From what I have heard of the selection process for jury duty it seems as if anyone who makes an argument for why they can't or shouldn't be a juror is excused by the judge, no matter how flimsy the argument. I assume the reason judges are so lenient with exceptions is because they don't want to risk a juror being resentful of their position, as it could bias them against one side or keep them from putting in a proper good faith effort to fulfill their responsibility as a juror.
I'm wondering how far a judge would take that mindset. Are they willing to let a juror go just to avoid resentment if the juror otherwise has no excuse to not be a juror?
So hypothetically Lets say that I am called for Jury duty tomorrow and I don't want to be a juror. There are plenty of ways I'm sure I could get myself dismissed; From the obviously like constantly shouting "hang them all" to the more 'subtle' like giving a dissertation on why I think jury nullification is such a swell idea. However, lets say I am unwilling to do anything remotely unethical and admit I don't have any valid reason I should be dismissed as a juror. However, I tell the judge despite this fact I really don't want to be a juror because I think it would be boring and I prefer to sleep in on the mornings.
What are the odds the judge would let me go anyways, just to avoid having an unwilling juror?