Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: You can still go I hope???

in: Bash; Bash > 2016-04-15

Apr 15, 2016 7:03 PM # 
You can still go I hope???
Apr 15, 2016 8:38 PM # 
I need to look up the rules. A friend told me today that if your flight is already booked before you receive notice, you can defer your jury duty. I sure hope so. It could still mess up training though!

The last time I went for a jury selection panel, it was like a big airport waiting room where over 100 of us hung out for a few hours, read books and watched a video on how to be a juror. Then an official came in and told us there were no cases requiring a jury that week so we could all go home and we would be exempt from jury duty for some period of time.

If there *are* jury cases, then they would interview prospective jurors to see if they are acceptable to both lawyers. Unfortunately, I think I'd make a good juror. :(
Apr 15, 2016 9:04 PM # 
I just checked. It looks like I can submit proof of a paid-for flight and the court will evaluate my request and possibly allow a deferral. I'm not sure whether that happens now or whether I would wait until selected for a jury. I'll call on Monday. I knew things were going too well without any injuries yet. *Something* had to go wrong! :)
Apr 15, 2016 9:27 PM # 
Oh no....hope things will work out!
Apr 15, 2016 9:57 PM # 
No it will work out maybe we can get you in to trouble tommorrow at Hockley and make you an unsuitable juror(:
Apr 15, 2016 10:23 PM # 
As long as I don't get arrested, that might work! ;)
Apr 16, 2016 12:42 AM # 
I got called from the same pool for three different cases once.
Apr 16, 2016 1:57 AM # 
Were you rejected for all three cases? If they'd reject you, surely they'd reject me, she said hopefully.
Apr 16, 2016 10:55 AM # 
No. I served on three juries. It might have earned me a life time exemption because I haven't been called back to be in a pool for quite a while. The morning I went back to the pool after the second trial they offered to remove my name, but I said I was already there so I might as well take my chance along with everyone else. Of course that led to my name being pulled first - it did give the courtroom a good laugh to start the day.
Apr 16, 2016 1:43 PM # 
Wow! How long were you there in total for all three?
Apr 16, 2016 10:04 PM # 
Not long. Two weeks. I got picked the 2nd and 4th day for very short trials and then Monday of the 2nd week for a longer one, but even it finished in the week, or maybe carried over to Monday.
Apr 17, 2016 2:05 AM # 
Phew, that's good to hear. I hear they give you estimates on how long the trial might take so you can let them know if you have a serious conflict. Do you remember being asked? I have 4 weeks between jury date and departure date so maybe I can just go there and see what happens.
Apr 18, 2016 4:01 PM # 
What you consider to be a good juror is not what a lawyer would consider to be a 'good' juror. Usually all you need to say is Engineer as your occupation and for some reason that earns an exemption.
Apr 18, 2016 4:23 PM # 
I don't recall any discussion of expected duration during the selection. I suspect that only comes up if they have reason to believe something likely to be long is on the docket.
Apr 18, 2016 4:31 PM # 
I'm going to call today after I've read everything on their website since they say you shouldn't call until you do. No sense making a bad impression from the start.

Fingers crossed, JayXC, but Veinbuster and I met at engineering school so I'm not getting my hopes up. Maybe the Canadian legal system has lower standards? ;) I think I'd be a good juror *because* of my engineering-ish ability to detach myself from a situation and look at it objectively, even if it involves me. It can be maddening to some people in regular life. Maybe some lawyers think that is a bad characteristic because they're hoping to sway the jury with emotion.
Apr 18, 2016 4:32 PM # 
That's exactly the case.
Apr 18, 2016 4:34 PM # 
Ah. Then maybe I'd be a good judge - except for the "law school and years of experience" requirements.
Apr 18, 2016 5:56 PM # 
So... it turns out I've been selected for a "special" panel where they already know the case and it is expected to last for two months. So I need to pull together all my travel information and request a deferral from the judge.
Apr 18, 2016 8:56 PM # 
Apr 18, 2016 9:10 PM # 
Never a dull moment! Apparently they know how smart you are ( but after they see what you are going to June they will change their minds!)
Apr 18, 2016 9:26 PM # 
Haha, I'm writing that letter now and am experimenting with the best way to make my case. It goes to the trial judge so I need to keep that audience in mind.

They can still refuse. If I don't hear back, I'm legally required to appear on May 19 - unless between now and then, I can get convicted for:
- impersonating a peace officer
- indecent or harassing communications, or
- committing an indecent act

I've changed my clothes in parking lots many times. I wonder if I could get convicted for that.
Apr 18, 2016 9:38 PM # 
Hmm, maybe I'll include summary statistics from my Attackpoint log to prove I'm serious. That may be a first!
Apr 19, 2016 1:00 AM # 
I could help you with an indecent act (;
Apr 19, 2016 2:01 AM # 
You mean you'll act as a consultant? As far as I know, you draw the line at running in your sports bra. I think it would need to be more indecent than that.

So I had to look it up...

"There is no statutory definition in the Canadian Criminal Code of what constitutes an indecent act, other than the exposure of the genitals and/or female nipples for a sexual purpose to anyone under 16 years of age. Thus, the decision of what states of undress are "indecent", and thereby unlawful, is left to judges. Judges have held, for example, that nude sunbathing is not indecent. Also, streaking is similarly not regarded as indecent. Section 174 prohibits nudity if it offends "against public decency or order" and in view of the public. The courts have found that nude swimming is not offensive under this definition.

Toplessness is also not an indecent act under s.173. In 1991, Gwen Jacob was arrested for walking in a street in Guelph, Ontario while topless. She was acquitted in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that the act of being topless is not in itself a sexual act or indecent. The case has been referred to in subsequent cases for the proposition that the mere act of public nudity is not sexual or indecent or an offense. Since then it is legal for a female to walk topless in public anywhere in Ontario, Canada."

Is it just me or does the guy who wrote that last sentence sound a little too hopeful?
Apr 19, 2016 7:08 AM # 
Seems like "impersonating a peace officer" would be the easiest of all those, and also the one least likely to get you on some kind of list... Hopefully it won't come to that. ;-)

This discussion thread is closed.