"Nick, I can't imagine how many peremptory strikes you have drawn. If you are really good at it, you can be stricken by both sides."
One year the judge asked me why I was the only potential juror wearing a suit and tie. Now that seemed to be a silly question to me, with no bearing on the case or cause for prejudice. I told him that, "trial by jury was important to me, as we are a nation of laws. And in preparation for my duty, I read all the instructions on the Website, which included attire requirements that was defined as business attire." I told him, "I am a businessman, and business attire is a suit and tie for men. And as far as I was concerned, every male in the pool should be cited for contempt of court, unless they previously requested an exemption from wearing a suit and tie, based on financial hardship." I was immediately excused after the attorneys consulted with the judge. I still don't understand the problem.
This year the case was to determine a personal injury award amount. The defendant had admitted guilt, and had paid all medical bills. In this case a boy was hit by an ice cream truck while riding his bike, and the truck was traveling at slow speed. The boy was okay and back to playing baseball with his team. However, he had a scar on his shoulder blade and was self-conscious when taking a shower after practice. Apparently the injury award was expected to be in the 6 figure range, per instructions of the judge.
The defense attorney asked every person if they had seen his ads on TV. All said they had not seen the ads. The person before me said no, and felt that a 30% fee for an attorney was unacceptable. The attorney told him he would not be selected, and then went into a long dissertation to justify personal injury law and that the fee paid to attorneys was determined by the court, not him.
Then the attorney asked me if I had seen his ads. My reply was "yes, I had lived in the community for a long time, and remembered his ads back in the days when both of us had lots of long dark hair, versus our currently balding and grey tops. I also told him his marketing was pretty poor, since I was the only one who knew who he was." He asked me if the ads would prejudice me, and I said, "No. But his attack on the previous juror did, and he had wasted the valuable time of the court and jury pool with his speech." Then the judge asked me if the court should know anything about me that could prejudice me on the case. I told him I thought "personal injury law is a bunch of crap." He then asked if I meant it would be hard to determine the reward and told me he would lay out the parameters of the award. I said, "No, it is crap. Shouldn't be part of the legal system." The judge then asked whether or not I thought an injured party, such as a young boy should be entitled to pain and suffering. I said, "No." He then asked why? I said, "life is a risk, things happen in life. Further more, I had a grandson, who was killed in a car accident a few weeks earlier, and I am sure he would have been more than happy to change places and live with a little scar, he probably would have shown-off his scar to his friends as a badge of courage." So... I was told to go home. Don't understand that one either.