Jury duty tomorrow

I've got Grand Jury duty next month. Summmons kindof scares me, in terms of time required. Gives me a date and time to call to see if I need report, but then advises that I'll need to serve from 1-3 days a month for 6-18 months. Anybody know how that works in Virginia? Is it one case and I'm done, or will I be called and recalled for different cases over the next 6-18 months?

Hey, Virginia. Never served on a grand jury, but this might help:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/gjury/cover.htm

It should be an interesting time.

Letty wrote:

...Generally, I don't like being simply a "rubber stamp" ....

Actually, that's exactly what a GJ is supposed to be. This is why a lot of states have replaced the Grand Jury system with what's called a Prosecutor's information. The Prosecutor provides the stamp (for him- or herself, rather convenient, eh?). At least it doesn't inconvenience a buncha people.

Well, it can be interesting to see the process. It is something of an inner circle process. Most people called for jury duty do not get GJ duty. It also harkens back to an earlier time, when people didn't have such busy lives and could spend that kind of time just working on court stuff.

Interesting, Jim, about the collective reasoning of a jury in reaching a decision.
I live in a college town (Charlottesville, VA). There has always been a certain animosity between town and gown. The perception is that the students are rich, white and arrogant while the rest of us are working class and not too bright.
A case hit our courts (rjb is recalling this from memory, so some of the details may be faulty) that has upset a lot of folks, A UVA student, quite drunk, got into a confrontation with a local guy (perhaps intoxicated) in the nightclub area adjacent to UVA. The local guy, a laborer and a volunteer fireman, got stabbed numerous times and died.
Murder was the charge. But the jury decided on a (mere) 15 month sentence for a much lesser charge. That pissed a lot of people off but in due course the story faded away.
But one of the jurors has written a story for her college alumni magazine about her experience (I have no idea why she would do that or why they would publish it. Some school called something like Swarthmore).
Anyway, the gist of the article was that the jury, after a lot of deliberation, came to the conclusion that the guy, because of his being in a state of heavy drunkenness, had acted without "deliberate malice" towards the victim.

I know! When I said that, I meant having the Jury removed and getting another. Just because a Jury has given an unjust decision doesn't mean I have to accept it. It wouldn't be fair to the parties concerned. And now don't tell me what a spree is, I know I shouldn't have used that word 'cause it's not really applicable, but I just fear in the future it would have become probable looking at the case.

Hi J_B,

I served on a jury about six months or so back. I found it rather interesting.

But, if you don't want to do it, you can do like this other person did during voir dire. They told the judge they were Christian and their religion would not allow them to judge anyone for anything. Worked for him.

Doesn't the judge give his verdict after the Jury's decision? I would have asked the Jury why they reached the decision they did and if they did not have a reasonable answer for the UNJUST and IDIOTIC decision they arrived at, I would have had them removed before I gave my verdict!

For those not familiar with the U.S. Court system, one of Jespah's statements might be misinterpreted concerning double jeopardy. If the jury can not reach a verdict (hung jury) there can be a new trial if the prosecutor so chooses.

jespah,
Oh! Me gosh! I know what you mean. to get another Jury, the trial would have to proceed again and since that cannot be so, so looking at the foolish decision made by the Jury, I would discount their decision on the basis that it had no ground and give the verdict myself. It may not be the perfect decision but it would still be right to a point.

jespah,
And no I would not keep picking Jurys until one made a decision I liked. For the same reason I don't have to accept some foolish decision made by the Jury either. By the way, doesn't the Judge keep track during the trial as to which way and how and why the Jury's thinking is going? I'm pretty sure that before midway during this trial I'd have figured that no Jury is better than this Jury or another should be called for and so before the verdict, the decision made would be just I guess.