"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit
of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most
reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey
shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.

hmmm, not many people get excused from jury duty in taxachusetts.
I sure didn't get excused.

He meant "being empanelled" (?), which is actually sitting on a jury.
Typically, 50-100 people get called for jury DUTY, but only 12 plus 3
reserves actually sit on a jury.