This Judge Tried To Get Out of Jury Duty by Saying Everyone Appearing Before Him Is Guilty

"I know they are guilty," otherwise "they would not be in front of me," said town justice Richard Snyder, who resigned in December.

Nobody likes jury duty, but one local judge's attempt to get out of serving on a grand jury ended up costing him his job. In October 2023, Richard Snyder, a New York town justice, said he couldn't fairly serve on a grand jury because he believed anyone appearing before him was guilty.

"I know they are guilty," Snyder said in a court transcript, according to The New York Times. If they weren't guilty, Snyder added, "they would not be in front of me." The judge dismissed Snyder and reported him to a disciplinary panel.

Snyder resigned in December from his post as a town justice—a position that allowed him to hear minor legal issues, like civil claims of less than $3,000, traffic violations, and misdemeanor crimes. Snyder didn't have any previous legal experience and had been on the bench since winning a 2013 election. According to the Times, he made about $6,000 per year to hear these minor cases.

At a hearing about the complaint against him, Snyder tried to explain his comments, telling officials, "In my court, I treat everybody the same, equal, fair, honest." He added, "I try to work with people, try to help them out. I take pride in my job." 

But Snyder also revealed a misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence. "I meant, that they were guilty because they did something wrong. But they're not guilty 'til they come to court. They're innocent 'til proven guilty," he said during the hearing, according to the Associated Press. However, Snyder also said if someone appears before him, "They did something wrong. That's why they got a ticket. But they're not guilty."

While it's troubling that Snyder held his position for so long—more than ten years total, and for more than a year after having a complaint filed against him—the fact that he resigned will hopefully encourage other judges to learn a thing or two about the presumption of innocence before getting behind the bench.

"There is no place on the bench for someone who so deeply misunderstands the role of a judge and the administration of justice," Robert H. Tembeckjian, administrator and counsel for the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct told the A.P. "It is bad enough that a judge would seek to avoid such a fundamental civic responsibility as jury service. It is astounding that the judge would claim an inability to be impartial, and to declare under oath that the accused must be guilty or they would not be in court."

Comments

[tracerv]

Someone needs to be running to the bank to cash those USAID checks. Might be bouncing.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Shit, someone actually used my strategy. If this fails, plan b is to say "I hate all *insert racial pejorative*"

[MasterThief]

I think the strategy is still fine if your job isn't government or any part of the legal system. The rest of the article is bullshit, but yeah I'd support removing him from being serving in any sort of legal capacity if he tries to deceptively worm his way out.

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

This is sarc logic. He said cops only arrest you if you are guilty.

[Vernon Depner]

I've found I can get out of jury duty just by answering the counsels' questions honestly. No need for planned responses.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Same. I'm obviously an asshole and both sides agree they don't want me stinking the place up.

[Vernon Depner]

What both sides always agree on is that they don't want bright, thoughtful people who will weigh the evidence and the law and make a rational decision. Both sides want dumb, emotional people they can manipulate.

[mad.casual]

Yeah, I always kinda just assumed that if you can't sperg dunk your way out of jury duty your libertarian card gets revoked.

[Untermensch]

This is true for normal jury duty. But with a grand jury, there is no counsel involved to ask you questions. Answering truthfully as a libertarian would still probably work for a grand jury because you could just say you think most laws are BS and they wouldn’t want you, but it wouldn’t have anything to do with what counsel wants, but rather that the DA wouldn’t want someone who would say “you know what, we shouldn’t indict a ham sandwich”. Had the judge in this case kept his mouth shut, they probably would have loved to have him on the panel. Saying out loud what would actually be considered a benefit for the grand jury was a stupid move because it risked exposing just how unjust grand juries usually are.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (Trump Ascendant!! )]

I can just tell them what I think of democrats.

[AT]

So dumb. Every lawyer in the world knows how to get out of jury duty.

"Yes, I've been practicing law for X years. I'm familiar with the caselaw on this subject."

"Yes, as an officer of the court, of course I would be fair and impartial and consider only what's presented in open court.

"Yes, of course I'm willing to serve as a juror and would be happy to do so. I will make every effort to avoid using my expertise to inadvertently influence my fellow jurors, especially if they look to me for guidance."

Just that subtle little reminder that you're a little more influential, and naturally looked at for knowledge and experience, is usually enough for them to send you home.

[Untermensch]

But this was for a grand jury, where having a hang-em-high member with some knowledge would be a benefit. They were probably slavering at having him on it until he said the quiet part out loud.

[NM Dave]

If you read the article you'd know that your argument, while valid, is irrelevant. This moron was elected to a local "judge" position which does not require a law degree, and indeed, he didn't have one. He made $6,000 a year hearing small cases.

That being said, you're right; it's always an advantage to be educated and articulate. Lawyers hate that, they can't bullshit you as easily. 🙂

[Lester75]

I just say that my spouse is an attorney who handles appeals. Seems to work.

[JohnZ]

The only duty an American citizen has is to serve Jury Duty. That's all. I believe everyone should at least once serve as a jurist. It is part of our Constitution and should be instilled as a civic duty.
I have been called on to serve in a number of juries but thankfully only had to actually serve once as a jurist.
The case I served on was so ridiculous that we came to a "not guilty" verdict within about ten minutes.

[Brightly]

"The only duty an American citizen has is to serve Jury Duty."

I think there are only two positive rights that can be held to be purely constitutional. One, like you said, being required to serve on a jury. Two, being compelled to bear witness so long as it doesn't violate your own rights against self-incrimination.

[holmegm]

He'd fit right in on a college campus kangaroo court.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's a good thing to expose this guy's bad behavior, and I only hope they give equivalent exposure to the misconduct of the more educated judges - or is it just the nonlawyer judges who commit misconduct?

[Brightly]

Yes, this should get him out of jury duty, as well as disqualify him overseeing criminal trials.