I am not trying to be a dope by what I say next. I think we would all be better served focusing on the unwanted fame aspect of the original post just to stay on point. However, we can always start a new discussion on the merits/history of our system of jurisprudence. It has been a GREAT conversation with excellent framing of arguments and opinions. I really appreciate the viewpoint of the citizens of other nations as they weigh in on this. Thanks everyone for an outstanding discussion.

Just me.

I feel really sorry for the jurors in the case. Jury service is not only a civic obligation but a legal one. Short of sabotaging yourself during jury selection there's no legal way out of it. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. Beyond that, one would think the jury saw more evidence than those watching the news did.

The mania surrounding this case both baffles and astounds me. I'm no psychologist but I'm curious as to how so many people across the world have managed to invest so much emotion in this thing. The child was cute, the crime was horrible and the behavior of the mother was bizarre...I "get" that those are compelling plot points. But few to none of the people tweeting death threats could have possibly known any of the main characters in this twisted drama. Why does anyone care? I wonder how many other children were murdered around the world in the span of time that this case was flogged by the cable news media?

Did anyone here follow the case? I'm aware of just the main points- the child was found dead in the woods, cause of death unknown. The mother failed to report the child missing for over a month. But I don't know anything about the case that I couldn't glean from the first paragraph of any news story.

Well, the names were just released and the jurors are nowhere to be found. An excellent idea on their part.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45029137/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Now, sit back and see how long the media storm lasts.

Sure I will submit to an interview, right after you place some unholy amount of money into my hand. Highest bidder gets me. Call me a [censored], won't make me feel bad. I'd keep maybe 25% of the cash and donate the rest to charities. Interview only happens after check clears.

Then, I answer in short, usually one word if I can, sentences. Ask me the same question twice, I say "asked and answered". That drives reporters crazy btw. And I'd liberally sprinkle the interview with nonsense answers. "Why did you...?" "Did you know jellyfish and pancakes have no bones?" "Did you walk to school as a child or carry your lunch?" The looks you get are priceless.

Guaranteed, there will not be a second request for an interview.

Maybe I can get one of the jurors to let me substitute for him.

My spouse and I get called for jury duty and serve almost annually. Frankly, we've already done our part.

I have been interviewed for lengthy trials where the judge, in response to people saying that their employer only pays a few days salary for jury service, says to them, "Well, what vacation time do you have coming? You can use that time to serve on the jury."

Frankly, I don't feel very civil when I am, as part of the serving process, threatened with fines and imprisonment because I'm tired of being kidnapped from my job and other daily activities and held prisoner in a jury room to serve as an audience for too many attorneys trying to make too many big bucks off of too many lawsuits.

There, I feel a little bit more civil now. Thank you ETS. ;-)

While I have no advice for you on getting out of being selected for jury duty, it's pretty easy to not be selected for long trials. Just state an honest opinion that you hold that one of the attorney's doesn't want to see on the jury. If you post to ETS, there has to be something you can say that will be scrupulously honest but horrifying to a plaintiff's or defendant's attorney.

What opinion, for example? "I wouldn't buy a used car from that guy" or something else?

Thanks.

You might be looking at jury duty from the wrong end of the telescope...

I recently received a brochure (copyright free) from the Fully Informed Jury Association:

"Juror nullification is your right to refuse to enforce bad laws and bad prosecutions.

"Nullification is your personal veto against bad laws.

"Nullification is your right to veto corrupt laws from corrupt politicians.

"Until the 1800s, judges told the jurors of their right to refuse to enforce any law... Today ... Judges and lawyers complain that jurors 'undermine the rule of law and the uniformity of justice,' when jurors veto bad laws. Jurors always have the right to refuse to enforce bad laws.

"When jurors are threatened if they try to judge the law, we have trial by government."

As one ETS member once said, "We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system".

If you want to make your jury duty count, get some info from the FIJA.

If you want a guaranteed way to get out of jury duty, tell the judge you will NOT obey his directions. Judicial instructions and oaths are designed to bully jurors and protect political power.

Pity, though. America needs more jurors who are capable of thinking, rather than the ones who simply don't have anything better to do. If you were accused of a crime, which kind of juror would you want?

Sue

I was in peril of being impaneled as a juror in a week+ product liability case featuring a drunk redneck[*] as the plaintiff. I told the plaintiff's attorney that I had forbidden my children from riding skateboards, which was the offending implement.


[* - I am also a person of red of neck]

What ever happened to answering questions straight up, and doing your duty as a citizen, if selected? The chances are that you won't be selected, without any particular effort, one way or another, on your part.

Even if selected, you are not in court all that much. In my jurisdiction, court was in session on a long day from 9AM to 3PM. There were frequent day long recesses for one reason or another. Serving for a trial that lasted for ten weeks, I was able to keep up with critical aspects of my job. I also had the satisfaction of doing my duty as a citizen. Frankly, I was impressed with my fellow jurors (one of whom was an attorney, by the way). They were diligent, attentive, and thoughtful, and we done good!

Our choices in the jury room were first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter. There was nothing in the case we decided that inclined me toward nullification of those statutes.