What to wear for jury duty?

[dl20]

Originally Posted by fredfred

You wear whatever the hell you want to.

Why?

The lawyers are getting paid BIG bucks. The judge is getting paid big bucks. You are getting paid an insulting amount tantamount to worse than nothing.

The winning lawyers should have to pay the jury. Why should everybody working in the room get paid except me as a member of the jury?

I was in small claims on Centre Street (NYC) recently. I was also mistaken for a lawyer more than once. I was defending against a lame-ass claim. I won the case easily. A huge waste of time for everyone involved.

QFT. I'm so friggin busy being taken out for several days to sit on a jury just isn't possible. I think in PA you get something like 9$ and a box lunch for your participation. I don't feel bad having a hidden agenda and getting out of jury duty because I know there are plenty of people who want to serve.

Last time I was called I stated on the questionnaire that I would be less likely to believe the testimony of a cop over a civilian. When questioned, I discussed a colleagues dissertation who looked at personality characteristics of new recruits to the police academy who found them to be highly manipulative and needing to assert power over others to maintain their self-identity.

After drawing angry stares from some cops sitting in court, they let me go. ha.

dl

 

[GBR]

There are two ways to judge this:

Generally defendants wear cheap suits, lawyers rather more expensive ones, jurors wear extremely expensive suits (or the best they have) to try to avoid serving.

If you don't care then jeans and tee shirts are quite sufficent for such a tedious task.

 

[mr monty]

Originally Posted by JayJay

The governor of Indiana was summoned a month or so ago and he did report but was dismissed. He wore casual clothes.

They were dress clothes to him

 

[mr monty]

Originally Posted by GBR

There are two ways to judge this:

Generally defendants wear cheap suits, lawyers rather more expensive ones, jurors wear extremely expensive suits (or the best they have) to try to avoid serving.

If you don't care then jeans and tee shirts are quite sufficent for such a tedious task.

Both defendants and jurors wear the best they have. And the suits are usually cheap per SF standards. Many times the lawyer will have to buy a complete outfit (w/dress shoes) for the defendant.

 

[LoneSuitin DTW]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

This is good advice.

Also take something to read, like War and Peace.

I have been on jury duty and I wore a suit out of respect for the court. I was mistaken for a lawyer by the deputy who was working the metal detector, because of the dress of everyone else.

Jury duty should be taken seriously. Too many people feel they are too important or busy to have jury duty. But if you were accused of a crime, or the small company you owned was about to be sued out of business, would you want people like yourself on the jury or just "those too dumb to get out of jury duty"?
That's exactly what happened to me when I went to court to fight a traffic ticket. The security screener asked if I was an attorney because I was wearing a suit and tie, and a long wool coat over it- and compared to everyone else, I was definintely the best dressed there of the people that were fighting tickets. I would say that you don't need to be in a suit for jury duty, but some nice pants and a nice shirt would be a safe choice. When I have been summoned, the notice always says something about how to dress (believe it or not!)

 

[marc237]

Originally Posted by LoneSuitin DTW

I would say that you don't need to be in a suit for jury duty, but some nice pants and a nice shirt would be a safe choice. When I have been summoned, the notice always says something about how to dress (believe it or not!)

It is true that one does not NEED to be in a suit for jury duty. That said, I think a suit and tie or a conservative jacket and tie would be a very appropriate choice.

As to the question of whether dress will lead to you not being empaneled, generally no.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Douglas

You are under absolutely no obligation to dress well. In fact, the better you are dressed, the less likely it is that a defense lawyer will allow you to sit on his jury. If you want to be dismissed almost instantly after you are called, wear a full suit and try to look as much like a businessman as possible. If you want to serve on the jury, jeans and t-shirt will be fine.

Most people will be dressed like the normal slobs they always are.

I'm assuming you're talking about a criminal defense lawyer? I'm a civil defense lawyer who represents large corporations and I want well-dressed people on my juries. Well-dressed people tend not to be the "all corporations are evil" types.

 

[DaveDr89]

... dress well ... there might be some hot women there as well and you don't want to look like a bum ...

 

[Holstein Bilter]

Originally Posted by DaveDr89

... dress well ... there might be some hot women there as well and you don't want to look like a bum ...


Last jury duty I went to had lots of very fat women who thought they were "classy" as they sported coach purses w/a lot of "C"s plastered all over the place.

 

[LesterSnodgrass]

As a former NYC prosecutor and current federal prosecutor, Id say I've picked more juries than most (but probably not all) on this forum. My perspective is purely from a criminal standpoint.

That said, if you care enough to post on this forum, you should wear a suit. It says, "I take my civic responsibility seriously." Most attorneys, prosecution or defense, want serious jurors because there is an issue that both sides feel like they can sell to a jury. You will likely be axed if the reason for the trial is that it is the defendant's third strike and he has nothing to lose. If that's the situation, you don't want to sit on that case anyway.

I always strike:

1) People under 30 -- unless they have a demonstrated career
2) Lawyers (sorry guys, it's true that you know to much)
3) Social workers and teachers

Be honest and upfront and hope that it isn't a six month tax fraud trial.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by fredfred

You wear whatever the hell you want to.

Why?

The lawyers are getting paid BIG bucks. The judge is getting paid big bucks. You are getting paid an insulting amount tantamount to worse than nothing.

The winning lawyers should have to pay the jury. Why should everybody working in the room get paid except me as a member of the jury?

I was in small claims on Centre Street (NYC) recently. I was also mistaken for a lawyer more than once. I was defending against a lame-ass claim. I won the case easily. A huge waste of time for everyone involved.

If you're in a criminal case, the lawyers aren't necessarily getting paid big bucks. Indeed, there's a high likelihood that they and the judge chose to make far less money than they otherwise could to pursue public service.

If you were in small claims court and were "mistaken" for a lawyer, those mistakes were being made by people who know nothing about the legal system (as people generally are not permitted to have lawyers in small claims court). But hey, if you want to believe you're Perry Mason, go for it.

 

[KObalto]

Originally Posted by dl20

Last time I was called I stated on the questionnaire that I would be less likely to believe the testimony of a cop over a civilian. When questioned, I discussed a colleagues dissertation who looked at personality characteristics of new recruits to the police academy who found them to be highly manipulative and needing to assert power over others to maintain their self-identity.

After drawing angry stares from some cops sitting in court, they let me go. ha.

dl
Dude, we need jurors like you! Tell me what you'll be wearing next time (although I'm down south in MD).

 

[HEWSINATOR]

Originally Posted by LesterSnodgrass

I always strike:

1) People under 30 -- unless they have a demonstrated career
2) Lawyers (sorry guys, it's true that you know to much)
3) Social workers and teachers

Be honest and upfront and hope that it isn't a six month tax fraud trial.

Why no social workers or teachers?
I think in Canada a lawyer can not sit on the jury, but I can not confirm this online, but think a prof mentioned it some time.

 

[p.o.t.u.s]

Originally Posted by HEWSINATOR

Why no social workers or teachers?

Because, on average, social workers and teachers tend to have a soft spot for those individuals who have made "mistakes."

IME, it really depends on the crime. For victimless crimes I'd rather not have someone who deals with kids or troubled individuals. However, when there is a victim or a child victim, I'd be ecstatic with a jury of only teachers and social workers.

When I have a weaker case, I try to strike scientists and engineers.

 

[sonlegoman]

Originally Posted by p.o.t.u.s

When I have a weaker case, I try to strike scientists and engineers.
Yeah, one of my PIs who works on apolipoproteins and drug delivery had a case that lasted 6 months. It was about corporate tax fraud. The case was so weak that after 6 months, it ended in a hung jury. She was so angry that she spent so long and no verdict was reached. It is funny how given the right jury, a "guilty" person becomes an "innocent" person.