a jury was not to ignore whether the law itself was right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable and act as if it were all a game where the jurors are there to decide if, by the rule of the game, the 'guilty' person is 'guilty'. The purpose of a jury was and is to be a check against unreasonable, unjust, or immoral laws. That's what it's *for*. At some point in the selection process you'll be asked if you feel you can reach a verdict while considering only the law as it applies, not whether the law is just or unjust, moral or immoral, and you will be further asked if you can set aside any thought of whether a possible sentence is fair or unfair, just or unjust. While it's imprudent to say in defiant terms that you're not up for that, you're certainly entitled to say, respectfully, that you aren't confident you can manage to do that. If you say that they can't possibly sit you on a jury because it would be an instant win on appeal. I'm sorry but I do not feel that "jury duty" is a CIVIC anything. I don't have to do it for this country or it's people. What do they do for me? I'll use every excuse in the book and I'll burn the summons. This is stupid. I'm not going to waste my time doing this. I've more important things to do, like sleep or play video games. Some people