How does jury selection work?
81461
One of these days it will be in the mailbox. It will tell you when and where to report. If you need to get out you can ask for a different date, or go and talk to the judge and explain why it would be a hardship for you to serve. The odds of getting out depend on where you live and how difficult it is to get quilified jurors. If you can serve do it and you will probably enjoy the experience.
3655
As the above answerers indicate, judges and lawyers are called to jury duty, but they rarely end up on a jury since the lawyers in the case generally don't want an "expert" on the jury (same reason why physicians rarely end up on juries in malpractice cases).  A recent example of a judge being called for jury duty is US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (see Source #1).\n\nYet lawyers and judges sometimes DO end up on juries.  One recent example is Nassau County, NY District Judge William J. O'Brien, who served on a jury hearing a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff's lawyer thought the judge would possibly be "a little more savvy to defense tricks," while the defense attorney said for a medical malpractice case, he wanted "jurors who are intelligent and analytical" (See Source #2).\n\nAs you can see, it is not unheard of to have lawyers or judges sit on a jury, but it is certainly rare.  Hope this helps :-)
1058791
If it is for jury duty, it's the luck of the draw, I am a Police Officer and have been selected 7 times in eight years, never made it to the jury....go figure. You can be subpoenaed for court cases as a witness as it is needed. I know people who have never been selected for duty. Makes you wonder how good the system is.
270575
Judges typically are there to ensure that all rules of the court are followed – most importantly, the Rules of Evidence.  Judges can rule on whether certain evidences are admissible (to be presented to the jury), as well as ruling on any motions either side would make.  Judges would also answer any questions from the jurors when they are deliberating.  If a defendant chooses to have a “bench” trial, the judge also serves as the jury (fact finder) as well.  The judge would also give sentences to convicted defendants according to the rules.
810295
I think they typically use voters registration rolls as their pool for jury duty. Some states use voters registration cards as well as drivers license. The optimum system to generate a jury pool would be a totally non-bias system, which neither of these provide, but it is the best we have.\nHope this helps.\n\nI did a little research on Louisiana and I found that in at least two parishes (sp?) The names of all licensed drivers and registered voters of St. Martin Parish are placed into the Clerk of Court computer once a year.  The computer first eliminates duplicate names, and then uses random selection to select the names of people who will receive a subpoena for jury duty.
154798
If you don't have a jury the verdict is up to the judge, and the judge only.  If you have a jury, you have a more diverse group of people deciding your fate.  Some see it as more of an oppertuinity for a guilty or innocent verdict depending on the case.
208969
Jury trials vary based on state law.  In some states, a jury has to be twelve members.  Some other states like Arizona has smaller juries.  It could be as small as six members on a jury based on the crime that was committed.
1021177
Trial by a jury of your peers is still the best justice system in the world, and we should definitely keep it.  Any system of laws is really just a tool.  It's a means to an end, and that end is Justice.  Now I think everyone would agree that Justice is an Ideal... it's a perfect concept, in theory.  But being humans, we are incapible of creating anything perfectly.  Therefore, the tool we have created as the means to reach that perfect ideal of Justice will, by necessity, be flawed.  So, our legal system will never be perfect, and consequently injustices will always come out of it from time to time.  But over the many years since it's inception, we continue to fine tune our legal system, with new legislation, with the appealate court process, with new amendements to the constitution, etc.  The law is constantly changing because, like technology, morality, and every other aspect of human culture, the law is a work in progress.  It will never be perfect, because we are never perfect.  But the trial system the best system humanity has ever devised to pursue the ideal of Justice.\n\n     But the trial by jury is the last line of defense between the people of our great nation remaining free, and the people of our once-great nation falling into a facist state.  It's that right to a trial by a jury of our peers that protects us from unjust laws, from the power which we vote to hand over to our elected public servants corrupting them and allowing them to turn us into the servants, instead.  The jury of your peers is what stands between the people and tyranny.\n\n    People in this country (unlike many others) are still innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  That "reasonable doubt" standard is very high.  We aren't innocent until it appears we're "probably" guilty, or even "more likely than not guilty."  That jury has to be pretty damn sure we're guilty, and they have to agree on it.  Sometimes in criminal trials someone's very life is on the line.  If it's your life, you have the right to cross-examine witness brought against you.  You have the right to question evidence brought against you.  You have the right to bring witnesses on your behalf, and to bring evidence of your innocence.  In other words, you have the right to plead your case and to try to convince that jury that you didn't do it.  \n\n     Never, ever, let anyone make you believe for a second that this great Republic of ours could pursue our ideal of Justice without the trial system.
933903
It can make a big difference how and when a jury hears something.
738282
It often boils down to who has the most knowledgeable and convincing representative - the prosecution or the defense lawyer. \n\nA really good defense lawyer can really muddle the facts to give the jury plenty of reasonable doubt.\n\nOn the other hand, a really good prosecutor can make insignificant details add up to the proverbial smoking gun.\n\nAnd then there's all the prejudices and extra baggage the jurors themselves bring to the table even before the opening statements are made.
126882
That question is nearly impossible to answer for a number of reasons.  There may be things about you that make you a desirable juror or an undesireable juror.  And experiences differ so widely.\n\nI am an attorney in California and I am 37.  I have been summoned for to jury duty 4 times in state court, but I have never served on a jury.  I've never been summoned for federal court.  My wife is 38.  She has been summoned once for state and once for federal court.  She served on jury in a rape case.\n\nMy dad is 60 and he's served on one jury.  My mom is 58 and never served on a jury.  My sister is 36 and has never been summoned for jury duty.  Who knows how to explain such a wide variety of experiences and what implications that has for you?
3728
No one but a juror may be in the jury deliberation room. This is why it is so important that the judge determine what evidence is admissible before the trial begins. If a juror believes other jurors are considering irrelevant evidence, the juror should inform the judge, who would instruct them of their consitutional responsibility and so forth. If a judge believes a jury did not consider the evidence properly, he/she can vacate the verdict, which is very rarely done, for obvious reasons.
508377
Grand jury is a big task, therefore work hard and read the following carefully:\n\nA jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law.\n\nIn most criminal justice systems which require a jury, panels are initially selected at random from the adult population of the district served by the court concerned. A person who is serving on (is a member of) a jury is known as a juror.\n\nThe requirements for a jury are fairly universal. The number of jurors must be a specified size (usually twelve or fifteen), and since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often some alternate jurors are nominated, who will also follow the trial (but do not take part in deciding the verdict), as a precaution in case a new juror is needed part way through the trial.\n\nServing on a jury is normally compulsory if a citizen is chosen (exceptions and exclusions vary between jurisdictions and are discussed below). Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other.\n\nThe jurors hear the cases presented by both the defense and prosecution, and in some jurisdictions a summing-up from the judge. They then retire as a group to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some countries their decision making process is private and may not be disclosed, in others it may be discussed but only after the trial has ended.\n\nIn common law countries such as the England and the United States, the role of the jury is the "finder of fact", while the Judge has the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. Occasionally, a jury may find the defendant "not guilty" even though he violated the law if the jury thinks that the law is invalid or unjust. This is commonly referred to as jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the Judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the Judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted.\n\nActual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.\n\nThe concept of a modern jury trial stems back to Magna Carta, which gave English nobles and freemen the right to be tried by a panel of their peers, rather than by summary judgment of the king or other official who often had the utter power to impose his own arbitrary judgment. The concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case. Many ancient cultures had similar concepts, notably ancient Judea whose panel of judges called the Sanhedrin served a similar purpose. The Athenians by 500 BCE had also invented the jury court, with votes by secret ballot. These courts were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing judicial review.\n\nSelection\nA common method for drafting jurors is to draw them at random from electoral rolls (known as allotment or sortition). The most common exclusions are for people whose job in some way precludes them (for instance, teachers, doctors, firefighters, people who themselves work in the criminal justice system), are caring for young children, have an interest in the case, are under the age of 18 years, or who have health problems or serious criminal records. In some jurisdictions in the United States, prior legal education or being a lawyer may also be a reason to
421367
A grand jury decides only whether someone is indicted (forced to stand trial).  Typically a grand jury is seated for a long period (3 months or more) and meets periodically to hear a prosecutor's evidence.  The prosecutor gets to put on his evidence before the grand jury without rebuttal from a defense attorney or a defendant, so grand juries very often vote to indict as they have heard only one side of the case.  Keep in mind that a grand jury does not vote on guilt or innocence, just whether the state has enough evidence to bring a case to trial.\n\nA regular jury is a factfinder in a trial.  They would come into play (in the criminal context) only if the grand jury had voted to indict.  Also, unlike a grand jury, which hears evidence in many cases, a jury hears only one.
371123
Federal law requires that a grand jury be selected at random from a fair cross section of thecommunity in the district or division in which the federal grand jury convenes. Thus, all citizens havean equal opportunity and obligation to serve.Pursuant to law, the names of prospective grand jurors are drawn at random from lists ofregistered voters or lists of actual voters, or other sources when necessary, under proceduresdesigned to ensure that all groups in the community will have a fair chance to serve. Those personswhose names have been drawn and who are not exempt or excused from service are summoned toappear for duty as grand jurors. When these persons appear before the court, the presiding judgemay consider any further requests to be excused. The judge will then direct the selection of 23qualified persons to become the members of the grand jury.
398394
In a democracy, a trial by jury is important in that the accused must be found innocent or guilty of the charge by twelve people like himself/herself - rather than one judge. It's intent is to provide a greater justice for the accused.   Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn"t--but that is its intent..  In civil court (such as lawsuits in car accidents, etc) sometimes there are fewer than 12 jurors.
87389
Serve on a jury if called.