Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Mayor Bloomberg Sitting Jury Duty

It wasn't always this way. Automatic exemptions from jury duty in New York went to many different professions , including attorneys, doctors, and cops. Until it changed in 1995. Mayor Rudy Giuliani famously sat jury duty in 1999 (and was picked for a civil case). Chief Judge Kaye was not-so-famously called the same year (and was not picked). I was called (and picked in a criminal case), in 1997. Celebrity jurors are routine.

Now it is Mayor Mike Bloomberg's turn, as the New York Times reports. He showed up yesterday, in the same historic Manhattan Court that I tried my first case and a few others. He showed up in room 452. He waited. He was dismissed at the end of the day, unchosen. Today, he is there again.

According to the Daily News:

"I'd be one voice out of six, but I have a strong personality," Bloomberg said. "You'd have to ask the other jurors what they'd think."

And the question every trial attorney asks: Would you keep Hizzoner or bounce him?

Update: Mayor Bloomberg was dismissed today after serving two days. He was not selected.

Labels: Inside The Jury Room

posted by Eric Turkewitz  # Permanent Link

Comments:

this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Isn't the mayor more useful doing his job than pretending to do jury duty?
how much did his security detail cost, and what about all the work not getting done while he is there? He walks in smiles and the media touts him as doing his civic duty - is anyone fooled by this? THIS IS ABSURD!

# posted by  Anonymous : August 07, 2007 3:07 PM

 

The problem is that once you start carving out exemptions, everyone wants one. The judges, the legislators, their aides, the doctors, the cops, the attorneys, etc. And then the jury pool is no longer representative.

And worse than not being representative, it sends a message that jury duty is something to avoid.

So all of that was done away with back in 1995.

--ET

# posted by  Eric Turkewitz : August 07, 2007 3:12 PM

 

It its my jury, the honorable mayor gets bounced. The reason has nothing to do with his politics; rather, it has to do with his position of authority. Other jurors will have a difficult time disagreeing with him or his logic--even if he's wrong. What's more, the weaker jurors will like side with him without even trying to convince him of their position. In short, you should always (I know you should never say always) get rid of super strong personalties because if they don't like your case you will lose. My 2 cents.
Hans Poppe

# posted by  Hans Poppe : August 07, 2007 7:29 PM

 

I was trying a case when Kaye showed up in front of the courthouse with the cameras. An hour later the Court Officer took a phone call and burst out laughing. Kaye had snuck out the back. There will always be special cases, but that's always true in jury selection.

# posted by  Anonymous : August 08, 2007 8:32 AM

 

I wonder if the lawyers who had Mayor Bloomberg on their jury panel had this local rule enforced:

You have to question a full panel of 30 potential jurors in just 60 minutes.

That gives a full 2 minutes for each juror for you to form questions, get responses and make notes. And that assumes no prefacing comments on any subject.

# posted by  Eric Turkewitz : August 08, 2007 3:44 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  
<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>

posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.