'Forward': 3 Steps Obama Must Take to Fight Corruption and Gridlock". Atlantic.com. Retrieved November 8, 2012.