Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

[Friend In Court]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

No they were jurors. It was common in many places back then.

One would think where lawyers get to pick or disqualify prospective jurors, these gals who showed up every day would have been passed over. Must have been a very small community.

[goddessoflubboc]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

Philadelphia County, PA.

This was a time when women were just obtaining the right to serve on juries. For decades after the right to vote they were banned from serving. Women were automatically passed over if they had children or were pregnant.

[cvolpe]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

Jury duty does not fall under the definition of involuntary servitude.

From Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (FindLaw | Cases and Codes)

"Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."

[Unregistered]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

Jurors are paid for their time, so skotch the 'involuntary servitude" argument. Military service can be involuntary, too, and no one makes that 13th Amendment argument. Conscientious objectors with a legitimate reason not to go to war, may be excused. Soldiers are paid.

Jury service is part of a good citizen's obligation to assure our justice system works as it should. Jurors are paid, too, so that is not slavery. The jury system exists to assure that the accused has a jury of his peers, and is not prosecuted by the King [the privileged, the appointed/elected judges].

Someone with the attitude towards jury service as the poster would probably be eliminated in the voir dire the lawyers conduct to screen out those with bias or prejudice towards the issue or defendant -- or are blithering idiots they do not want sitting on the jury.

Involuntary servitude is being forced to serve against your will regardless of whether you are paid or not. You don't have the choice of refusing to serve. You're confusing involuntary servitude with slavery which is forced labor without pay. The key word in involuntary, being paid is irrelevant.

[hhps60]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

These are very divergent viewpoints on whether jury duty is involuntary servitude.

I too side with those who believe that personal time is valuable and citizen's time should not be confiscated by a government agency just because government has the power and supposed "authority" to force citizens into submission.

While well paid judges and lawyers spend their days in the courtroom, everyday citizens are forced to show up and wait in the courthouse, often waiting and waiting for nothing. No, jury duty is not a requirement imposed on us by the Constitution. The Constitution Amendment VI says " In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the tate and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ." There is no mention of jurors being required to attend..

A solution? Instead of using DVM and Registrar of Voter rolls, use the state's unemployment rolls. Pay the jurors a small stipend for EVERYDAY they attend. Jury duty should be for those who want to serve. Those who oppose jury duty have a civil right not to attend.

The impact of unwanted jury duty on worker productivity is lost under the cogs of the State's inefficient judicial processes.

[hhps60]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

Does anyone have recent court decisions (preferably in California) that support a decision that disallows mandatory jury duty?

[Disagreeable]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

I can't speak for CA. In my state, it is a privilege/requirement of being registered to vote. We have a new member in CA that should be able to answer better.

Does anyone have recent court decisions (preferably in California) that support a decision that disallows mandatory jury duty?

[SupportAttyGuy]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

There is nothing that "disallows" mandatory jury service.

Serving on a jury is part of the bargain citizens strike to live in a free country. Anyone who looks at it as some sort of servitude, or slavery, or conscription needs to reassess their thought processes.

[Unregistered]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

I too have been called to serve. For me, it is considerable distance, there is no convenient parking and parking is not free and the "stipend" does not cover anything but perhaps the mileage one way.
I see the 13th ammendment similiar to the 2nd ammendment in that they are open to much interpretation, though the language is very clear on what is and what is not considered "involuntary servitude" or gun rights. My belief is that as long as lawyers make and interpret the rules, we shall never be rid of this form of slavery. I would be more open to the concept however if jurors were not treated as slaves, were paid a reasonable fee for the service and shown some consideration like convenient, free parking at the courthouse.

[BOR]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

Does anyone have recent court decisions (preferably in California) that support a decision that disallows mandatory jury duty?

No State forbids it, as it is not forbidden by the federal constitution;

At p. 333;

"It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc"


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

[Unregistered]

Re: Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

Thank you very much self-described idiot.

I never saw any whips in the courtroom during jury selection.

Hmmm. You must have had your experience in some third world country.

Your post, Idiot, was very entertaining. Irrelevant, not on point, but entertaining just the same.

Some people should stay on their meds.

In Colorado I tried to leave before the Judge was done talking to all of the potential jurors, and I tried to hand in my clipboard back to the woman behind the glass. She said, "you can't leave".
I was there against my will, I was told I could not leave under the threat of a warrant, a fine, and jail or imprisonment. At that moment I felt like I was in perhaps the Kremlin. I did not feel like I was a free American, because, in fact, for the moment they required me to be there, I was not a free American, I felt imprisoned in my own country.

[RexLex]

Best-reasoned, historically accurate, legally correct, and positively proactive response to this post yet! (This said by a 15-year litigator who has won millions of dollars for clients against America's wealthiest corporations and largest cities, prevailing on Constitutional grounds, and who never lost a case)

These are very divergent viewpoints on whether jury duty is involuntary servitude.

I too side with those who believe that personal time is valuable and citizen's time should not be confiscated by a government agency just because government has the power and supposed "authority" to force citizens into submission.

While well paid judges and lawyers spend their days in the courtroom, everyday citizens are forced to show up and wait in the courthouse, often waiting and waiting for nothing. No, jury duty is not a requirement imposed on us by the Constitution. The Constitution Amendment VI says " In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the tate and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ." There is no mention of jurors being required to attend..

A solution? Instead of using DVM and Registrar of Voter rolls, use the state's unemployment rolls. Pay the jurors a small stipend for EVERYDAY they attend. Jury duty should be for those who want to serve. Those who oppose jury duty have a civil right not to attend.

The impact of unwanted jury duty on worker productivity is lost under the cogs of the State's inefficient judicial processes.

[RexLex]

That sort of reasoning flies in the face of the First Anendment and ergo renders your entire argument constitutionally D.O.A. Put some effort into what you advocate and actually hit back with some valid legal authority that contradicts the law cited contra, and that is in harmony with the right of free speech and thought. A position bolstered only by appeals to moral obligation and public policy will lose against an argument squarely backed by a provision of the Constitution, as literally restated and construed in its plain meaning on its face, will win in court every day of the week that ends in "y".

UOTE=SupportAttyGuy;343325]There is nothing that "disallows" mandatory jury service.

Serving on a jury is part of the bargain citizens strike to live in a free country. Anyone who looks at it as some sort of servitude, or slavery, or conscription needs to reassess their thought processes.[/QUOTE]