[codingdave]

Definitely different than movies...

In my most recent case, it took one long day. 30 minute intro video on being on a jury. An hour to select the jury. 20 minutes of instructions. Then most of the day would be spent sitting down, hearing 10-15 minutes of the trial, then being sent off to a room so the lawyers could talk and negotiate. Over 8-ish, hours we probably spent an hour sitting as a jury, and the rest of the time just sitting in a conference room together waiting for the next bit of the trial. When all that was done, the judge gave us instructions, and we went to deliberate. That part was quick - about 10 minutes. We walked out, said our verdict, the judge said thanks, and we went home. (Not all deliberations are that quick.)

The bit of the lawyers getting up and talking to the jury is real. Opening/closing arguments, testimony, all that, is fairly accurate to movies. But that just isn't the majority of how time is spent. And movies skip the legal details - it felt like we spent as much time listening to the judge instruct us on the details of the law as we did the lawyers presenting their side.

[atulatul]

Thanks. Any intrusion of privacy, threats, bribes, etc. like they show in some movies? Does the experience test your preconceptions, morals, ethics, etc?

[codingdave]

Nope, nothing remotely along those lines. It was quite straightforward and fact-based. We were told what the questions of law were, what facts would make the verdict go one way or another, and we decide the facts based on arguments, evidence, and testimony. Those facts are applied to the instructions form the judge, and you have a verdict. Very dry and analytical, to tell the truth. The prosecutor either proved their case or not.