Josh,

Before you bash the PD, it's important to remember that many potentially interesting questions that he could ask, are prohibited by the law of evidence and ethics. Very often such matters are the subject of pretrial motions that jurors never hear about. TV shows and movies that feature trials routinely grossly distort the law of evidence, and how it applies to trial practice. So it could be the the PD had very good reasons not to ask those questions.

Or, he could have been an idiot. Who knows?

However, the common perception that public defense attorneys are worse than other attorneys is not always accurate. For instance, in federal criminal trials, the federal defender actually has a higher rate of success at trials than private defense attorneys.

As to your question, the views of almost everyone who responds will be largely irrelevant. The view you need to get is that of the judge who presides over the trial. Feel free to ask him (my gut is that he would say that you can't give any information that identifies the parties, including "interesting details" about the case that might do so to someone who knew the case. However, the bailiff who picks his nose is probably fair game.) But it is the judge who could get pissed off, and he knows the rules of the jurisdiction and of his own courtroom better than anyone else you could ask.

I am assuming that I won't be able to blog the events of any case while I am part of it. What I am wanting to do is cope with the boredom during the initial selection process.

As for the PD I referenced.. you had to be there to see his mismatched tie, wrinkled suit and the way he constantly returned to his notes on the table because he lost his train of thought.

Weird, I have jury duty too. Granted, it's a state away, at home, and I'm in college, so I have to defer it.

Apologies for the trackback spam - don't know whether you can delete the latest...

The last time I was selected it was amazing to witness the ineptness of the Protestant lawyer. Sitting in the jury box I was saying to myself, "Why doesn't he ask...." Later during a recess some of the other jurors talked about how watching all the legal shows on TV made them think they were smarter than the Prostestant lawyer. (Note to self, don't let a Protestant lawyer handle your case)

The short answer is No. The court usually instructs jurors about their behavior outside the court. In its instruction, there are restrictions on free speech, albeit temporary. The likely prejudice is considerable. It is only going to require the court to issue a new trial jury instruction, and query jurors daily about such activities.

I'll let others discuss the extremely legal aspects of it, but I know that I chronicled my coroner's jury duty. Which, by the way, I found a lot more interesting and satisfying than the time I sat on a trial jury.

http://www.omnux.com/kvandivo/jury/