Judge has an answer for jury prospect's invoice
Posted on 08/15/2002 3:16:11 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Judge has an answer for jury prospect's invoice
Computer consultant tried to bill federal court $16,800 to keep August open for duty
08/15/2002
SAN ANTONIO - When computer consultant David Williamson was summoned for federal jury duty and told that he should keep August free of commitments, he replied he was ready to serve at his normal rate of $100 an hour.
He prepared an invoice, charging the government for "court-ordered professional services for the entire month of August 2002."
His bill came to $16,800 $100 an hour, eight hours a day, 21 days during the month of August.
Mr. Williamson sent the bill to court officials and warned that the invoice was due at the end of August and, after that, would begin accumulating interest at 2 percent a month if not paid, the San Antonio Express-News reported.
There was no reply to Mr. Williamson's invoice, so he mailed it two more times.
The response Mr. Williamson finally got was not the one he wanted. He received a form telling him to report on Aug. 26 for a seven-week trial.
Mr. Williamson didn't enclose an invoice with his reply but wrote back that as a principal partner in a small software firm, he could not miss work for seven weeks. He asked that his jury duty be postponed until next year just as it had been in 2000 and 2001.
He added: "If you would like to meet and discuss this, please have his honor call and schedule an appointment."
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery's answer showed up on Mr. Williamson's fax machine Monday.
"The Court is happy to accommodate Mr. Williamson's suggestion for an appointment: Mr. Williamson is HEREBY ORDERED TO APPEAR in Courtroom 2 of the John H. Wood Jr. United States Courthouse to show cause why he should not be held in CONTEMPT OF THE COURT AND JAILED ACCORDINGLY."
The order described Mr. Williamson as "arrogant" and asserted that he had shirked federal jury duty for seven years a figure Mr. Williamson disputes.
The federal clerk's office issues about 300 jury summons a month. But in a courthouse with three judges and three magistrates, trials are the exception. Very few summoned actually serve.
Small-business owners can postpone their turn, as Mr. Williamson did twice. They also can ask to serve for shorter trials.
Norma Wagoner, the federal jury manager, said it's rare that a court has needed to resort to the threat of jail.
"We'll work with anyone within reason," she said. "Seven years is a long time. I don't know what else to do for this man."
Mr. Williamson said he would show up for the hearing.
The order described Mr. Williamson as "arrogant" and asserted that he had shirked federal jury duty for seven years a figure Mr. Williamson disputes.
I think arrogant is the right word, if this article's description of his actions is correct.
:-)
I'd prefer "Wiseass".
So what? Do you think Giuliani lost a penny by serving on a jury? Not likely. Williamson stands to lose a significant amount of money.
And further, it will probably hurt his business. I know if I were to vanish for a month my customers would have probably found another source.
This is not my point. I think that people should be compensated adequately for their time. Judges get paid handsomely ($120,000 and up) why shouldn't the jury? I'm self employed, so I lose big time when I go on jury duty.
However, I look on it as a chance personally to beard the establishment in its own den. I keep Adams' quote written on a piece of papaer when I go.
second president John Adams, a quite notable attorney of his time, who said in 1771: 'It is not only (the juror's) right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court' (1771 2 Life and Works of John Adams, 253-255 -- C.F. Adams ed. 1856.)Oddly enough I have yet to get put on a panel.
Umm... Last time I looked up the definition of involuntary servitude, it was called slavery, not "civic duty", which implies volunteering.
The man has to make a living, regardless of what he charges.
Do we really want people to serve because the $25 per-day is a good deal? I don't think so.
I have been called to jury duty knowing that I won't ever sit on a jury. (Damn few trial lawyers put other trial lawyers on a jury panel.) I can tell you that at my rate, I would be happy to only have lost $100 per-hour.
The best thing these self-described important and intellegent people can do is to show-up and serve. They will be helping our justice system. And we all can benefit from that.
second president John Adams, a quite notable attorney of his time, who said in 1771: 'It is not only (the juror's) right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court' (1771 2 Life and Works of John Adams, 253-255 -- C.F. Adams ed. 1856.)Oddly enough I have yet to get put on a panel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.