Review: Jury Duty Offers a (Fake) Look Inside the Justice System
A supposedly sacred duty devolves into much ado about ordering lunch.

Ronald Gladden is summoned for that most dreaded obligation: jury duty. Thinking he's being filmed for a documentary about how juries work, Gladden doesn't know that he's hearing a fake case, everyone else is a paid actor, and every scene is semi-scripted. Amazon Freevee's prank-show-meets-mockumentary series Jury Duty pulls off a Truman Show–style story inside a truly absurd fake courtroom.
Starting off with voir dire, potential jurors use every trick in the book to get out of serving. Excuses such as having 36 kids, suffering from a severe back injury, and being racist don't get past the judge. But "needing to get something out of my body" or simply "it's just not my thing" are grounds for dismissal.
After they are selected, the jurors are asked how they feel. The responses range, understandably, from "mourning for my career" to "kidnapped." It's all downhill after that, as the focus of each day performing this supposedly sacred duty of citizens seems to be about what food they should order and ensuring that juror five stays awake.
Gladden's natural reactions to the goofiness surrounding him drive the comedic heart of the show. But in the final episode, when he learns he's been pranked, his gut response is the most relatable of them all: "So because this wasn't real, I still could potentially be called for jury duty?…Dammit."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hello,
In this statement, it seems that what was initially regarded as an important or meaningful responsibility has somehow turned into an exaggerated and unnecessary fuss over something as simple as ordering lunch.
The phrase "much ado about" is often used to express a situation where excessive attention or drama is given to a relatively insignificant matter. In this case, the supposed sacred duty, which should have been significant and meaningful, has instead become a source of unnecessary complexity or fuss, comparable to the act of ordering lunch.
The statement suggests a sense of irony or frustration with how something that should have been important has been trivialized or overcomplicated, potentially highlighting the need to refocus attention and effort on more meaningful endeavors.
The fuck?
My neighbor’s sister makes $95 reliably on the workstation. She has beenwithout an occupation for a half year in any case multi month back her part was$30000 essentially dealing with the PC for two or three hours. Go to this siteand read more.
.Now Here —> http://www.dailypro7.com
I have just received my 3rd paycheck which said that 16285 American Bucks that i have made just in one month by working online over my laptop. This job is amazing and its regular earnings are much better than my regular office job. Join this job now and start making money online easily by
.
.
.
.
just use this link…………………… https://Www.Topearn7.Com
I get paid over 220$/Hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over $21000 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. it was all true and has totally changed my life… This is what I do, check it out by Visiting Following Link
GO HERE—— http://Www.Easywork7.com
Seems like bots are using chatGPT or somesuch to create a somewhat connected "comment" on the article, then slipping in the ad link on some random word.
What's the point of an ad link that no one notices? Just scamming the client?
The spambots are getting a bit more creative than the usual copy/pasta that we typically get.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,930 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,930 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
This relaxing moment starts with the massage, where all your tensions disappear and stress disappears from your body. Afterwards, your body will be enveloped in an organic gel with high exfoliating abilities. Your skin ends up being much smoother, soft to the touch and free of all impurities.
Finally, there is also a massage Spa, which also leaves the skin on your face much smoother and hydrated. Take this time to relax, unwind and recharge all your energies.
Gifts to live!
Time - 10:00Am to 9:00Pm
Call Now: +91 9971994713
Place: Shop No.11, 2nd Floor, MGF Megacity Mall, MG Road, Gurgaon 122002
https://www.starbodyspa.in/body-to-body-massage-in-gurgaon/
Sounds enticing. Best comment of the day so far.
Wait. Was this guy actually believing he was called to jury duty? This whole thing sounds highly illegal if so.
At the very least I have to wonder if the producers have maybe left themselves in a highly "actionable" position for a civil suit, if he actually believed he was in a real jury.
My guess is they probably had him sign some sort of waiver/ NDA/ some other contract waiving his right to sue. Which should have been his first clue that everything wasn't on the level.
But it's not just about suing. Sending a false jury summons is a felony in my state. (As it should be.) And fine print that says "this is not legal process" doesn't save you.
They can't use the footage unless they got him to sign something. It's not like a video of someone you see on the street, without having arranged the situation. If they didn't get him to sign giving them the right to use the footage beforehand, they'll have to pay whatever he demands now.
So is this really a lesson on reading before signing?
Watched this and it was kind of funny. Although I'm still not sure if the main character wasn't also a character played by an affable actor despite the claims that he was just a guy.
It was an enjoyable show, but it just didn't ring true and I believe Gladden was in on it from the start. That it was a mockumentary about making a mockumentary.
It's never explained how Gladden was chosen. We know the producers would never just select someone at random from the LA County jury pool and supposedly everyone else during the in court vetting was an actor.
Someone interviewed or auditioned a number of people before deciding on Gladden and even someone with no jury experience would know that sequestering was not called for and a sequestered jury would not be treated to a night out at Margaritaville
It stretched its credibility with me that a guy from L.A. wouldn't question a famous actor getting called to jury duty in Huntington Park, fairly deep in the "bad part" of town; the "westside" living ones would get called up to BH or Santa Monica, "eastside" would end up in DTLA or Burbank, and "south bay" would go to either the LAX courthouse or to Torrance (where the walls of the jury room are lined with almost as many autographed headshots as Pink's Hot Dogs).
Then a jury from that courthouse getting sequestered into a hotel in Studio City (45-75 minutes away in "rush hour" traffic which is essentially any daylight hours anymore in L.A.) is a double stretch. The outing to Margaritaville at Citywalk (Universal Studios) at least was reasonable proximity to their hotel, even if it was something that seems highly unlikely for a sequestered jury (the near-zero likelihood that the tourists making up 80-90% of the customers there would have knowledge of the case at any level is low enough to make the idea a bit plausible)
One of the better jury cartoons I ever saw showed a very haggard guy leaning out of a door labeled "Jury Room". He was telling a policeman "We'll have 11 ham sandwiches, 1 cheese. 11 coffees, 1 tea".
So that wasn't a review - it was just a plot synopsis.
Reason should really just stick to politics.