How to get out of jury duty

[tailfins]

LoL!


the juror, known as r-39 because potential panelists can be identified only by their numbers, said that "murder is murder," even if it's self-defense.

read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/13/attorneys-just-short-moving-to-next-round-in-george-zimmerman-trial-jury/#ixzz2w88qktgk

[logroller]

Once during jury duty a juror was released for their response to the question, "do you understand that someone is presumed innocent?"; their response, "no. he looks guilty."

[fj1200]

LoL!


... said that "murder is murder," even if it's self-defense.

I wonder if r-39 know that all murder is killing but not all killing is murder.

[jimnyc]

*knock on wood*

Never had the displeasure to serve my community via jury duty, but my wife has had to go many times! I think I would answer honestly, I hate everyone equally, so that would mean the defendant is guilty as fuck and the prosecution is full of liars. I would then pull out my copy of Catcher in the Rye just prior to being dismissed.

[aboutime]

Once during jury duty a juror was released for their response to the question, "do you understand that someone is presumed innocent?"; their response, "no. he looks guilty."


Log. If it was YOU. Would you feel the same if YOU...happened to be the ACCUSED, waiting for your day in court????

[logroller]

Log. If it was YOU. Would you feel the same if YOU...happened to be the ACCUSED, waiting for your day in court????
Wasn't me. I ended up being foreman. Guilty: 1st degree murder - 26 to life. Maybe that prospective juror knew something I didn't. But I'm a fan of due process; so I was proud to serve.

[tailfins]

Wasn't me. I ended up being foreman. Guilty: 1st degree murder - 26 to life. Maybe that prospective juror knew something I didn't. But I'm a fan of due process; so I was proud to serve.


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrcxmd_shaggy-it-wasn-t-me_music

[aboutime]

Wasn't me. I ended up being foreman. Guilty: 1st degree murder - 26 to life. Maybe that prospective juror knew something I didn't. But I'm a fan of due process; so I was proud to serve.


So, we should ask those who intentionally try, or want to get out of Jury duty, the question I asked you.

When the shoe is on the other foot...so to speak. Wonder how someone being Tried for something would like it if everyone felt that way?

[logroller]

So, we should ask those who intentionally try, or want to get out of Jury duty, the question I asked you.

When the shoe is on the other foot...so to speak. Wonder how someone being Tried for something would like it if everyone felt that way?
I wouldn't want someone on a jury that wasn't capable of performing the task. If someone just doesn't want to be there, thats a different story and on a previous jury (I've been in three)the judge refused to release a juror for just not wanting to be there and making excuses about how she "knew people in law enforcement" or some such.
As to your question, I have faith that a jury can still be formed. Venue changes maybe necessary in some cases, but nevertheless, a fair trial and an impartial jury can be found. To be honest, I have less faith in the courts' agents than the jurists.

[tailfins]

So, we should ask those who intentionally try, or want to get out of Jury duty, the question I asked you.

When the shoe is on the other foot...so to speak. Wonder how someone being Tried for something would like it if everyone felt that way?

Would you be willing to sacrifice $20,000 in income to be on an eight week jury? Be honest. What if you didn't plan to be without that income?

[aboutime]

Would you be willing to sacrifice $20,000 in income to be on an eight week jury? Be honest. What if you didn't plan to be without that income?

I'll say exactly what you want to hear. But it wouldn't matter what I said here anyhow.
The question is...IF YOU, or I were the accused, and about to stand trial. Would we feel the same way about who was chosen as OUR Jury????

I have been called for Jury Duty twice, and during the jury selection process. I heard people giving all kinds of reasons..even for planned vacations that would cost them money to cancel.
Of course. Losing 20K would hurt. It would hurt anyone.
By the way. I wasn't picked on both occasions because, when asked. I told them any time I heard the words DRUGS, and GUN. I pretty much knew how I felt.
Not selected.

[logroller]

I'll say exactly what you want to hear. But it wouldn't matter what I said here anyhow.
The question is...IF YOU, or I were the accused, and about to stand trial. Would we feel the same way about who was chosen as OUR Jury????

I have been called for Jury Duty twice, and during the jury selection process. I heard people giving all kinds of reasons..even for planned vacations that would cost them money to cancel.
Of course. Losing 20K would hurt. It would hurt anyone.
By the way. I wasn't picked on both occasions because, when asked. I told them any time I heard the words DRUGS, and GUN. I pretty much knew how I felt.
Not selected.
Well, same question as you asked me. What if everyone felt like you on the bold above; all a prosecution would have to do is bring up drug and gun charges and presto, no jury. What if it were YOU and you were INNOCENT?

[aboutime]

Well, same question as you asked me. What if everyone felt like you on the bold above; all a prosecution would have to do is bring up drug and gun charges and presto, no jury. What if it were YOU and you were INNOCENT?


Look at the title of this thread. Here is my response. "EXACTLY!"

[logroller]

Well, same question as you asked me. What if everyone felt like you on the bold above; all a prosecution would have to do is bring up drug and gun charges and presto, no jury. What if it were YOU and you were INNOCENT?

Look at the title of this thread. Here is my response. "EXACTLY!"
"How to get out of jury duty." That's your answer?
more like, "how to get railroaded by the government"

[aboutime]

"How to get out of jury duty." That's your answer?
more like, "how to get railroaded by the government"


Just to let you know how your lack of comprehension precedes you Log. This thread IS NOT MY THREAD.

If you feel a need to argue about this topic. Take it to the AUTHOR of the thread.

You asked a question. I answered it.

Not my fault you MUST disagree. GROW UP.

[logroller]

Just to let you know how your lack of comprehension precedes you Log. This thread IS NOT MY THREAD.

If you feel a need to argue about this topic. Take it to the AUTHOR of the thread.

You asked a question. I answered it.

Not my fault you MUST disagree. GROW UP.
oh my, here we were getting along so well and engaged in what appeared to polite discussion. I see that has come to a halt.
You posed the question (in your typical broken English, so I'll paraphrase) "what if everybody was excused from jury duty?" I answered that i didnt think that could happen. You answered, "how to get out of jury duty...EXACTLY" That's a non sequitur; but never mind that, I see now the reason you were released from jury duty: incompetence.

[aboutime]

oh my, here we were getting along so well and engaged in what appeared to polite discussion. I see that has come to a halt.
You posed the question (in your typical broken English, so I'll paraphrase) "what if everybody was excused from jury duty?" I answered that i didnt think that could happen. You answered, "how to get out of jury duty...EXACTLY" That's a non sequitur; but never mind that, I see now the reason you were released from jury duty: incompetence.


Feel better now?

[SassyLady]

I have been excused from jury duty twice. Once because I owned my own business and was the sole employee. Not that I wasn't willing to serve, but my business entailed traveling to Tennessee once a month for a week. Not something I could "work around".

The second time I was called up for a case of rape. When asked how I felt, I told them that my sister had been brutally raped when she was 14 and I wasn't sure I could sit and listen to the details. I was excused.

Both times I told the truth. I didn't lie but the system made sure that they didn't pick someone who wouldn't be able to focus or have an open mind. I'm confident that the lawyers involved were able to make a fair and balanced jury selection.

How would I feel if everyone "lied" to get out of jury selection (even if those lies were supposed to make themselves seem feeble minded)? Hmmmm, I would still feel that eventually a jury would be chosen that had weeded out those that wouldn't have helped my cause in the long run.

[gabosaurus]

Let us present a certain situation: :cool:

Let us suppose that you are driving your car around and are stopped for a traffic violation. The officer decides to search your car and finds you have a gun. So he arrests you for unauthorized possession of a firearm.
You know you are right, but the only way to prove it is in a trial by jury. Trouble is, during jury selection, all the gun enthusiasts make up some excuse not to serve. You are left with some older people and a few people who don't like your looks.
Good luck with that.

[logroller]

Let us present a certain situation: :cool:

Let us suppose that you are driving your car around and are stopped for a traffic violation. The officer decides to search your car and finds you have a gun. So he arrests you for unauthorized possession of a firearm.
You know you are right, but the only way to prove it is in a trial by jury. Trouble is, during jury selection, all the gun enthusiasts make up some excuse not to serve. You are left with some older people and a few people who don't like your looks.
Good luck with that.
What do mean "the officer decides to search"; we have fourth amendment protections. Did the guy/gal consent to a search, or did the officer just do it? Was the gun in plain view? Was the guy suspected of some crime that warranted a search? I'll just cut the chase; any evidence discovered from an unlawful search wouldn't be admitted as evidence...that's the judge's call, not the jury's. as to your hypothetical gun nuts don't serve in juries and old and/or prejudiced people do...it's obvious you've never served in a jury, likely because you fall into the latter category. It's a solemn duty to serve on a jury and not everyone is capable of doing so; but nonetheless, everyone deserves a fair trial.

[gabosaurus]

Loggie dear, you are missing my point. Which is that no one should be looking for ways to get out of jury duty. It is one of your duties as a member of a free society.
If you are on trial, you are entitled to be tried before a jury of your peers. What if your peers all decide to duck out?

A good example was a recent case where a black male was convicted of a crime by an all white jury. Black leaders cried racism, even after being told that out of that day's jury pool of close to 200, only seven were black. Many others had simply not shown up.

[logroller]

Loggie dear, you are missing my point. Which is that no one should be looking for ways to get out of jury duty. It is one of your duties as a member of a free society.
If you are on trial, you are entitled to be tried before a jury of your peers. What if your peers all decide to duck out?

A good example was a recent case where a black male was convicted of a crime by an all white jury. Black leaders cried racism, even after being told that out of that day's jury pool of close to 200, only seven were black. Many others had simply not shown up.
Gabby my Libby love, it appears you have missed mine as well. If someone is incapable of serving as an impartial juror, they should not be there-- the duty is to be an impartial jurist, not merely present. In other words, the jury should be people who are capable of putting their personal prejudices aside, be it favorable to guns or against, and decide upon the case based upon the evidence. I'm pro-gun, but if someone is caught with a trunk load of Uzis with the serial numbers missing (assuming thats against the law, i believe it is), I could find them guilty. With that said, if ballistics tests showed that one of those weapons was used in a murder, and that was the only evidence linking that person to the crime, I could find them not guilty of murder. Reasonable doubt still exists. Maybe she/he found those guns in a dumpster. Still should have called the police, it's not finders keepers with illicit weapons and possessing them is a crime nonetheless; but it doesn't mean she/he's a murderer.
I wonder if, were the tables turned, you would determine likewise.

[red states rule]

One east way to get out of jury duty is to where a Rush Limbaugh shirt and/or hat in the Court room. It is damn near a sure bet the defense lawyer will not want you on the jury

[logroller]

One east way to get out of jury duty is to where a Rush Limbaugh shirt and/or hat in the Court room. It is damn near a sure bet the defense lawyer will not want you on the jury
Why's that? What if its a case about someone found with illicit OxyContin?

[red states rule]

Why's that? What if its a case about someone found with illicit OxyContin?

Cheap shot LR but that is the normal reaction from libs toward Rush

Lord knows you could never debate Rush's ideas and opinions

[logroller]

Cheap shot LR but that is the normal reaction from libs toward Rush

Lord knows you could never debate Rush's ideas and opinions
Why's that a cheap shot? Is it not true that rush has an addiction and his listeners might see past the 'addicts are all deadbeat criminals' schtick and a defense attorney might find hem sympathetic?
Your comment seemingly implied that rush listeners cannot be sympathetic to an alleged criminal. Yet rush engaged in criminal activity due to his addiction. So is rush right, even when he's wrong?

[red states rule]

Why's that a cheap shot? Is it not true that rush has an addiction and his listeners might see past the 'addicts are all deadbeat criminals' schtick and a defense attorney might find hem sympathetic?
Your comment seemingly implied that rush listeners cannot be sympathetic to an alleged criminal. Yet rush engaged in criminal activity due to his addiction. So is rush right, even when he's wrong?

He got hooked on pain killers due to a medical condition - like I almost was hooked.

Of course being a liberal, your "compassion" for him is typical. Much like Gabby's and Virgil's compassion that was shown to me

The question was how to get out of jury duty and any defense attorney would not want anyone on the jury who listens to Rush

However, I would love to see you debate Rush one on one LR. He does put liberals to the front of the line so if you get through you are in. Today is open line Friday so you even get to pick the topic. How about those Obamacare exchanges you were so excited over?

[Voted4Reagan]

Once when asked in a Jury interview if I belonged to any organizations I replied honestly YES.

The NRA, North American Hunting Club and the Suffolk County Republican Club.

I was dismissed

[tailfins]

Let us present a certain situation: :cool:

Let us suppose that you are driving your car around and are stopped for a traffic violation. The officer decides to search your car and finds you have a gun. So he arrests you for unauthorized possession of a firearm.
You know you are right, but the only way to prove it is in a trial by jury. Trouble is, during jury selection, all the gun enthusiasts make up some excuse not to serve. You are left with some older people and a few people who don't like your looks.
Good luck with that.

That may be all well and good, but are you telling me you could keep a straight face seeing what some of these people say to get out of jury duty? I would make an effort to go too. However, what some of these people say would make a good "reality" TV show. I was selected for a vehicular homicide case. Being a member of the National Motorists Association got me the boot.


NMA Position On DUI/DWI - Specific Positions Here are some more specific aspects of the NMA position on DUI/DWI laws:


We oppose drunk-driving roadblocks on the grounds that they violate protection from warrantless search and seizure, and fail to meet probable cause standards. They have not been shown to be effective at deterring impaired driving.
DWI penalties based on blood alcohol counts should be graduated to reflect the potential severity of impairment. The more severe penalties should be phased in at a BAC of .15 where impairment begins to directly correlate with accident involvement. Lower penalties should be adopted for less severe DWI violations.
We support increased penalties for repeat offenders, but maintain that rehabilitation be the primary goal in all but the most severe cases.
Any mandated BAC test must be based on clear reasonable suspicion of impairment, not an unrelated traffic violation.
Breathalyzer tests should be used for screening purposes only. They should have no standing as actual evidence of Blood Alcohol Content. However, we support that the driver always have the right to a blood test and be notified of that right should he wish to dispute the results of the breath test.
We are concerned with deterring impaired driving, not with regulating how a driver might become impaired. A driver is equally responsible regardless of where the drinking takes place be it at home, in a vehicle, or at a commercial establishment.
A "technically" impaired driver should not automatically be more heavily penalized if they are involved in an accident. The penalties should be based on the severity of the accident and the extent to which the impaired driver was at fault.
We oppose so-called "Administrative License Suspensions" since they are not an effective deterrent and violate the right to due process.
We support the detainment of any driver arrested on an impaired driving charge until sufficient time has passed to allow the individual to safely drive, or for other transportation arrangements to be made.
We support the right to a jury trial for all accused traffic violators, particularly defendants accused of severe offenses for which long license suspension or jail time could be imposed.
We oppose measures that revoke or withhold a driver's license that do not directly relate to driving. As related to drinking laws, we are opposed to license suspension for non-driving related violations.
We do not support age-based BAC standards (e.g., "zero tolerance") for persons under 21 years of age.
We do not support reducing blood alcohol content standards to .08% for non-rebuttable conviction of DWI.




http://www.motorists.org/

[jimnyc]

Let us present a certain situation: :cool:

Let us suppose that you are driving your car around and are stopped for a traffic violation. The officer decides to search your car and finds you have a gun. So he arrests you for unauthorized possession of a firearm.
You know you are right, but the only way to prove it is in a trial by jury. Trouble is, during jury selection, all the gun enthusiasts make up some excuse not to serve. You are left with some older people and a few people who don't like your looks.
Good luck with that.

In a case such as that, I couldn't care less who the jury was. Either one is legally entitled to possess the firearm or they are not. A friendly jury or not, neither should affect a case such as you propose. Are you implying that a soft jury would allow someone to get off for having an unauthorized possession? Or that a tough jury would find one guilty even though they were legally possessing?

Pick a better circumstance, knucklehead. :)

[gabosaurus]

In a case such as that, I couldn't care less who the jury was. Either one is legally entitled to possess the firearm or they are not. A friendly jury or not, neither should affect a case such as you propose. Are you implying that a soft jury would allow someone to get off for having an unauthorized possession? Or that a tough jury would find one guilty even though they were legally possessing?

Pick a better circumstance, knucklehead. :)

Once again, you are missing the point. :slap:

[jimnyc]

Once again, you are missing the point. :slap:

I know your point exactly, it's just that your scenario sucks. :)

[gabosaurus]

I know your point exactly, it's just that your scenario sucks. :)

Answer my pm, you silly boy. :poke:

[jimnyc]

Answer my pm, you silly boy. :poke:

Ok, since you were nice about it!

[gabosaurus]

Ok, since you were nice about it!

Our last day of school was Thursday. My daughter is in school until next Friday. So I might be bothering people here for a while. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

Our last day of school was Thursday. My daughter is in school until next Friday. So I might be bothering people here for a while. :laugh:

Jordan had his math final on Wednesday, full day yesterday. English final today and is home already (9-11 for final days). Chinese on Monday and forget which other classes for Tue-Thurs which is his last day. But he starts summer camp the Monday after school, so there won't be too much of him trying to kill his Daddy.

I believe we are off topic, and you started it. I shall start a summer thread...

[logroller]

He got hooked on pain killers due to a medical condition - like I almost was hooked.

Of course being a liberal, your "compassion" for him is typical. Much like Gabby's and Virgil's compassion that was shown to me

The question was how to get out of jury duty and any defense attorney would not want anyone on the jury who listens to Rush

However, I would love to see you debate Rush one on one LR. He does put liberals to the front of the line so if you get through you are in. Today is open line Friday so you even get to pick the topic. How about those Obamacare exchanges you were so excited over?
I got hooked on oxy too rsr. Not almost, I did. I managed to kick it without Buying black market drugs, but i too was first prescribed it following a medical procedure. compassion, yea, that rush just exudes compassion; calling a woman a slut. and you Defended that i believe. Callin it as you see it; me too. Rush was a pill popping junkie. but i could still give him a fair shake, unlike his listeners apparently. But nice try on the sick card. And its sad that you feel the need to bring up your medical triumphs as a chip on your shoulder and not a badge of courage. The reasons why a defense attorney, or any attorney, would not want a juror is if they beilieve them unable to put their personal biases aside; insufferably close-minded. So generally speaking, you're saying that rush listeners are insufferably close-minded, unable to put their prejudices aside on nearly every case. Well it's nice to know those people have a spokesman to reinforce their prejudices. Imagine what kind of a world this would be if people were open to ideas different from one's own. You're dismissed. Maybe I'll call rush today, his number still 1-888-kool-aid?

[jimnyc]

Addiction to Oxy, wow, feels like yesterday. I won't knock anyone no matter what route they took to feel better, I'm in no position. I was literally on the edge of reality and was close to breaking, and that was from like only 8 weeks of use!

[logroller]

Addiction to Oxy, wow, feels like yesterday. I won't knock anyone no matter what route they took to feel better, I'm in no position. I was literally on the edge of reality and was close to breaking, and that was from like only 8 weeks of use!
Maybe you weren't that far from the edge of reality beforehand.:poke:

[red states rule]

I got hooked on oxy too rsr. Not almost, I did. I managed to kick it without Buying black market drugs, but i too was first prescribed it following a medical procedure. compassion, yea, that rush just exudes compassion; calling a woman a slut. and you Defended that i believe. Callin it as you see it; me too. Rush was a pill popping junkie. but i could still give him a fair shake, unlike his listeners apparently. But nice try on the sick card. And its sad that you feel the need to bring up your medical triumphs as a chip on your shoulder and not a badge of courage. The reasons why a defense attorney, or any attorney, would not want a juror is if they beilieve them unable to put their personal biases aside; insufferably close-minded. So generally speaking, you're saying that rush listeners are insufferably close-minded, unable to put their prejudices aside on nearly every case. Well it's nice to know those people have a spokesman to reinforce their prejudices. Imagine what kind of a world this would be if people were open to ideas different from one's own. You're dismissed. Maybe I'll call rush today, his number still 1-888-kool-aid?

I clearly said I was almost hooked - but I never was. You can laugh at the cancer which is what I expect of most liberals like you how have a very low tolerance level of different opinions

Yes Rush called her a slut but then offered up several apologies over several days. I keep[ forgetting only morally and intellectually superior liberals like yourself are flawless and never say things they regret later. Oh, if only all of us could be as perfect as you LR

Also when someone has to pull out the racist card they are losing the debate. Which is something I thought you would be used to by now

It is now clear the once high standards Jim had for staff members has been drastically lowered so you could become a staff member LR. There goes the neighborhood folks

[WiccanLiberal]

I don't like jury duty. I have done it a few times. I found the system flawed at a fundamental level. The selection process seems inclined to weed out people that are capable of critical thinking. Still it is the best system available and I would not attempt to deliberately evade my civic duty.

[gabosaurus]

I don't like jury duty. I have done it a few times. I found the system flawed at a fundamental level. The selection process seems inclined to weed out people that are capable of critical thinking. Still it is the best system available and I would not attempt to deliberately evade my civic duty.

No one really enjoys jury duty. But it is a fundamental cornerstone of a free society.

[aboutime]

Despite all of the talk here about Jury Duty, and how to get out of it.

I believe the system could be RE-VAMPED to be closer to the wording of the Constitution which grants any Accused person. A Fair Trial by a Jury of their PEERS.

PEERS is an important word. If you think about it.

If a White man is on Trial. His Peers would all be White.

If a Black man is on Trial. His Peers would all be Black.

Same for All Races....Mexican, Puerto Rican, American Indian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and...BAGGY PANTS fans as well.

[logroller]

I clearly said I was almost hooked - but I never was. You can laugh at the cancer which is what I expect of most liberals like you how have a very low tolerance level of different opinions
and I said I was, not almost. Good to see we're on the same page. But regardless, I didn't laugh at cancer; so unless you were released From jury duty due to it; it's irrelevant and just a fallacious emotional appeal/ ad hominem attack.


Yes Rush called her a slut but then offered up several apologies over several days.
Humility is an admirable trait.

I keep[ forgetting only morally and intellectually superior liberals like yourself are flawless and never say things they regret later. Oh, if only all of us could be as perfect as you LR.
So what's your point? You said a rush fan couldn't (hardly ever) be seen by a defense as an impartial jurists. I said that's not true. So unless impartiality is a moral or intellectual trait, I didn't mention moral or intellectual superiority--you're just making things up. Sorry dude, nobody's trying to knock that chip off your shoulder, it's all you.


Also when someone has to pull out the racist card they are losing the debate. Which is something I thought you would be used to by now
I know. Never use it myself, even in defeat; you, however...


It is now clear the once high standards Jim had for staff members has been drastically lowered so you could become a staff member LR. There goes the neighborhood folks first the cancer-card, then the race-card, now its a staff issue. Trifecta rsr. Did you box those? Cause its usually the race card first.

[logroller]

Despite all of the talk here about Jury Duty, and how to get out of it.

I believe the system could be RE-VAMPED to be closer to the wording of the Constitution which grants any Accused person. A Fair Trial by a Jury of their PEERS.

PEERS is an important word. If you think about it.

If a White man is on Trial. His Peers would all be White.

If a Black man is on Trial. His Peers would all be Black.

Same for All Races....Mexican, Puerto Rican, American Indian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and...BAGGY PANTS fans as well.
Amendment VI of the Constitution doesn't say anything about a jury of one's "PEERS" as you have described it, but rather those from the same State/district, *depending on whether its a state/federal trial, respectively.

[gabosaurus]

Your "peers" has nothing to do with your race or ethnicity. It means those who you reside with. Since all people are created equal. Except for rednecks and conservatives, of course. :p

[logroller]

Your "peers" has nothing to do with your race or ethnicity. It means those who you reside with. Since all people are created equal. Except for rednecks and conservatives, of course. :p

We're all born conservative, you have to be indoctrinated learn to be liberal.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by gabosaurus http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=646915#post646915)
Your "peers" has nothing to do with your race or ethnicity. It means those who you reside with. Since all people are created equal. Except for rednecks and conservatives, of course. :p


We're all born conservative, you have to be indoctrinated learn to be liberal.

We are for a fact naturally born to keep and not give away. When we finally learn to give away, our first instinct is to take from others to give to the target as laid out by others.

Giving Xmas presents is an example. But there, we are told to give what we own to others but it sends a wrong signal to those who become alleged liberals.

Liberal is only liberal with property belonging to others. Seldom will a liberal dip into their bag of goods to hand to others.

I have performed experiments on AOL forums with so called Liberals.

A claim they make that is proven a lie is they are generous to others. They actually are the super stingy types, not generous. They vote to enrich themselves too.

[Syrenn]

LoL!



I get called for jury duty almost every other year to the day!

And...... i would prefer NOT to serve... so answer questions in a way to make them want to toss me.

However...... some tirals i would love to serve as a juror. The zimmerman trial is one trial i would behave enough to get into the jury!