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.

She says she's very thankful for the way she was brought up in many respects, but that where were issues especially with my wife.

No fucking kidding.

She also said that she saw that I was emotionally abused

Also true.

I worked with a guy who was on the jury for the Jim Jones People's Temple trial in SF (but who was on trial after the massacre, I wonder?). He had to listen to all the tapes. He didn't talk about it.

Happy birthday, ND!

I was on a jury once. It was an interesting experience, and I’d be ok with doing it again. Bonus points if I could send TFG to prison.

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.

That was my experience too. Restores your faith in humanity a little bit.

I would not want to be on the Trump jury for fear of notoriety, but also because how long would I have to be off work? I think the only political podcast I listen to is Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, but I imagine they’d disqualify me somehow anyway. Like, does going to the Women’s March count as going to an anti-Trump protest? And if we find a bunch of people who totally ignore politics I have questions about what rock they’ve been under for 8 or more years…

She also said that she saw that I was emotionally abused and I failed to role model self-advocacy which was bad for her own ability to self-advocate.

This is none of my business, and I certainly haven't liked some of the things that you've said about the way you are treated by your wife, but I really don't love that your daughter seems to be blamng you for her perceived failing. It's like saying "I know you had a broken leg, but it's your fault I didn't learn to walk."

Re the Trump jury - I could be impartial. There is ample evidence that the Orange Menace is a lying liar who lies, so I wouldn't believe anything he said without direct corroborating evidence, but that's not being partial, that's just paying attention to history.