LGBT News court rules gays cannot be excluded from jury duty

Aw, now gays have to attend jury duty? So many people try their best to get out of jury duty. But, if this is what equality means so be it. Lol.

 

Erm... am I missing something?

 

Under no circumstances should people be sneering at or joking about this opinion. Jury duty may suck, but it's important to have fags and dykes on the jury. Otherwise how are we going to protect ourselves? How else are we going to shitcan stupid defenses like Gay Panic?

 

So we can't get married, but we can't be excluded from jury duty.

Priorities.

 

But come on, bro... We can do our part to reduce transphobic bias in the legal system...

 

We could get out of jury duty for being gay?????

Damn, you really don't know what you have until it's gone

 

I usually get out of it because I don't trust law enforcement. Had too many friends killed by cops here. >_>;

 

I got out of it since I was diagnosed with depression at the time and I was declared medically unfit. In the UK & Ireland (I can get called up in either) your sexuality isn't grounds to get out of it.

I wouldn't want to do it if I am honest, if you don''t show they just throw you in jail for a month

 

Pret Allez is exactly right. This is super important. We should want to sit on as many juries as possible, especially if LGBT people are the defendants. How else can we ensure that they are going to be treated fairly under the law? Do we really want an all straight jury determining the cases of LGBT people? That's like having an all white male jury determining the innocence or guilt of a black man. You can pretty much expect him to get the book thrown at him.

What's more it's a civic duty to serve. I've been called up a number of times for jury duty and have never understood the complaining and bitching involved by those who showed up. Yes, it's time out of your day. However, it's also the fundamental basis of our system of justice - a fair trial judged by a jury of your peers.

 

And why do they think i'm willing to serve on a jury for a state that doesn't afford me basic human rights? Marriage, employment, housing etc.

Fortunately it's damn easy to get out of jury "duty" either way

 

I think I'm the only person ever who wants jury duty and has never done it.

 

In the UK you can just go into court with an attitude like "STRING THEM ALL UP" and they will send them home

 

As long as they can still avoid bias, this is great! I didn't know being gay was grounds for getting booted out of jury duty in the first place, so I can't really have been pissed off enough to fully appreciate this, but it's a win for equal rights none the less.

 

I've been called up twice, and neither time I was picked for the jury. I was rather disappointed that I was not picked. I am glad to live in a place where we can have jury trials, and don't mind being called up.

Last time I was called was for traffic court. The trails are short and no trails are scheduled after 11:30AM. So a short easy day. There were so many people bitching about having jury duty, it really ticked me off. It was just a few hours, but they went on and on about how it was such an inconvenience to them. If they ever needed a jury I bet they wouldn't feel the same way.

 

The case decided was Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories. I am able to find the amicus brief submitted by Lambda Legal et al., here, and the text of the opinion itself is here.

I highly recommend that all of us as Americans--regardless of our hatred or distrust of the law--educate ourselves on the liberty interests implicated in the ability to participate in the judicial process as jurors. It protests us as defendents, but it also protects us in the community at large when we can help to reduce heterosexist bias that would otherwise allow guilty defendents more leniency than their due.

 

Also, just saying, even though none of you seem to care, as it's jury duty, among the findings of this opinion is that classifications based on sexual orientation require hightened scrutiny rather than rational basis review. To those of you without a legal background, this means that it will be more difficult for state and (some) federal laws that harm us to withstand judicial review. Rational basis only requries essentially that the law make some kind of rational sense or have a reasonable purpose (even if not articulated by the state legislature or by Congress). It is deferential with respect to the legislative body in that it doesn't look at whether or not a class is disadvantaged by the law. Heightened scrutiny requires something more. It requires that there be an important government interest advanced by the law and that the is substantially advanced by that interest. While not as high as strict scrutiny, the Court does not simply rubberstamp a law that hurts people. Under rational basis review, they don't even care!

It is possible that the Ninth Circuit will get summarily reversed on appeal, and this case will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, but while it stands, it permits other circuit courts of appeal and state supreme courts to make more sweeping judgements.

 

I am not eligible. My father was a cop, my mother owned a private security firm, and I have family that works in court system. I'm considered biased.

 

You? Have a bias? Gasp!