've almost talked myself into believing that I could be impartial.

The only time I have been on a jury I found everyone took it seriously and listened to and examined everything despite it being obvious who was the scoundrel.

I'm sorry you are being put in the middle, Gud. However, your daughter does have a point about your emotional abuse and not standing up for yourself.

Just once around my block, and I live in a *very* small cul-de-sac

That is exactly what my dad used to do when he was building up his strength after heart surgery (in his small cul-de-sac, not yours, but I feel certain they are similar). An excellent start!

You are in a tough spot, Gud. I am glad you and youngest daughter can talk. I don't want to say your wife is wrong, but being supportive of her does not mean you can't support your daughter (and DGF, to some extent) when there is conflict between them. It sounds like you are balancing their needs pretty well to me. Also, you are allowed to look out for yourself as well as everyone else in the family. Just a reminder.

Sending supportive vibes, Gud.

You guys have inspired me to take a post-dinner walk! Heading out now. I'm going to estimate a leisurely 15 minutes.

I've recused myself from a jury when the defendant was the brother of one of my club advisors, and voted in line with the evidence when a sympathetic plaintiff's case fell apart on the stand. But I don't know if I could be impartial when the defendant is someone I feel deserving of being tossed into a sarlaac pit...

I'd never make it through the jury questionnaire for the Trump trial. There's a question about what podcasts you listen to, and unless I lied through my teeth that would rule me out in a hurry. Pod Save America, Lovett or Leave It, Straight White American Jesus, the Bulwark, the Ezra Klein Show...

I have been on a jury three times. Two were civil cases, and one was criminal.

In the criminal case, both prosecution and defence made bad impressions, and in the end a lot of what they spent time on in court was irrelevant to what the jury was eventually asked to decide. I came away wishing that the jury instructions had been given up front. In the jury room there was a lot of "Why did we spend hours listening to testimony about X, Y, and Z, when all we have to decide is Q?"

My other takeaway was reinforcement of the adage "the defendant should never take the stand." The prosecution did such a poor job making his case that there was clear room for reasonable doubt. Then the defendant went on the stand, made a terrible impression, and quickly removed any doubt that he was guilty.

In theory, I feel like I would lie, withold my contempt, downplay my disgust of the vile creature, to get a chance to send him to the pokey. But I would still take the proceedings seriously.

Then the defendant went on the stand, made a terrible impression, and quickly removed any doubt that he was guilty.

In the Civil case I sat for the defendant, whom we sided with, was so OTT and crying and absurd on the stand that the judge was rolling his eyes. We were laughing so hard in the jury room that the judge gently told us we could be heard in the courtroom. Ooops. All parties were despicable, but it was still clear.

I am 51 years old and a registered voter and I have not even been called for jury duty since once when I was in college several states away.

Not that anyone wants an extremely logical librarian on their jury.

I had to take a medical exemption because of the long days and needing an attendant--I guarantee there would be leaks and such.(Besides any that I'd need to take) I think it would be hard for me to convict most people I'd get a shot at.(Convicting Individual one would give me at least imperfect happiness) Karl, you can't be powder, babe.