I have been called up a few times but only selected once. It was a minor crime, the trial was over in a few hours, and the members of the jury seemed to take the case more seriously than any of the other participants. The prosecutor was young and inexperienced, the defense attorney obviously expected his client to lose, the defendant was already behind bars for some other reason and didn't seem to mind staying there, the judge looked tired, and the cop whose testimony was the sole evidence in the case seemed annoyed about having to be present.

Members of the jury, however, paid close attention, listened carefully, considered the evidence thoroughly, deliberated at length, and... failed to reach a verdict. The prosecution's case boiled down to "this here cop believes that there man did the crime", and the varying opinions people have about the trustworthiness of such evidence seems largely to be a function of life experience, not easily reconciled.

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.

Drive to courthouse. Mill about waiting for instructions. Clerk herds possible jurors into waiting room and thanks us for complying with a mandatory summons. We fill out a survey one question in it asks what kind of media we consume. After more waiting we’re brought into the courtroom. The defense attorney, prosecutors, and judge have some last minute plea or settlement negotiations. More waiting as this happens. Jury selection begins. They ask each person if they can be fair. If they could convict based on solely police officer testimony. If they would only convict if the state met the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. Between each answer the attorneys and judge confer close up behind the bar while turning on a white noise generator. Right before lunch the jury and alternates are chosen and the rest of us are released.

The other members of the jury didn't inspire me. I was on several small cases. In one the foreman of the jury kept on about how his bike had been stolen, which was of course entirely irrelevant, though I felt he wanted a guilty verdict just to make up for it.

In one, we hadn't elected a foreman, but the clerk of the court came up to me and said "You are the foreman, the judge is instructing you to find the defendant not guilty. How do you find him?" I shrugged and said "Not guilty". She she said "Is that the finding of you all." I wondered if I should turn around and take vote, but decided not. "Yes" I said. Jury dismissed.

I felt very comfortable and unsurprised with everything after years of being educated by Law & Order and clones. The judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, defendant, alleged victim, bailiff, recorder and my fellow jury members all seemed to be good fits for their roles from central casting. The jury deliberation was consistent with my media history. You can visualize the whole experience by examining your preconception of "rural county court trial of man accused of pistol whipping his wife." It was mostly he said, she said, plus two days of legal blather, and we found him guilty in about a half hour.

I ended up serving on a sequestered jury for a week. In Indiana at the time, certain crimes could warrant the death penalty, as in our case. We all took it very seriously. This was in the days before the internet, so we were effectively stuck in a nice hotel for a week. We lucked out with a fairly skilled foreman to keep us on track during our deliberations.

That week raised my faith in humanity, and in the jury system.

Been called a few times, sat in line for the selection process, they had the jury filled out before I ever got interviewed.

I was disappointed with people. In my case a big company was a #1 contributor to a man developing cancer. Overwhelming amount of evidence of damage, corruption and malice. Many people still defended the company. The sane half of us had to work to discuss evidence to reach just conclusion.