Owner served on a jury shortly after I arrived here.
He became member of a "jury pool" first. Seemingly the pool exists and prosecution and defense get to take turns "picking."
As a member of the pool Owner had to survive three "contests." If he was selected in one of three tries, he had to be part of that jury. If he reached three tries without being selected - he was released as in "you've done your duty."
His first "contest" was a product liability case. Something about someone using a household appliance and was hurt by the device. Owner was asked the question "Do you know anything about product liability?" His answer: "Yes, I'm an engineer and product liability is one of the courses I look as an undergraduate."
Disqualified.
His next contest was a teen who had shot a BB Gun in a Wal-Mart and the ricochet had hit him in the eye. Walmart had already addressed the security issue of unlocked BB guns and ammunition and paid his medical bills including the ambulance - but were now being sued for "pain and suffering" by the teen's family. ($1 million IIRC what Owner said)
Owner was funny. As he tells this apparently the judge "coached" the jury and indicated the "envelope of decision." "You can either find Walmart at fault and liable for the $1M, or you can find the teen at fault and deny payment."
Owner and others were aware of Jury Nullification - and the fact that what a jury finds is what the decision will be.
IN the case of the teen, Walmart was deemed "not at fault", the $1M denied, and the teen was ordered to repay Walmart their sunk cost in addressing the teen's injuries.
Owner considered this a "slam-dunk." And justice served.
As Owner had "served" in one decision, he was released after two contests.
Generally, my sense is that Owner thought his jury experience "worthwhile." And while he effectively lost money between reduced pay (no overtime) and his juror pay, he felt it was worth it.
Dobbin
after I accidentally did mention jury nullification in answer to a question.
