When I had jury duty, I polled other professors to see if they had ever been impaneled (doesn't that sound painful). Some professors were put on juries, especially if the case had nothing to do with their field. And one prediction everyone made -- if you do get on a panel, they will make you be the foreman. Foreperson?

It must be something in the air--I just got my letter for jury service and have been hoping that as a law professor I would escape making the cut because of concerns about undue influence, but I suppose some might view that influence as a positive.

Well, if you approach being the foreperson like you approach class, then you're going to end up with a hung jury and no one remembering what the core issues were.

That said, unless you get empaneled on some complex commercial litigation, your influence will likely be very little since the "answer" is probably obvious. Or, at least, that's been my experience for juries in the criminal trial I was on.

I would bet that it is only the tiniest minority of cases where it's a close call.

At least one state, by statute, excludes any lawyer who speaks up about his/her profession from jury duty. (Gleeful chuckle.)

My experience is that anyone with an analytical mind and strong (but not overwhelming) personality will exert disproportionate influence on a jury. Most professors, or professionals, in any discipline would fit that bill. However, I'm noticing a strong tendency for lawyers in voir dire to exclude just about anyone of that description.

Personally, I like the idea of serving on a jury (and have), but it's difficult to accept an open-ended commitment of time--up to a couple of weeks. And, in any case, lawyers don't seem to be looking to impanel someone like me, no matter how impartial I claim I can be.

I was (somehow) allowed on a criminal jury not too long ago. It proved utterly fascinating. I was, yes, made foreperson, and I indeed ran it like a seminar (no wonder it took two days to reach a verdict -- in a drunk driving case!). These things stood out: (1) how badly the state court system is run, and how poorly the judge protected jurors' time: a five hour trial took four days, plus two for voir dire; (2) the utter uselessness of the jury instructions; (3) the bizarre logical leaps a few of the jurors tried to make (e.g., "The legislature enacted this drunk driving statute so we could party without having to worry about it."); (4) how deeply formalistic and legalistic most of the jurors were. In addition, watching conservative white businessmen, older religious African-American women, younger working folks, and college students -- from Ivy Leaguers to community collegers -- interact was something else.

I kept pretty even the first day, wanting to make sure above all that everyone felt heard and free to chime in -- and wanting also to observe as much as possible without my presence changing the dynamics. But by the second day, as deliberations dragged on, I started using the Socratic method on those who had dug in their heals, in order to show them what I took to be the flaws in their reasoning. Maybe it had some effect, but it certainly didn't compare to the moment when the quiet college student politely demanded that the two holdout jurors either make actual arguments or yield.

In the end, I'd say that my job as a law prof gave me extra credibility to the older conservative jurors, had no effect whatsoever on the college students, and cause my views to be discounted by the working class people. (One guy, who worked in a courthouse as a file clerk, made it a point to cut me off every time I spoke.)

I asked the public defender afterwards why she didn't challenge me. She replied that, much as she wanted to, there were simply too many seemingly crazy people in the voir dire panel who took priority over me! She said she ordinarily hates having law professors on her juries, for fear they'll be critical of her performance.

So yes, law profs do get on juries. And the experience is worth a good deal, in my judgment.