Jury duty question -resolved

Can you get out of jury duty while serving?

My husband got jury duty.  Today (second day) he was picked for a jury.  They said the trial might run through the 21st.  Two or three days is one thing, but this is really going to hurt us financially.  He works 12 hour shifts but his employer only reimburses 8 hours for jury duty, so he has to make up the remaining 4 hours per shift out of his own vacation time. Also, he was scheduled to teach a class this Friday which he will NOT be paid for if he misses even though it is for jury duty, losing him a couple hundred dollars income.  If the trial does run through the 21st he will have burned through 24 hours of his own vacation time to get full paychecks in addition to losing his teaching fee.  Plus, it took a couple of months of requests to actually get the teaching spot (he is new at the teaching gig) and this is his FIRST spot which he now has to cancel, so he is worried about pissing off the coordinator and not getting any more teaching spots in the future.

TL;dr Can he request dismissal for financial hardship even though he has now been put on a jury, or is it too late?

Having served in Essex County, I was mildly surprised by how little ice financial hardship cut as a reason to get off. In your example, if I was apply the principals shared during my selection process, I'd say "you're talking about a situation that will be in place for as long as you work at your current employer. Ergo, you're asking me to excuse you from jury duty for the foreseeable future. No."

I heard variations of "this is a hardship for everyone and the only hardship that is acceptable is one where you or someone else's health or living situation will be directly threatened by your service."

Then you will get the individual questions of "is there any reason you can't be objective" to which the vast majority of people answered "yes" and got a free pass out of there.

If the jury has been officially empaneled and assigned a case, he's probably too late, but as I recall the judge right before the swearing in gave everyone one last chance to say they couldn't be objective and get out, with the warning that there would be some sort of hell to pay should someone try to punch out once sworn in without an incredibly good reason. 

Those who suddenly realized they couldn't be objective got a withering stare and "thank you you are excused" but that was it.

So the jury is already selected and he's on it?

They are still picking jurers.  

To clarify, jury duty of 2-4 days wouldn't have been a huge issue. He has never applied for a hardship in the past and has always served. It is extending it to five days, possibly more, that makes it an issue and could seriously jepordize his second job.  

spontaneous said:

They are still picking jurers.  

 Maybe emphasize issues of child care rather than financial issues, if possible.  I certainly saw a lot of women excused for this reason.

If they are still picking it hasn't been finalized. Has he been asked if he has any problem with serving?

I couldn't believe they picked him since he actually knows half the cops involved in this particlar case.  

I'm surprised they didn't excuse him already for that, if he shared it. The last time I went, it was early May and many people who work as landscapers and others were dismissed since it was their busy time.

Then again, the judge really didn't give a crap that I was 8 months pregnant so they don't let you off easy!

Yes, he was upfront about knowing the officers. They had a list and asked if jurors knew the officers involved in the case.  

Perhaps make it simple and tell the judge he can't be objective since he knows the officers (unless he's already stated that he CAN be objective.)

Do not talk about losing vacation time. This is unlikely to get any sympathy.

This jury is not set yet. He's probably already been dismissed due to his relationships with the officers.

I would bring it to the clerk's attention - but don't be surprised during the voir dire he get excused by one of the lawyers. They have a limited number of peremptory challenges are are probably holding back in case they find someone they want off worse than your hubby. 

I told him next time to drop nicknames. "Officer Smitch? Yeah, of course I know Tiny, Tiny and I go way back!"  

spontaneous said:

Yes, he was upfront about knowing the officers. They had a list and asked if jurors knew the officers involved in the case.  

Oops sorry, I meant I'm surprised they didn't dismiss him already for his work situation. Usually they ask about hardship circumstances, but they don't always agree that they're enough of a hardship to be excused (like my giant baby belly!).

spontaneous said:

Yes, he was upfront about knowing the officers. They had a list and asked if jurors knew the officers involved in the case.  

He was probably asked up front if knowing them would make him partial to the prosecution's case, and he must have said no. He didn't get booted because it's not for the judge to determine if people should get booted based on who they know. The judge only need ask if hot husband knows anyone listed as involved in the case, and if so, does that relationship impact his ability to be impartial. If he says no the judge is out of it.

If he were to make it further into the process, he will surely be asked about it again by the defense and may end up struck for cause. Most defense attorneys, if the relationship is friendly enough or close enough, would fire him right out into "thank you for your service" land. 

If he wants off when that time comes he shouldn't underplay that relationship. And frankly, I'd be shocked if he ended up on a jury that was going to hear testimony from someone he has a personal relationship with.

ETA- this wouldn't burn a peremptory challenge for the defense. Having a few beers and doing fundraising, for example, with the cops who are going to testify clearly could make a juror biased, even if the juror doesn't believe it would.

Further ETA- maybe he could get service deferred based on the teaching issue- but if he truly has a personal relationship with multiple cops involved in the case before the court I think the chances of him being on the jury are zero.

TBH the vacation time is a major pain, but the teaching gig is what I am really upset about. Not just losing this Friday, which is a loss of a couple hundred dollars, but they have a list of instructors and it took months to get this. No, they can't "fire" him for being at jury duty, but missing the very first slot they gave him could piss them off and they could just choose to not find any open slots in the near future.   

I don't think he has a personal relationship with any of the officers involved, just a very close working relationship.  

Though he is VERY buddy buddy with a good number of officers in the northern half of the state. Just the other day we were in Paramus and a sheriff's officer pulled up alongside us with his overheads on and was motioning at me to roll down my window. Turns out the officer knew my hisband and just wanted to say hello and catch up (we have a very uncommon last name which I am guessing the officer must have seen and recognized when doing a routine plate run).  

Hey- just realized this- your husband is becoming identifiable to the court based on your posts- a dude who has a teaching gig and hourly work who knows all the cops and wants off the jury.

He isn't supposed to be talking to you (yes you, his beloved wife) about ANY of this, and certainly isn't supposed to cause it to be discussed on the Internet.

I doubt you're about to say "yeah he's on that murder case from last year" but they are RIDICULOUSLY explicit regarding what can be talked about and with whom- and it's basically "nothing" with "nobody".

He's going to get off based on the cop relationship. Don't worry. I'd disappear this thread if I were you. This is not a low traffic website for the region.

I didn't post about case details. Not how many defendants, not what type of crime, nothing. My only questions, and his texts to me, were about his being asked to serve for an extended length of time. He texted me during lunch since he was worried about having to burn through vacation time and missing his class, and he just now texted from the waiting area since he has apparently been excused by the defense.