Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Judith on January 3, 2013 at 8:36pm

Here in Portland, I have done my best through several calls to a duty I believe in. My very first supportive, practical input here at TuD was a Jury call when I had not ever yet tested in public and was really nervous about that very basic issue.

Since then I have served twice and it has been humiliating both times. As soon as I am called, go to the courtroom and then stand up to say "diabetes and fibromyalgia and arthritis" I am dismissed by the judge.

To get there and sustain the effort for 2 days requires a 2-week recovery. So I am, at last, thinking of asking my Doc to excuse me. It is just too hard. But that is age and fibromyalgia and arthritis. It's not our D.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jbowler on January 3, 2013 at 8:57pm

I've been called in Oregon as well - the very south (I live 20 miles north of the CA border) - and never found my health an issue (I admit, it's just diabetes.) Perhaps it is the sedentary nature of a juror and the simple fact that this can be a very real discomfort when you suffer from fibromyalgia.

In Josephine County I was never asked about medical issues. I was asked whether there was any reason I should not serve; I did not feel any need to state that I was a diabetic however I can see that it might be appropriate to ask the judge at this point whether this would be an issue. (I happen to believe that it should not be, so I feel no need to ask.)

John Bowler

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judith on January 3, 2013 at 9:10pm

Very encouraging, jb!.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by amanda02 on January 6, 2013 at 11:42am

I just finished a 2 week stint "on call" and never got called, although I was very nervous about it. I live 25 miles away from the court and don't drive due to impaired vision from diabetic macula edema, so I would have had to get someone to take me and pick me up. The "picking up" part would mean finding a pay phone since cell phones aren't allowed and standing outside for a half hour. It would also have meant closing down our family business for the duration and meant a serious financial hardship for my family.
I did talk to a friend who is diabetic and was called for jury duty. He said when the group met for orientation, the judge asked if there were any diabetics. Several people raised their hands, and the judge told them that if they needed to get a snack or take meds, they just had to let him know and they would take a break.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zoe on January 6, 2013 at 12:38pm

I would think your vision and transportation issues would have been enough to disqualify you. Is there a reason why you didn't indicate this in the initial form?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spock on January 6, 2013 at 1:20pm

Yes, and the business-loss of income--part should have actually disqualified you right away. It would in Virginia.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by amanda02 on January 6, 2013 at 4:32pm

I did indicate the business loss, but received a rejection for that reason. The court clerk informed me that that was not a "legal" excuse. This, BTW, was a federal court summons, and they may be stricter. I did not mention the vision and transportation problems because the form directs someone with transportation issues to a public transportation site, actually an absurd solution since this area does not really have adequate public transportation for such a long distance. It does ask if there are physical or mental defects which would interfere which my ability to serve on a jury, but I figured my problem was getting there, not being able to do the work once there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jbowler on January 6, 2013 at 6:45pm

The "on call" stuff is a real issue for a lot of people. Oregon stopped doing it for regular trials a while ago, but still does it for grand jurys (I guess because they can be called with no notice). (For those not accustomed to the US judicial system a grand jury is a randomly selected group of people who decide whether or not a criminal prosecution should go ahead, "grand [large]" is a misnomer from pre-independence times, it really should be called "petit [little] jury".)

It's a big deal for those of us who live in rural areas, because we have to call in regularly (that's curious anyway because there isn't yet a US legal requirement to have a telephone and there aren't any public telephones within at least 25 miles of where I live!)

I can't imagine how anyone who isn't retired (like me, I have no problem!) could possibly put up with this; it's ridiculous.

John Bowler

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher on January 7, 2013 at 2:30pm

A friend of mine was selected for jury duty many years ago. When asked by the judge during the selection process if he thought he'd be a good juror, he replied emphatically "Yes, sir! I can tell when a man is guilty just by looking at him!"

He was cut immediately.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page