#Jury Questionnaires

[0809sysblings]

just got a jury duty summons. fellas i'm in, we made it. can't believe they made milgram into an irl event.. and in the US no less!

[eulers-babe]

for no reason whatsoever here’s a reminder that if you consider yourself a leftist/punk/abolitionist/anarchist/radical in any sort of way and get called into jury duty, you are to become the most square person on earth during the jury questionnaire!!!

don’t be that guy who says fuck the police in the jury questionnaire! that just gets you sent home! if you want to generate change, interact with the case and use your jury vote for good! ESPECIALLY if it’s a high profile case!

[thelawfulchaotic]

Courtroom question for you, if you’d like to answer! I was recently tapped for jury duty (which I’m low-key really excited about, I think it’ll be an interesting experience) and it got be thinking…

What do you wish that jurors knew about being jurors? Like if you were gonna make a primer for them, or run a workshop on ‘how to be jury’ what would you include? (IDK how often - if ever - your work involves jurors, but that’s not a required qualification for this IMO)

Heavy breathing on this post

I've done about a dozen jury trials, because juvenile cases rarely go up that far. I've also threatened another couple dozen because threatening juries goes over great. I'm not a Whiz at juries, but I can perform pretty solid.

It's so exciting to answer this question.

Biggest: Jury nullification. The key takeaway: juries can literally just do whatever they want. The judges will make a huge deal about how you need to Follow The Law, The Law Says This, If You Find This Is True Then Guilty. But here's the thing: what happens in the jury room is not reviewable. So juries have the implicit power of nullification. That means they can find someone 'not guilty' and no one will ever get to know why.

If you say "jury nullification" aloud in front of everyone, there will be a mistrial. It is the spectre we must not name.

So You Might Be A Juror

You may receive a questionnaire in advance (not in my state lol but I've heard about it). This questionnaire will cover some of the basics of whether you're willing and able to come to court. Are you scared of COVID? Do you have dependents? Can you afford to live off the court stipend? It may also cover the basics of bias.

If you don't receive a questionnaire, you'll be questioned in the courtroom. This could be en masse with everyone saying "yes" or "no" at once or raising their hand if their answer to the question is weird. This could be one by one. It could take half an hour. It could take a week. States vary so wildly that there is almost no coherent summary I can give of the process.

The goal of this is to check you for bias. If you want to get on the jury, you are right now the most normal person on the planet. You like laws and orderly societies and you are willing to do your civic duty.

You can disclose sensitive information privately. If you are questioned en masse and there's something you don't want to say to everyone, raise your hand and say you don't want to say it in front of everyone.

EVEN IF you do have a precondition that could cause bias (one of your family members was victim of a crime, you know a police officer, you've donated to a domestic violence shelter), you know, gee, people can be falsely accused, and you think you could set any possible bias aside and use your good judgment and common sense to judge what you see in the trial.

Normal citizens aren't more reliable than police officers and police officers aren't more reliable than normal citizens, not inherently; you think you would use your good judgment and common sense to think about each witness individually!

Of course you wouldn't have to hear the defendant testify, they have the right to remain silent!

NO POLITICS. You will judge the case before you based on the case before you and nothing else.

You're just so full of good common sense :)

You have no idea what the lawyers are going to be looking for. Often, they're struggling to find non-racist, non-sexist, non-ageist reasons to include or exclude jurors.

If you're a person of color, you might want to err on the side of extra conservative and dress very well. I hate to give this advice because I love the suits my black clients wear, but: muted colors, conservative cuts.

If you're a white woman, rock that cardigan and the "no-makeup" makeup look. This is a look that tells no one anything about you.

If you're a white man, you can aim a little further down. A white man dressing too nice is going to be judged as either an old conservative taking this too seriously or a younger man who's affluent, which makes you a wild card: most defendants are extremely poor and the defense will worry you can't relate. Things like work uniforms or polo shirts, not pink, will probably hit the right balance. If you go button-up, do not wear a tie.

Don't give anyone stink-eye. Even if they're a cop.

Even with all this, it could be a toss-up, getting on a jury.

Please, other attorneys with jury experience, weigh in. I feel a little limited at only a dozen or so trials myself.

[bcacstuff]

My legally trained attorney brain almost explodes when I read all the assumptions, innuendoes and wild leaps in logic made by a number of your followers. I dont want any of them on any of my juries. Common sense seems to leave the building when it comes to Sam's possible love life and is replaced by conjecture, fantasy and obsession.

😂 well simple advise, ask the jurors in the pool if they watch OL in your questionnaire. If the answer is yes, reject them

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse:

When I was going through the selection process for a U.S. Attorney, I was worried about my qualifications. I had been with the Justice Department for over 15 years. I’d spent a decade as a criminal prosecutor before moving to the office’s appellate division. There, I had become the office’s senior litigation counsel, and then the chief of the appellate division. I had tried a lot of cases and argued a number of cases in front of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But I was still worried that I didn’t have enough experience for such an important job. A U.S. Attorney’s duties are outlined in a law passed by Congress. The statute charges each of the 93 U.S. Attorneys nationwide with prosecuting criminal cases, defending the government (or sometimes prosecuting) in civil actions, and collecting moneys owed to the government. They are also charged with making “such reports as the Attorney General may direct.” U.S. Attorneys take on responsibility for a wide array of issues that impact the Justice Department nationwide, as well as our work with other agencies and with our communities. Most U.S. Attorneys come to the job with a lot of legal experience and some exposure to management—running the office is part of the job. But none of that matters if you are Ed Martin, Trump’s nominee to be U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, one of the largest and most important offices. Every nominee to be a U.S. Attorney has to submit answers to a document called the Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, which is used by senators during the advice and consent process. Martin’s can be found here, so you can take a look at how he presents himself.

Among his issues:

Martin supported the “Stop the Steal” movement after the 2020 election. He moved to dismiss pending January 6-related cases as soon as he became the interim U.S. Attorney. He fired prosecutors who worked on the cases and launched an internal review to try to find misconduct, not that any had been alleged. He is investigating Justice Department prosecutors who brought charges against rioters, never mind that some of those charges included seditious conspiracy, defendants were convicted by juries, and convictions were confirmed on appeal.

Martin has never been a prosecutor. Total lack of experience in that regard. Martin worked for a well-known firm, Bryan, Cave, in its Washington, D.C., office for just over two years before leaving to open his own firm. He provided senators with a description of his work that claims 40% of his practice was in litigation before being forced to concede that he has never tried a case. He claims some criminal defense experience, involving January 6 defendants, and he does something I’ve never seen before—when asked for his top 10 cases as experience for the job, he claims a case that is in the office he is currently leading on an interim basis. That suggests his level of experience is pretty slim.

In his interim position, Martin has been making public comments that will impact cases, as in leading district judges to dismiss them. DOJ policy expressly prohibits prosecutors from suggesting a defendant is guilty before they are convicted. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Statements like this one, that Martin made on Twitter, are highly prejudicial and can prevent the Department from obtaining convictions in cases where the evidence would otherwise support them.

Then there is also the defense of vindictive/selective prosecution, which can get a conviction reversed. That’s usually a tough hill to climb, as we saw in the Hunter Biden prosecution, but Martin is a defense lawyer’s best friend in this regard. For instance, after reaching out—on Twitter—to express his support for Elon Musk and DOGE, he then suggested he’d prosecute anyone who got in their way. His negative comments about Democrats would taint any prosecution. Courts look harshly on prosecutors who engage in this kind of behavior. As Justice Sutherland wrote in a 1935 opinion, while a prosecutor “may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.”

Martin has used his office to threaten views that are different than those of this administration. For instance, Martin wrote to medical journals across the country, stating in one letter that “It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications … are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates.” He demanded a response to a series of questions “about misinformation, competing viewpoints and the influence of funders such as advertisers and the National Institutes of Health,” before advising the journal that “The public has certain expectations and you have certain responsibilities.” Martin is an interim U.S. Attorney, and if he had a legitimate criminal investigation, he could issue subpoenas for grand jury testimony. If he had a civil case, there are other investigative techniques. This letter is the work of a dangerous bully. Federal prosecutors don’t tell scientists what to believe and publish.

[...]

Some reporters have recently suggested that Martin doesn’t have the votes for confirmation, which would be great. But Republicans have a way of doing Trump’s bidding. There is no need to look further than Kash Patel and Pete Hegseth.

Confirming right-wing extremist Phyllis Schlafly disciple Ed Martin to a permanent gig as DC Attorney is an insult to law and order.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Almost-president Trump is off to a good start... Today's cartoon by Paolo Lombardi.

* * * * *

The sentencing and conviction of defendant Donald J. Trump.

January 11, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Transcript of proceedings in Department 59 of the New York County Supreme Court on January 10, 2025, in the matter of People v. Donald J. Trump.

Judge Juan Merchan: Let's impose a sentence, please.

Clerk: Donald Trump, you are before the court for sentence following your conviction by trial to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Before being sentenced, the court will allow you, your attorney and assistant district attorney, an opportunity to address the court with any matters relevant to sentencing. [Who is appearing] for the people?

Assistant Manhattan DA Joshua Steinglass: The defendant in this case, as you know, stands convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, all Class-E felonies. Each carries a range of authorized sentencing options from much as one-an-a-third to four years in state prison to a variety of non-incarceratory sentences.

In this court's January 3rd decision on the defendant's Clayton motion, Your Honor indicated an inclination to impose an unconditional discharge. Under all the circumstances of this case, its unique posture, and the defendant's status as president-elect, The People recommend a sentence of an unconditional discharge.

In finding the defendant guilty in this case, the jury necessarily found unanimously that the defendant falsified 34 separate entries in his business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote his own election by unlawful means.

Having presided over the trial, your honor is very familiar with the conduct, its seriousness, and the overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict. I'm certainly not going to rehash that now.

In last week's decision on January 3rd, this court referred to the gravamen of the defendant's conduct, his criminal conduct in this case, as constituting "premeditated and continuous deception."

The verdict was delivered by a jury that was carefully chosen using an extensive questionnaire based on suggestions from both parties and after thorough questioning of the prospective jurors by both sides.

The verdict in this case was unanimous and decisive, and it must be respected.

As this court has observed, quote," the sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it is a bedrock principle in our nation's jurisprudence." The defendant's conduct before, during, and after this trial also merits consideration. Instead of preserving, protecting, and defending our constitutionally-established system of criminal justice, the defendant -- the once and future president of the United States -- has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy.

Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law. And he's done this to serve his own ends and to encourage others to reject the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful. He has characterized these proceedings as "corrupt," "rigged," a "witch hunt," or a "sham" too many times to tabulate.

The defendant's rhetoric has only ratcheted up since this court's rulings on his motions to dismiss. He has been unrelenting in his unsubstantiated attacks upon this court and its family, individual prosecutors, and their families, the witnesses, the grand jury, the trial jury, and the justice system as a whole.

The defendant has not only been held in contempt by other jurists in other matters, but this court alone found the defendant in contempt for ten distinct violations of the order restricting extrajudicial speech. In his legal filings, the defendant has used dangerous rhetoric and leveling accusations of intentionally unlawful and unconstitutional conduct on the part of this court and the prosecution.

As this court has noted, the defendant's conduct "constitutes a direct attack on the rule of law itself. "

Moreover, the defendant has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors who have sought to hold him accountable in this and other matters and the courts who have endeavored to fairly and faithfully adjudicate these matters. Such threats are designed to have a chilling effect, to intimidate those who have the responsibility to enforce our laws in the hopes that they will ignore the defendant's transgressions because they fear that he is simply too powerful to be subjected to the same rule of law as the rest of us.

In his 2024 end of year report, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts warned of the dangers of such conduct. "public officials, too, regrettably, have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges.

For example, suggesting political bias and the judge's adverse rulings without credible basis for such allegations." Chief Justice Roberts continued, "Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges, may prompt dangerous reactions by others."

Chief Justice Roberts also spoke of the dangers of disinformation, which are "magnified by social media, which provides a ready channel to instantly spread rumor and false information."

Put simply, this defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way.

In the probation report which we just received this morning, the author -- having interviewed the defendant -- noted that the defendant sees himself as above the law and won't accept responsibility for his actions. And that's certainly consistent with everything else that we've seen.

Now, in a typical case, both the offense conduct and these other exacerbating factors would impact the appropriate sentence. But in this case, we must be respectful of the office of the presidency and mindful of the fact that the defendant will be inaugurated as president in ten days.

Any undischarged portion of the sentence has the potential to interfere with the defendant's performance of the duties of his office. As a practical matter, the most sensible sentence prior to his inauguration is an unconditional discharge. The court has expressed an inclination to do exactly that because, in the court's words, "The most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendant to pursue his appellate options" is to proceed to sentence.

As you know in New York, an unconditional discharge is authorized by the penal law "if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character, and condition of the defendant is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment and that probation supervision is not appropriate."

An unconditional discharge is authorized if a conditional discharge is authorized and if "The court is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant's release."

Because these crimes are felonies, the court must set forth in the record the reasons for its action.

The American public has the right to a presidency unencumbered by pending court proceedings or ongoing sentence-related obligations, but imposing this sentence ensures that finality. Sentencing the defendant permits this court to enter judgment to cement the defendant's status as a convicted felon while he pursues whatever appeals he intends to pursue, and it gives full effect and respect to the jury's verdict while preserving the defendant's ability to govern.

People, therefore, recommend that this court impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge. Thank you.

[Trump then delivers remarks that insult the court, the American people, and the rule of law.]

Judge Juan M. Merchan, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court: Thank you, Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump, you appear before this court today to conclude this criminal proceeding by the imposition of sentence. Although I have taken the unusual step of informing you in advance of my inclinations before imposing sentence, I believe it is important for you as well as those observing these proceedings to understand my reasoning for the sentence I am about to impose.

The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult and significant decisions that any criminal court judge is called upon to make. Our legislature sets the parameters for an authorized sentence, but it is a judge that must decide what constitutes a just conclusion to a verdict of guilty. A court is vested with broad discretion in determining what sources or evidence you may consider to arrive at an appropriate sentence. In doing so, the court must consider the facts of the case, along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

In my time on the bench, I've been called upon to grapple with this weighty responsibility for countless defendants who have been found guilty after trial for an assortment of offenses ranging from nonviolent, class-E felonies to the most heinous of crimes, including homicides, sex trafficking, and child sexual abuse. The task is always difficult and deserving of careful consideration, whether the sentence be an unconditional discharge or incarceration of 25 years to life.

However, never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it can be viewed fairly that this has been a truly extraordinary case. There was unprecedented media attention, public interest, and heightened security involving various agencies. And yet, the trial was a bit of a paradox, because once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique or extraordinary than the other 32 criminal trials that took place in this courthouse at the same exact time.

Jury selection was conducted. The same rules of evidence were followed. Opening statements were made, witnesses called and cross-examined, evidence presented, summations delivered. The same burden of proof was applied, and a jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict, and it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure and guided by the law.

Of course, part of what made it feel somewhat ordinary was the outstanding work, preparation and professionalism of the clerks, court officers, court reporters, security personnel, and the entire staff of this building who did their jobs as they would with any other criminal trial.

So, while one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing, and that is because of the office you once occupied and which you will soon occupy again. To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the Office of the President of the United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office.

The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution afforded to the Office of the President, have been laid out by our founders, the Constitution, and most recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump v. The United States, which was decided on July 1st, 2024.

As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating or mitigating factors to inform my decision. Some of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my Sandoval ruling at the start of this trial and by my recent written decisions on December 16th and January 3rd. Thus, they need not be repeated at this time. However, the considerable, indeed extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the Chief Executive is a factor that overrides all others.

To be clear, the protections afforded to the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way. The protections are, however, a legal mandate which, pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow. However, despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict.

It is clear from legal precedent -- which until July 1st was scarce -- that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections. I'm referring to protections that extend well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. No, ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections.

It is the Office of the President that bestows those far-reaching protections to the officeholder, and it was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include, among other things, the Supremacy Clause and presidential immunity. It is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence.

After careful analysis in obedience to governing mandates and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge, which the New York State Legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Therefore, at this time I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.

Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office. Thank you.

Concluding Thoughts

The outcome of this case pleased no one. If Trump had not been re-elected and did not have a fabricated presidential immunity, he would have likely been sentenced to a jail term. But we would not have arrived at this point without the careful judicial management of Judge Juan Merchan and the civic dedication of twelve jurors and a courageous district attorney. We owe each of them an enormous debt of gratitude.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[oneshortdamnfuse]

They called me for jury duty in 2020. I completed it, but it was during COVID and I never had to physically go.

I got called for jury duty again in 2021, and I had to call them proving that I already did it.

I got a questionnaire for jury duty in 2024, and I just got a summons in 2025.

I am going to fucking lose it. Do I have a fucking target on my back?

And it's always always always every single fucking time between February and April which is my busiest fucking time of the year.

[ghost-analogy]

Mom threatened my life twice today and said she'd rather I go to jail than pay any fines. The context for the jail thing is I forgot to do my jury summons questionnaire btw.

[wuxiaphoenix]

On Writing: A Quick Jury Introduction

Okay, thought I’d turn an exhausting day into possibly useful info for you all.... The U.S. institution of trial by jury is likely more familiar to some of us than others. If you’re a writer coming from outside the States, though, what may not immediately be apparent is that far, far more Americans interact with the legal system than ever show up for a civil suit or are charged with a crime.

All those jurors have to come from somewhere.

So. There are multiple requirements to be a legit juror, but mostly it boils down to, you’re a U.S. citizen, you’re over 18, and you have all your civil rights (i.e. you’re not a felon yourself). You also, so far as I know, have to be a resident of the county where the trial is taking place. In practical terms this means once you get any kind of state-issued ID, even a learner’s permit - if you’re over 18, you’re in the list the computer draws from for the next jury pool.

(Yes, I once had to arrange transportation to a jury summons when I still wasn’t legally allowed to drive by myself. Fun. Not.)

About two to three weeks before you’re due to show up, you get the summons in the mail. At which point a certain amount of profanity may ensue, because you have to prepare to upend all your plans for at least an entire day. You can ask for a deferral, or even to be dropped from selection, if one of several hardship conditions apply. You’re the sole person doing 24/7 medical care for someone, for example, or you’re going to be in the hospital on that date with major surgery involved. “My workplace won’t let me take that day off,” is NOT one of those conditions. Let the court know that, and they will then duke it out with your workplace. No, seriously, that is what will happen. The jury summons is a civic duty. It is, effectively, being “drafted” for that day. Constitutionally. I would not want to be the employer who has to hear from the Clerk of Courts. It would not go well.

So, you prep, you clear your schedule, there’s usually a questionnaire to fill out (either on paper or, more recently, on a county website) so they have some background to make sure you’re who they meant to call... and then you wait. In my home county, you wait until the night before you’re due to come in, and call the automated line to see if they still need a jury pool the next day. It’s possible the lawyers will hash things out and call the trial off. No trial, no jury needed.

Assuming you’re not that lucky, then it’s get up very early in the morning so you can get to the courthouse on time. They try to put courthouses near the center of the county, but some counties are very big. And you come prepared, because you’re likely to be there from 8 AM to 5 PM or later.  

My experience is that it���s very cold in courthouses. Don’t ask me why. After the first trip I started bringing multiple layers so I didn’t freeze myself into bronchitis. It... mostly works.

Summons in hand, you go in through the metal detector; anything else you bring in with you (coats, water, etc.) has to go in a tray and fit through an x-ray machine under the unblinking and likely already-tired eyes of a couple deputies. And you take a deep breath before plunging into what will be an introvert’s most horrible day, because you will be surrounded by strangers you cannot get away from.

You follow the various staff directing you to the first auditorium, where you hand in your summons, let the clerks know whether you’re employed and whether or not your employer is going to pay you for the day (often they don’t), then try to find a seat not so close to the speakers that your ears will get blasted when everyone else shows up and they show the instructional vids about voting being a civic duty, take it seriously, etc., etc.

(It is and I do, but I’ve seen the vids so many times by now....)

Aaand then you wait. And wait. Often two hours plus. While the attorneys up in the courtroom overhead are duking things out with each other, and with the judge, and reading all the questionnaires to try and figure out who they might want on their jury and what questions they want to ask.

A certain number of people may get let go at this point, depending on how many trials they’re picking for. The clerk of court quipped that they ought to consider lottery tickets....

Finally the attorneys hit the end of when the judge will allow them to keep delaying things, and all the pool gets led upstairs to the courtroom itself. Once everyone’s in, all rise for the judge, there’s another lecture on civic duty, fair and impartial, and so on.

(Everyone is already freezing, tired, and there’s no coffee. Seriously, there’s a spot for snack and drink machines when we have breaks, but not one drop of coffee. The court clerks also mourn this as an affront against humanity.)

The attorneys - prosecution and defense - get introduced, as well as the defendant. And then the questions start. One of the first being, does anyone in the pool know anyone 1) who’s going to be in court or 2) one of the other jurors? Even with random selection, it’s possible you get some people who know each other....

Other questions that may show up include but are not limited to: Can you be fair and impartial with X charges? (Given you have no idea what you’re a jury for until this point, from a traffic ticket to murder, this is important.) Do you think you can judge the credibility of a witness? Have you, a family member, or someone you know been involved with a similar crime? Do you know any of the witnesses?

Once they get past all of that and mark down a preliminary “who’s affected by what and why”, then the attorneys go back to the judge’s bench and start discussing who they’ll pick. Jurors don’t get to overhear this. If they have specific follow-up questions for a particular jury candidate, you get called up to the judge’s bench to answer them.

(My frank and honest answers seemed to unnerve both the prosecution and the defense. Heh.)

BTW, a jury may be less than the classic twelve. For many trials they just want six or seven, so they’ll pick out eight or nine (so they have a few alternates). They’re also likely to be selecting juries for several trials from the same pool. So once they make their first picks, those jurors are brought over to the jury box, sworn in, told not to talk with anyone about the case, and released until court is back in session. Everyone else has to sit and wait through the rest of the picks....

Yes, you do get a lunch break. Eventually. Depending on how far the judge thinks he can push people to get the attorneys done - that’ll vary, especially if you have older jurors or those with medical conditions who need to eat something with medicine or end up in trouble. Lunch may break for an hour, which isn’t as long as you’d think because there’s nowhere nearby to get solid food unless you hit the road. In lunch hour traffic. Fun.

(I bring lunch in a cooler. Have I mentioned I’ve done this a lot of times?)

And then it’s back to the next set of attorneys, and questions, and... it’s a long, cold, exhausting day surrounded by people. Though if you are selected, the trial is usually the next day or at most later that week, so with luck you’re only upended for a few more days.

Whether or not you get picked, you’re then out of the pool for a year. If they do call you back early, you can tell them that!

Jury duty. Necessary, somewhat interesting, very chilly. So it goes!

[lilitunoirrr]

The jury selection for Diddy's trial is actually really entertaining.

One juror straight up wrote on their questionnaire that P Diddy has money, could buy his way out. In Federal court 😂

And when the judge asked what they meant by that? The juror answers just what I wrote lol.

Some of these charecters are entertaining af lol