Would a judge release a potential Juror who's only complaint was that he didn't want to be a juror?

Question

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?

Answer 1

Nobody wants to be a juror.

Well ... almost nobody. The pay is awful, the responsibilities are huge, the work is boring, and everybody else is telling where to go, when to go there and how long to stay. Plus you get the bonus of being in close quarters with 11 strangers with whom you (probably) have nothing in common.

Judges know this.

They don't let you off just because you don't want to be there.

There are actually criteria that they apply (assuming it gets to the judge, most jurors who will be are excused before they get to the courthouse by administrative staff). For example, in NSW:

In terms of the Jury Amendment Act 2010, you may have 'good cause' to be excused if:

• jury service would cause undue hardship or serious inconvenience to you or your family you have a disability that makes you unsuitable or incapable of effectively serving as a juror, without reasonable accommodation

• there is a conflict of interest or some other knowledge, acquaintance, or friendship that you have, which may result in your being perceived as lacking impartiality as a juror

• you have a permanent mental or physical impairment that makes you incapable of doing jury service, or that would injure your health if you were to do jury service.

The sheriff may also consider excusing you in other circumstances, including if you:

• are a sole trader or contractor

• have care of school aged children and are unable to make other care arrangements

• are in an advanced stage of pregnancy and/or are having medical difficulties during your pregnancy

• have a medical condition which would make Jury service onerous

• are an emergency service operational employee

• are enrolled in education and need to attend lectures or exams, or you're living outside your jury district to undertake your studies

• have a mental or physical impairment

• are absent from New South Wales

• have transport difficulties, such as unsuitable or unavailable public transport

• are unable to read and understand English.

If you don't meet the criteria, you won't be excused.

Getting yourself "dismissed"

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.

No. Those things will get you jailed for contempt of court until you agree to do your jury duty and not act like a dick.

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.

So does the judge - if she has to be there, she's going to make damn sure you are too.

Answer 2

So before you serve on a jury in the US, you go through a process called voir dire. The judge will ask some questions, mostly of the "do you know X" or "have you been in situation Y" variety. If you have something to answer, you'll stand up or raise your hand and the judge will call you to the bench with the lawyers for each side and you'll give a statement why that question applies to you. The judge will normally ask if your answer means you cannot be an impartial juror. If you try a "I hate the defendant's race" or similar outburst, expect more probing questions about whether your belief is real. At the end, the judge will dismiss some for cause, the lawyers will use their strikes and the judge will announce the selected jurors.

Answering a question in the affirmative does not automatically disqualify you, I've seen jurors selected even though they answered several questions, or was the type you would think would get dismissed. Both the judge and lawyers don't particularly care if you want to be a juror, they mostly want jurors who will be favorable to their side (the lawyers) or impartial (the judge).