Jury Duty Avoidance Success!

Katherine Mangu-Ward | April 30, 2009

The august members of our judicial system (and, as Jeff Winkler blogged earlier today, government entities in general) have long been sensitive to insults, slights, and snippy remarks from the rabble. Unlike the rest of us, court officials enjoy the privilege of being about to jail you for being rude to them. So you can imagine how well the District Court of Gallatin County, Montana, took to this response to a summons (click to enlarge):

The Smoking Gun reports: "The document, of course, did not sit well with court officials and led a judge to threaten to jail Slye. But after being summoned to court, Slye apologized for the affidavit and avoided being cited on a criminal failure to appear rap. And he also was excused from serving on a jury."

All's well that ends well.

And remember should you get placed on a jury despite your pleas, no Twittering during the proceedings. Plus, as Drew Carey's predecessor would remind us, don't forget to get your dog neutered or spayed.

Comments

|4.30.09 @ 4:43PM|#

"If you don't obey, we'll charge you with contempt of court."

"I'm desperately attempting to conceal my contempt for this court."

|4.30.09 @ 4:46PM|#

Slye for Congress!!!

|4.30.09 @ 4:50PM|#

"... count the wrinkles on my dog's balls"

How can any court not respect the wishes of a man that can turn a phrase like that.

SpongePaul|4.30.09 @ 4:50PM|#

Great letter. My Grandfather never served a day, when they asked if he belived in the death penalty he always said, yeah they should hang all them darkies. now he was not a raceist, he just used that line only for jury duty. it worked they always said. have a nice day, you are excused.

Brandon|4.30.09 @ 4:51PM|#

I've never understood jury duty's bad rap. A stipend, time off work, acquitting people of crimes that ought not to be crimes. What am I missing?

Orange Line Special|4.30.09 @ 4:53PM|#

I must have dozed off during the period of Reason's history where Bob Barker was Reason's in-house washed-up celebrity.

Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 4:57PM|#

"Great letter. My Grandfather never served a day, when they asked if he belived in the death penalty he always said, yeah they should hang all them darkies. now he was not a raceist, he just used that line only for jury duty. it worked they always said. have a nice day, you are excused."

My brother Jim does something similar. He tells them he'd have no problem sitting on a jury because he figures that the defendant must be guilty, otherwise the cops wouldn't have bothered to make an arrest.

Guess My Bra Size|4.30.09 @ 4:58PM|#

STFU LoneWackoff!

creech|4.30.09 @ 4:59PM|#

Too bad he now finds himself on a domestic terrorist watch list.

|4.30.09 @ 5:00PM|#

Now there's a real American.

|4.30.09 @ 5:26PM|#

If I was the judge, I believe I would have told him he would be excused provided he submitted an affidavit on how many wrinkles were, in fact, on his dog's balls.

SpongePaul|4.30.09 @ 5:27PM|#

The document, of course, did not sit well with court officials and led a judge to threaten to jail Slye.
_______________________________________________
jeez it was a request for excused jury duty, he did not threaten, all the clerk had to do was stamp not excused or exscused and send it on. they WASTED taxpayer dollar and time by making him appear to explain a letter. and threaten to throw him in jail, are we all taking drugs!

Paul|4.30.09 @ 5:30PM|#

Jury duty. Hmph. A friend told me years ago that if you show up for jury duty, they know they have a live one, and then you start getting notices all the time. I blew it off as conspiracy theory. I got a jury duty notice, I said "aahh, fuck it", I showed up (but didn't get picked for the trial, thank god). Sure enough, the jury notices started coming hot and heavy. Got something like three more in the next year.

I threw the last one away, never responded, never showed up. I've never been bothered again.

|4.30.09 @ 5:33PM|#

They never choose me to sit on a jury either. I don't even have to resort to the darkie defense. I have found that, when either lawyer asks you a question, if you sit there quietly and look like you are intently pondering said question and then start off your answer with, "well on one hand..."; they will always excuse you. It seems the last thing either the prosecution or defense wants is someone who can equivocate, much less knows the meaning of the word equivocate.

Paul|4.30.09 @ 5:33PM|#

I must have dozed off during the period of Reason's history where Bob Barker was Reason's in-house washed-up celebrity.

That would be you, OLS. Except for the "celebrity" part. And the washed up part, too. You have to have accomplished something to be "washed up".

|4.30.09 @ 5:37PM|#

Paul, don't respond to him. It just encourages him.

Elemenope|4.30.09 @ 5:39PM|#

Jury duty. Hmph. A friend told me years ago that if you show up for jury duty, they know they have a live one, and then you start getting notices all the time. I blew it off as conspiracy theory. I got a jury duty notice, I said "aahh, fuck it", I showed up (but didn't get picked for the trial, thank god). Sure enough, the jury notices started coming hot and heavy. Got something like three more in the next year.

Rhode Island put in to place jury reforms that prevent this sort of thing from happening. They can only call you once in any given three year period, whether you ultimately serve when called or not.

NightBastard|4.30.09 @ 5:43PM|#

The guy has a legit excuse. He's not getting paid. The judge and the clerks and the lawyers don't show up for free either.

|4.30.09 @ 5:44PM|#

Last time they called me up, they asked me if I knew the defendent. I said "No, never met him. But it was my bank that he robbed".

Federal Dog|4.30.09 @ 5:46PM|#

"If I was the judge, I believe I would have told him he would be excused provided he submitted an affidavit on how many wrinkles were, in fact, on his dog's balls."

Could be opening a can of worms. You'd need to appoint a special master to confirm the stated number, then prosecute, if necessary, for perjury. Deterrence and all that. You can't have sworn court statements claiming to quantify dog ball wrinkles that have not in fact been duly counted.

|4.30.09 @ 5:46PM|#

Paul,

I've been called six times. I know people who've never been called. It's ridiculous. I've only served on one trial, where I was the foreman and manipulated the jury to my will. Which is why attorneys should be automatically dismissed.

Dello|4.30.09 @ 5:49PM|#

I always attempt to sit on juries. I look at it this way: If I'm fighting for my freedom, wouldn't I want somebody like me on the jury?

Dr C|4.30.09 @ 5:50PM|#

Just mention something about jury nullification and I guarantee you'll never get a summons again.

|4.30.09 @ 5:53PM|#

My one experience in jury duty was about the worst experience of my life. They somehow let a complete psychopath onto the jury of which I was foreman. Completely immune to reason, extremely belligerent. Luckily we didn't require unanimity because he was going against the rest of us out of what I assumed was spite. Made me question whether the virtue of being judged by peers hadn't outlived its usefulness.

|4.30.09 @ 5:55PM|#

My great aunt once told me "the thing about jury duty is, you have to tell them you don't like black people. Then you'll never have to worry about it."

I repeated this a year later when my second grade teacher asked if anybody knew what jury duty was. She said NOTHING. I went home and told my parents, who in turn laughed knowingly. It would be several years until I understood what went down, exactly.

Dr C|4.30.09 @ 6:00PM|#

jeez it was a request for excused jury duty, he did not threaten, all the clerk had to do was stamp not excused or exscused and send it on. they WASTED taxpayer dollar and time by making him appear to explain a letter. and threaten to throw him in jail, are we all taking drugs!

No, you don't understand -- he must be made to respect the court's authoritah!

|4.30.09 @ 6:03PM|#

They somehow let a complete psychopath onto the jury of which I was foreman. Completely immune to reason, extremely belligerent. Luckily we didn't require unanimity because he was going against the rest of us out of what I assumed was spite. Made me question whether the virtue of being judged by peers hadn't outlived its usefulness.

Sounds like he made a terrible foreman.

The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 6:35PM|#

JW - OH SNAP!

You guys really should fight your way to be on juries. I've never been called, but if I had the chance to stealth nullify a pot bust or something, I would totally do it.

Stealth, of course, because I can be arrested for it otherwise.

Brian Sorgatz|4.30.09 @ 6:39PM|#

Or you could do what I did: use your blog to blackmail the jury commissioner's office.

|4.30.09 @ 6:47PM|#

I've never actually dodged jury duty. I served a full trial once, claimed an exemption three times (twice I was out of state; once I was busy interviewing for jobs), and wasn't selected from the venire the last time. The fact that I had met the judge socially might've swayed one of the attorneys ("Hi, judge!").

Brian Sorgatz|4.30.09 @ 6:47PM|#

Stealth, of course, because I can be arrested for it otherwise.

Is this true? From what I understand, petit jury deliberations are not subject to legal review. When it's just you and the other eleven stooges, you should be able to talk up a storm about jury nullification with impunity-although, if you let on beforehand that you even know what it is, the prosecutor will weed you out.

All Rights Reserved|4.30.09 @ 6:55PM|#

I've only ever been called for jury duty once. It was for maybe the only real person I've seen actually named Tyrone and he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (knife). Dude had an enormous scar all down the side of his face, a nicely tailored suit and a 1000 watt cocky smile. The list of witnesses was like twenty cops. I wanted to be on that jury so fucking bad, but they just selected the first twelve people in alphabetical order.

Paul|4.30.09 @ 6:58PM|#

where I was the foreman and manipulated the jury to my will.

Excellent... soon, ze verld vill be OWAAAHS!

roll call|4.30.09 @ 7:08PM|#

Shouldn't juris imprudens be weighing in on this one?

Craig|4.30.09 @ 7:10PM|#

And if you do get placed on a jury, don't forget that you have the inalienable right to judge the law as well as the facts in question, no matter what the judge tries to tell you.

The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 7:18PM|#

Here's the thing about jury nullification: in voire dire, you're asked if you're willing to accept the judge's pronouncements and rulings as "the law". Say yes, and you're on the jury. Say no, and you're out. Now, presuming that you're sworn in based on those words, you could be tried for perjury if you then talk about nullification, given that you promised to take the judge's word as law.

JP|4.30.09 @ 7:41PM|#

I always attempt to sit on juries. I look at it this way: If I'm fighting for my freedom, wouldn't I want somebody like me on the jury?

That's kind of how I feel about it. Unlike voting, it's an opportunity to really have an impact on how the system affects private parties.

Telly|4.30.09 @ 7:41PM|#

I bet that guy is awesome to drink with.

I've always wanted to live in Montana. Seem like good people.

Boston|4.30.09 @ 8:14PM|#

Seem like good people
If you don't mind the swearing. Where is Jamie Kelly when you need him?

mark|4.30.09 @ 8:16PM|#

Yeah, Montana has this guy on its Supreme Court.

So TAO, do you have any advice on how to get around the situation you describe? Nullification is, like, really important. I'd be enormously proud to exercise that right in the proper case.

|4.30.09 @ 8:30PM|#

I would have liked to have seen Montana.

The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 8:44PM|#

mark - on second thought, it might not be as straightforward as I originally posited. Looks like "jury oaths" might not carry the kind of weight I thought they did, but there are (many) cases of judges removing jurors who have openly expressed nullification as a possibility or probability.

I would still stealth it, though. Nod along with everything the judge says, give model (read: dumb) juror answers and then be a "Great Man" during deliberations.

Mad Max|4.30.09 @ 8:55PM|#

Here's a bit of historical info I found out doing some research:

The Franks (ancestors of the French) used to have a system of regular freemen deliberating on certain items of judicial business - similar in many ways to our modern jury system.

The kings and nobles graciously excused the freemen from serving on these proto-juries - this type of service was inconvenient and burdensome, many of these freemen felt. Being the self-sacrificing, public-spirited people they were, the nobles and (later) the professional judges took over the functions of these freemen-jurors. There have been modern attempts to re-introduce juror-like people in modern French trials, but nowhere near the former scale.

If Americans show themselves unwilling to serve on juries, then there will be people (like the nobles and judges in the Frankish days) who would gladly relieve them of that responsibility.

|4.30.09 @ 9:10PM|#

I would still stealth it, though. Nod along with everything the judge says, give model (read: dumb) juror answers and then be a "Great Man" during deliberations.

Note: Hazardous in Boulder, Colorado -- or wherever else some judge decides to make it so...

Judge Nieto ruled that Kriho, during jury selection, deliberately withheld her attitude about certain drug laws, her involvement in hemp legalization activities, and her knowledge of a juror's power to determine questions of law as well as fact.

By failing to volunteer this information, Kriho "obstructed the process of selecting a fair and impartial jury."

Judge Nieto writes, "The selection of jurors who have open minds and who have not preconceived the verdict is essential for a fair trial. Ms. Kriho's lack of candor about her experiences and attitudes led to the selection of a jury doomed to mistrial from the start. This Court finds this conduct constitutes obstruction of justice and this conduct was offensive to the authority and dignity of the trial court."

This decision is wrong by any standard of rights or common law. But there it is.

|4.30.09 @ 9:58PM|#

While all of you here are sniggering at juries and law courts, did any of you so-called libertarians stop to think that it's these very same law courts and juries that you are counting to defend your own property rights that you so loudly proclaim are so important?! I was called for jury duty. I didn't try to sneak out of it--I went and spent my time in the law court waiting, and did my participation in contributing to the Commonweal.

If you don't participate, then don't complain when juries make decisions you don't like.

The Angry Optimist|4.30.09 @ 10:10PM|#

MikeP - thanks for sending that along. Some searching revealed that the intermediate court in CO overturned the conviction and remanded for a new trial, cert. was denied by the COSCT and the DA dropped the second trial.

Interestingly, the "People" in "People v. Kriho" included Gale Norton, former Libertarian Party member and almost-National Director.

|4.30.09 @ 10:44PM|#

I would have liked to have seen Montana.

LOL

"Some things in here don't react well to bullets."

"Yeah--like me."

|5.1.09 @ 12:59AM|#

А проклятый повар!

|5.1.09 @ 1:54AM|#

If you don't participate, then don't complain when juries make decisions you don't like.

You must have missed all those bemoaning the fact that they can't participate.

The first time I was called into a jury pool, I was dismissed during voir dire when I answered that I could not limit my judgment to the judge's instructions if I disagreed with those instructions. I was put on an on-call list for a week soon after, but was not called in. But in the many years since that rejection, I have not been summoned again. Given that I drive and vote, I assume I have been blacklisted.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|5.1.09 @ 2:32AM|#

Now that was the funniest thing I heard all day. Thank you for that Katherine.

I was registered Libertarian Party for a number of years. I vote, I drive, I own a house, and I've always assumed that my past party affiliation was why I never get called for jury duty.

But around here in AZ it is definitely true, if they call you once they'll call you lots of times. Until they decide they really don't like you.

|5.1.09 @ 6:18AM|#

I too am registered Libertarian (not a fan of the party, but I was physically sickened by the notion of having to register Dem or Repub) and have never been called for jury duty. 20 years so far.

If you disagree with the drug laws, you are not impartial? But if you do, then you are?

The justice system is a joke everyone dies laughing at.

CrackerBarrel|5.1.09 @ 8:31AM|#

I used to think that jury nullification was a good and useful thing. This essay convinced me that it's a bad idea. If I were a candidate for a jury on a case where I disagreed with the law, I would find a way to make my opinions known, including that if selected, I would vote to acquit without regard to the facts. From the essay: "A jury that may acquit for reasons unrelated to the facts is a jury that may convict for reasons unrelated to the facts."

CrackerBarrel.

|5.1.09 @ 8:42AM|#

While all of you here are sniggering at juries and law courts, did any of you so-called libertarians stop to think that it's these very same law courts and juries that you are counting to defend your own property rights that you so loudly proclaim are so important?! I was called for jury duty. I didn't try to sneak out of it--I went and spent my time in the law court waiting, and did my participation in contributing to the Commonweal.

You know, grumpy, there are people willing to serve in the army. That doesn't mean they're willing to serve in any army.

Several people have pointed out that service on a jury might well require abandoning principles--such as a belief in jury nullification--that they regard as important. What advice would you give to people like that?

Guy Smiley|5.1.09 @ 9:06AM|#

"A jury that may acquit for reasons unrelated to the facts is a jury that may convict for reasons unrelated to the facts."

What? I didn't read the article, but that sentence is extremely specious to me.

It seem to me that it either means: the evidence says he didn't do it, but we find him guilty anyway, because we are really big fans of the law. What?

Or it means that the evidence says he didn't do it, but we find him guilty because we don't like the look of him.

I don't think that either of those is a realistic consequence of upholding jury nullification for unjust laws.

|5.1.09 @ 9:58AM|#

To bad they don't tell you what the case is about before pooling people up.

I was always told that if you want out of jury duty just walk in and state out loud "Where is that guilty bastard!" That should do it. Or the ever so popular "Is this where the white folks sit?"

It would be nice to have the ability to sabotage cases of BS laws that should never exist to begin with however.

Colin|5.1.09 @ 10:27AM|#

I got sat in a jury last year. During voir dire, I said I wouldn't trust the testimony of any cop, and was promptly excused.

|5.1.09 @ 10:29AM|#

Dr C, I always ask that question and they just keep summoning me like clockwork. Last time my release was time stamped 10:30 am but it wasn't handed to me until 5:00pm.

As for Slye, his next jury summons is in the mail...maybe for jp or municipal court but it's coming.

db|5.1.09 @ 10:29AM|#

My Dad once sent me a newspaper clipping of an article on jury duty. The photograph attached to the article just happened to be taken on the day my Mom was called up for selection. She was sitting in the front row, looking very attentive. My Dad had attached a Post-it caption bubble above her head reading, "I say, Guilty as SIN!"

She didn't make the jury.

|5.1.09 @ 11:12AM|#

"A jury that may acquit for reasons unrelated to the facts is a jury that may convict for reasons unrelated to the facts."

As is Guy Smiley, am very skeptical of this assertion.

Here's an idea... Add the following to the juror's oath: "You may acquit for reasons unrelated to the facts, but you may not convict for reasons unrelated to the facts."

Or perhaps you think that Maryland, Georgia, Indiana, and Oregon -- all of which have constitutions that explicitly empower juries to judge the law as well as the facts -- are hotbeds of conviction in the face of the facts.

mark|5.1.09 @ 12:16PM|#

MikeP, that's like New Hampshire's constitution, with the right of rebellion. It's not like they're going to let you exercise that right :)

EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|5.1.09 @ 2:21PM|#

My father in law always (truthfully) reports his professions as "constitutional historian" when called for jury duty.

He is generally dismissed out of hand.

You could get the impression that the lawyers don't think that they can win on the law and the merits.

Nay, that can't be it...

Dr C|5.1.09 @ 2:38PM|#

While all of you here are sniggering at juries and law courts, did any of you so-called libertarians stop to think that it's these very same law courts and juries that you are counting to defend your own property rights that you so loudly proclaim are so important?! I was called for jury duty. I didn't try to sneak out of it--I went and spent my time in the law court waiting, and did my participation in contributing to the Commonweal.

If you don't participate, then don't complain when juries make decisions you don't like.

Learn the difference between "don't" versus "can't", then try your post again. Maybe then you wouldn't sound like such a fucking idiot.

GILMORE|5.1.09 @ 4:09PM|#

MikeP | April 30, 2009, 8:30pm | #

I would have liked to have seen Montana.

Har har har.

I have always wanted to meet Sam Neil and tell him that is my favorite line of his. I expect he'd hate it, but it's TRUE. Classic.

|5.4.09 @ 2:37AM|#

Re: jeez it was a request for excused jury duty, he did not threaten, all the clerk had to do was stamp not excused or exscused and send it on. they WASTED taxpayer dollar and time by making him appear to explain a letter. and threaten to throw him in jail, are we all taking drugs!

It's not the Clerk who excuses a juror from duty but the Judge. And, for the record, Mr. Slye wasn't the only juror who was called in for comtempt. There were about 10 others and each one of them [except Mr. Slye, inexplicitly] were fined $50.00. So the gov't more than made back the 1/2 hour it took to hear these cases.

Joseph|5.5.09 @ 1:03AM|#

This guy is a true American hero. I have a little bit of trust in the justice system but kudos to this guy for standing up to the state and his right.

|5.11.09 @ 6:57PM|#

I was excused from jury duty simply for raising my hand and letting it be known that I may disagree with the judges interpretation of a particular law. Had I been on the jury I would have had to acquit, I wholeheartedly disagreed with the law in question.