Maybe.  Speaking of coincidences, I have been called again for jury duty.  And this is beginning to get a little odd.  In March 2006, I was called for jury duty by King County.  In the previous four decades, I had never been called for jury duty, though I have always registered to vote and have almost always had a driver's license.  Since March 2006, I have been called for jury duty four more times, once more by King County, and three more times by the Kirkland Municipal Court.  Almost certainly, my recent streak is a coincidence, but it is getting a little odd.

I said maybe, because Kirkland has an odd system for jurors.  It is not unusual for a case to be settled just before it goes to trial, and the court's work load is small enough so that they can't just call jurors in and assume that about half of them will be needed.  (That, as far as I can tell, is King County's procedure; they only need about half of the jurors who show up.)

This part of the instructions in the summons explains how the Kirkland system works:

You are required to respond to this summons by calling the juror hotline or checking the website after 5:00 PM on the evening PRIOR to the report date listed on the front of this summons.

Since my duty starts August 18th, I have to call or check the website on the evening of August 17th, and, probably, the evenings of August 18th, 19th, 22nd, and 23rd, to find out if I actually have to show up.

At the end of the summons, the Kirkland court appeals to my patriotism and sense of duty with this gentle message:

YOUR APPEARANCE IS MANDATORY.  IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR, CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST YOU.  IT IS A CRIME FOR ANY PERSON SUMMONED FOR JURY SERVICE TO INTENTIONALLY FAIL TO APPEAR AS DIRECTED (RCW 2.36.170).

They don't mention the pay, perhaps because it is so meager.  (Ten dollars a day, plus three dollars a day for travel expenses.)

That nasty part of the summons is mostly a bluff.  Nationally, about half of the jurors who are summoned actually show up, and nothing happens to almost all of those who don't.  (Though I suppose writing about your summons on a blog might make you more of a target.)

On the whole, I am looking forward to this experience, though those who run our courts may not like my reason:  Before I was called for jury duty, I suspected that our courts were badly run and that the judges and administrators who run them often abuse the jurors.  Now, I have direct evidence for those suspicions, and expect to collect more evidence this time, if I have to go in.

I should add, just to make it absolutely clear, that serving on a jury is no hardship for me.  But it is for others, such as the cleaning woman I saw who earns a little more than the minimum wage at her job, and had to give even that little up when she was called for jury duty.  Or the woman I met the first time I was called for jury duty who owned a small business, and was taking care of an elderly relative who needed constant care.  While waiting to be called, she was trying, frantically, to manage her business and to make arrangements for her relative, using her laptop and cellphone.

Though serving on a jury is no hardship for me, I dislike the restrictions on jurors that make it harder to decide a case fairly.  If I am to be a juror, I want to be the best one that I can be — and our current laws and court procedures do not allow that.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics