jury duty

[STEVIE]

I said previously that I had worn trousers when called in 2016 and, ten years later, I'd do the same.
Not because of fear of censure but simply not to be the focus of attention.
In 21 it never occurred to me that there could be a major difference between the United States and the U.K.
With respect to Al, I'd be a deal more reticent and be very aware of the differences in our judicial systems.
Interesting that Moonshadow said if a skirt was court appropriate for a woman, to sustain equality it must be okay for a man.
That was 21 but in 2026?
Steve.

[Coder]

Mr Coder my number one advice would be just contact the court and inform them your prefer attire isn't a pair of pants and don't keep it a secret from the court. If you don't tell the court it can be used against you for having a secret agenda and can be jailed for it. Unfortunately you will draw some attention and can be worse by not revealing your choice of attire. I you don't reveal to the court your prefer attire, you will be adding your anxiety regardless even you show up wearing a pair of pants. Let the court decide if you will be permitted to wear a skirt and decide from there.

I don't think any of that would happen (jailing) - most likely they would either ask me to leave and change or perhaps come the following week attired differently - if such an objection were to be raised. But I think it's very unlikely given the liberal town.

Well, I wouldn't say that times have gotten better -- all I've seen is entirely retrograde, but with luck we may be able to escape that going forward.

Yeah.... my choice of words there was iffy. I think with the current political climate pants feels safer, which is kinda sad.

Not because of fear of censure but simply not to be the focus of attention.
In 21 it never occurred to me that there could be a major difference between the United States and the U.K.
With respect to Al, I'd be a deal more reticent and be very aware of the differences in our judicial systems.
Interesting that Moonshadow said if a skirt was court appropriate for a woman, to sustain equality it must be okay for a man.
That was 21 but in 2026?
Steve.

First off, I agree with the "not the focus of attention bit" and I hope that it's not a convenient excuse for me to chicken out. I also think - politically -it's a bit more risky in 2026 than say 2021 to skirt about in the US - if only because the pendulum is swinging a bit in one direction and people don't really communicate anymore, it seems.

The plaintiff AND the defendant No-Showed.
We were turned loose after about 1 hour.
(That includes the waiting time to get into the court room.)

This is one of three district courts in our county, and they likely called 100-200 people to service. From what I gather, there are three judges hearing cases at this one courthouse. Slightly higher chance of being picked, with the possibility of being put on multiple juries (based on a reddit post for this district). Worst of all, there was something about a 2-month timeframe where they could call me for service, not sure how that works.

Anyhow - I'm not going to lose sleep over this one - but I appreciate the conversation and reflections (which is why I posted a reply).

[Faldaguy]

Mr Coder my number one advice would be just contact the court and inform them your prefer attire isn't a pair of pants and don't keep it a secret from the court. If you don't tell the court it can be used against you for having a secret agenda and can be jailed for it. Unfortunately you will draw some attention and can be worse by not revealing your choice of attire. I you don't reveal to the court your prefer attire, you will be adding your anxiety regardless even you show up wearing a pair of pants. Let the court decide if you will be permitted to wear a skirt and decide from there.

Do you have any evidence; documentation; statues to support these suppositions? Your suggestions seem far-fetched to me; almost to the point of fear-mongering reflecting your own insecurity.

I do agree that not being a distraction could be an important element. It is worth noting that on most jury trials the attorneys have the opportunity to question and excuse a candidate without citing a reason. (In fact, this might be useful to Coder if he would really NOT like to be on call for duty during the prescribed time -- his skirt might well get him dismissed altogether!)

Nor do I disagree with the utility of a call to the court -- though I doubt anyone would be able to give a definitive answer; nor record it for the record. Probably a useless call save for curiosity.

In a similar circumstance I have reported here the wearing of pants when at a small public protest outside the Constitutional Court because the case was about a kid who had been brought here by his mother seeking asylum from a pedophile father. The father was of course denying his actions and trying to blame the Mother for such wild suggestions. I was fearful my support of the mother as a MIS might be misinterpreted in such surroundings.

I do not think I'd choose pants for a simple call to jury duty as I routinely appear as a MIS at all manner of public and private facilities without pushback or comment. I've attended weddings; funerals, legal proceedings, called upon police, court, hospital, immigration, visited and taught at schools, all as a MIS without any extraordinary response. I did in the past, and may well in the current era of repression in the US revert to pants for their TSA and airport Immigration goons as I have already pushed their buttons with my outspoken political views -- thugs, with no ID, masks and guns are a clear and present danger to all -- not only MIS.

[Coder]

As I had said - I went in jeans. Fortunately, my number wasn't called and I never had to leave the waiting room. I'll be honest - it may be a civic duty - but I'm just not cut out to be a juror. As for other people in the room - all decked out in variations of normal. I'm also 100% sure had I worn a skirt, no one would have bat an eye.

[Coder]

I do agree that not being a distraction could be an important element. It is worth noting that on most jury trials the attorneys have the opportunity to question and excuse a candidate without citing a reason. (In fact, this might be useful to Coder if he would really NOT like to be on call for duty during the prescribed time -- his skirt might well get him dismissed altogether!)

Oddly enough, I kept going back and forth on this one - but ended up deciding to wear jeans because I figured - I didn't want my outfit to play a role whatsoever in their choices, were I to be called. I was hoping to be dismissed, and I got that chance through pure luck (random number picking and a large pool of people), but I would not want it to be because I believed I was being dismissed due to what I was wearing. And I'd never know, which is why I felt it was better for my long-term sense of self to not take that "risk".

I do not think I'd choose pants for a simple call to jury duty as I routinely appear as a MIS at all manner of public and private facilities without pushback or comment. I've attended weddings; funerals, legal proceedings, called upon police, court, hospital, immigration, visited and taught at schools, all as a MIS without any extraordinary response. I did in the past, and may well in the current era of repression in the US revert to pants for their TSA and airport Immigration goons as I have already pushed their buttons with my outspoken political views -- thugs, with no ID, masks and guns are a clear and present danger to all -- not only MIS.

I don't have quite the repertoire of events, or circumstances, but have enough experience to agree in principle. But again, there was that bit of uncertainty in my mind and I just wanted to go in, collect my payout, and leave.

[jamie001]

I do agree that not being a distraction could be an important element. It is worth noting that on most jury trials the attorneys have the opportunity to question and excuse a candidate without citing a reason. (In fact, this might be useful to Coder if he would really NOT like to be on call for duty during the prescribed time -- his skirt might well get him dismissed altogether!)

Oddly enough, I kept going back and forth on this one - but ended up deciding to wear jeans because I figured - I didn't want my outfit to play a role whatsoever in their choices, were I to be called. I was hoping to be dismissed, and I got that chance through pure luck (random number picking and a large pool of people), but I would not want it to be because I believed I was being dismissed due to what I was wearing. And I'd never know, which is why I felt it was better for my long-term sense of self to not take that "risk".

I do not think I'd choose pants for a simple call to jury duty as I routinely appear as a MIS at all manner of public and private facilities without pushback or comment. I've attended weddings; funerals, legal proceedings, called upon police, court, hospital, immigration, visited and taught at schools, all as a MIS without any extraordinary response. I did in the past, and may well in the current era of repression in the US revert to pants for their TSA and airport Immigration goons as I have already pushed their buttons with my outspoken political views -- thugs, with no ID, masks and guns are a clear and present danger to all -- not only MIS.

I don't have quite the repertoire of events, or circumstances, but have enough experience to agree in principle. But again, there was that bit of uncertainty in my mind and I just wanted to go in, collect my payout, and leave.

I don't believe that the court can force you to wear pants for jury duty. If women are allowed to wear skirts, then so are you. Otherwise it is discrimination.

[phathack]

I'm 100% sure that If I'm called upon again for Jury duty I'll pull on a skort and t-shirt and had down to the court house. Take me as I am or dismiss me, their call.
As far as I know there is no law that says I have to wear pants, just that I not be indecent in appearance.

[mr seamstress]

Do you have any evidence; documentation; statues to support these suppositions? Your suggestions seem far-fetched to me; almost to the point of fear-mongering reflecting your own insecurity.

Key word here is associations. As part of being called to serve as a juror is required to disclose all their associations that maybe in conflict with the defendants right to a fair trial.

I too was summons at one time to serve as a juror, but I was able to get out of it, because I had an associations with one of the defendants on a court case. That associations was the fact we road the same school bus and sat besides each other, along with his twin brother. They invited me be part of their gang. They lived just a few blocks from me. This would be a criminal offense if I kept this a secret from court. The summons carries various court orders.
Does my summons I received for juror duty count for anything?

[crfriend]

Key word here is associations. As part of being called to serve as a juror is required to disclose all their associations that maybe in conflict with the defendants right to a fair trial.

This is part of what's known as voir dire, and is how individual who may have a vested interest in the case for one reason or another are winnowed out. There is no disgrace in getting disqualified at this stage, and it's an important part of the processes. Having been through it a number of times, I speak from some experience. I've been empanelled a couple of times, tossed out a few times (including one instance where I got tossed on sight). Usually this early stage is handled by a questionnaire asking whether one has any relationship with either side of the case; if your answer is, "Yes", more questions will possibly get asked (usually at a side-bar), but more likely you'll get rejected based on the mere fact that you know someone who's involved.

[skirted84]

I said previously that I had worn trousers when called in 2016 and, ten years later, I'd do the same.
Not because of fear of censure but simply not to be the focus of attention.
In 21 it never occurred to me that there could be a major difference between the United States and the U.K.
With respect to Al, I'd be a deal more reticent and be very aware of the differences in our judicial systems.
Interesting that Moonshadow said if a skirt was court appropriate for a woman, to sustain equality it must be okay for a man.
That was 21 but in 2026?
Steve.

I do recall you saying (in person) this is one case you don't wear skirts and while I understand, I doubt it would make a material difference to proceedings or be found contemptuous. Some skirts draw more attention than others so some thought would be needed to fit the seriousness of the courtroom.

I have been excused from jury service at least 3 times and likely will continue to due to a permanent health condition so I'm not in a position to choose. If I was wearing skirts in every ordinary part of life it would feel anomalous not to.

[Modoc]

I wore this to jury duty in 2023
download/file.php?id=15562&mode=view
I got called up as a potential on the case and had 2 interviews, but didn't make the final cut. I was very glad for that. that.
Throughout the entire process, the only comments on my attire were a couple of compliments.