Sequestration is really rare - really, really, rare - almost never happens and most prosecutors go their whole career without asking for it.

That said, my mother sat on a notorious trial that lasted 9 months and she was sequestered for 2 weeks.

I had a friend who was on a jury for a trial that lasted, I think, seven months. I don't remember her being sequestered, but she may have been. The first federal court jury I was on ended in a mistrial - multiple defendants somehow got hold of a list of the jury members' names and, possibly, addresses (I think their lawyers had the list). We were under the marshals service's protection leaving the courtroom; after some jurors said they were so terrified that they couldn't continue, the judge declared a mistrial and we all got sent back to try again (on a different case).

I've only been on a civil case jury, but all the jurors took the judges instructions very seriously.

Dang, Toddson. That’s the most dramatic jury story I’ve heard, I think.

I’m in the observation area at Kaiser. I came in early, defying instructions, meaning to ask to use the restroom and go back to my car to wait for my actual appointment but they just processed me through so fast it probably doesn’t matter that I jumped the gun. I may be too early to pick up lunch though.

I have never been called for jury duty, despite being registered to vote everywhere I've lived for at least 20 years.

I've been called twice: both cases were drug offenses with children involved, and I wasn't seated either time.

Atropa, if it were only a matter of finding an appointment I'd suggest that you come over here, as the clinic at the high school this weekend still has slots open - but there is Boaty to and from, and it's a mile and a bit from the terminal to the site.

I've been called to report for jury duty five times, selected three times. One criminal case, two civil cases. All were one-day trials, thank goodness.

I remember being surprised at how narrow the judge's instructions to the jury were. A lot that was presented in testimony wasn't much relevant to the actual questions we were to deliberate.

I've served on 2 juries, both within the first three years after moving to New York (in 2000). One went to trial, one settled.

For your consideration: Buffista Castle. [link]

I remember being surprised at how narrow the judge's instructions to the jury were. A lot that was presented in testimony wasn't much relevant to the actual questions we were to deliberate.

Seriously.

I've been called to report for jury duty three times, once in NY for an drug-deal-gone-wrong kidnapping trial (thankfully, not selected, because it was set to take at least six weeks over Christmas time) and twice in SF. I was never even interviewed for the snatch-and-grab iPhone case, but was selected for the other trial in which a man hit a parked car in Golden Gate Park at 10am. An otherwise minor infraction, but this dude managed to do this 1) in front of a construction site where the workers were on a break, 2) fled the scene for hours, 3) came back to intimidate the witnesses, and 4) fled the police when they came, but did it by running into the construction site, where he was immediately caught. So ultimately the charges were pretty serious.

It was a pretty open-and-shut case but somehow managed to go on for over a week because there was a lot of Spanish translation involved in the testimony and then the deliberations went on forever because half the jury just "knew" he was drunk when he hit the car. We decided to convict on the three more serious charges fairly quickly, but the forewoman and I refused to convict on drinking and driving because the prosecution couldn't prove he was drunk at the time of the accident (his blood alcohol test was done hours later and he had fled the scene). We were like, "Yes, we think he was drunk too, but maybe he went to drink somewhere afterward because he was shaken up. We have no idea what he did. And it doesn't matter anyway because we are convicting on three other more serious charges and this dude is going to prison." We managed to convince most everyone, but the two teetotalers just couldn't see why someone would go for a drink at 10am (even though they just "knew" he was drunk for the accident?) and refused to budge. We actually had to go back to the judge saying we were hung on that charge, and the judge was like, no, you're coming back next week and finish this. And then they still refused. So there ended up being a mistrial on that count, which ultimately made no difference, but I found ridiculous.

Luckily, I was being paid the whole time by work with no requirement to make up the time and the trial was actually closer to my apartment and gave long lunch breaks so I could hang out in the park, go home, whatever. So I was able to find it fascinating, although it still bugs me that two people just blatantly refused to follow the judge's instructions about evidence. I can't imagine what it must be like if it was something that would make a difference in sentencing.