Ms. Conrad's conduct raises a couple of interesting questions. First, what can one say, and not say, during voir dire? Second, don't most people want to get off jury duty, instead of getting on? Voir dire proceedings vary widely, depending on the judge and jurisdiction. The judge always asks questions, but the attorneys may or may not; the questioning may be done individually or in open court; jurors may be asked questions en masse (e.g., "Raise your hand if you have ever been convicted of a crime") or one-at-a-time; jurors may or may not fill out a questionnaire (possibly with psychological measures) beforehand; and of course, jurisdictions vary in the number of peremptory challenges that attorneys may use to excuse jurors for (almost) any reason they feel like.

As Ms. Conrad's case illustrates, jurors can be prosecuted for perjury, or held in contempt of court, for failing to participate in an honest and forthright manner—whether any less-than-honest efforts are designed to get them selected or excluded. Of course, the popular view of jury duty is that many, if not most, people either ignore their summons or do what they can to be excluded. And indeed, this is a significant problem in many jurisdictions, which have combated the problem by tightening loopholes on more/less "automatic" exclusions (e.g., doctors, lawyers, clergy), increasing penalties for failing to appear for jury duty, increasing juror compensation, and providing more amenities for jurors like comfortable waiting rooms and free Wifi.

Yet there is another side to jury duty that belies the "avoid it at all costs" perception. Most citizens called to serve do so willingly; serving on a jury makes people more civically engaged in general; and the overwhelming majority of jurors say that they found the process valuable and rewarding. For example, the subtitle of John Gastil and colleagues' book The Jury and Democracy is How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation. Their research, which included thousands of jurors, showed that serving on a jury, especially in criminal trials, makes people more likely to vote and be engaged in their communities. Several years ago, we surveyed jurors in a variety of trials in Lincoln, Nebraska. Among other questions, we asked, "How would you respond the next time you are called for jury duty?" Only one (out of 90) jurors said s/he would "try and get out, lying if necessary," and only 5.6% said they would "try to get out of jury duty, but truthfully." The remainder was roughly evenly split between those who said they would "neither try to be selected nor to get out of it" (49.4%) and those who said they would "try to be selected, but truthfully" (43.8%). In addition, a whopping 92% said they were proud of what they had accomplished as jurors, 96% felt that it had not been a waste of time, and 89% said they would volunteer for jury duty in the future.

So what is the best cure for the negative perception of jury duty? Serving on a jury. Although I cannot endorse the lengths Ms. Conrad went to in order to serve, I do heartily encourage you, the next time that summons arrives in the mail, to respond, and with an open mind.

Recommended Reading

Bornstein, B.H., Miller, M.K., Nemeth, R.J., Page, G.L., & Musil, S. (2005). Juror reactions to jury duty: Perceptions of the system and potential stressors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 321-346.

Crocker, C.B., & Kovera, M.B. (2011). Systematic jury selection. In R.L. Wiener & B.H. Bornstein (Eds.), Handbook of trial consulting (pp. 13-31). New York: Springer.

Gastil, J., Deess, E.P., Weiser, P.J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hamblett, M. (2012, Feb. 16). Former juror hauled into court as judge mulls new trial request. New York Law Journal. Available at http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202542363688