• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What did you think of the Jury Duty Lady?

As i said, I agree that wearing it for jury duty was inappropriate, but as for her wearing it during her everyday life, why should we have a problem with that? If she wears it because she IS a little 'unstable' then i think she deserves our compassion rather than derision.
 
^ If she's actually unstable? Sure she deserves compassion. If she just wants people to notice her? Not so much. I have no idea which explanation is closer to the truth, or if neither one is at all close to the truth.
 
Others have said it already. She wore a fantasy costume to a serious legal function. This is either a sign of disrespect for the court or instability. She gave a figurative black eye to Trek fans everywhere by acting in a way which encouraged others to ridicule all of us.

I have seen judges hold attorneys in contempt for inappropriate attire. The reasoning was that it is a sign of disrespect toward the court. I have seen bailiffs escort others out of the courtroom and even arrest some for inappropriate behavior. "Jury Duty Lady" qualifies as either disrespect or mental instability.

As for the IDIC comments, Trek fans on this board cannot even practice IDIC in their posts... how can they be expected to treat it as a condition of fandom?
 
I really couldnt tell whether she is emotionally unstable or seeking attention, just by watching the interview on the TREKKIES dvd,,, so i have to reserve judgement.

In any event, in my opinion she showed poor judgement by wearing it to court.
 
Let me add another thought. She was CHOSEN to serve on that jury. Either lawyer could have had her excluded because of that costume. So could the judge. I'm not a trial lawyer, but I have done some trial work. (Yes, I'm a lawyer...) She'd have been easy to get her excluded on some ground if EITHER side wanted her out. You would not have had to use one of the limited number of challenges you get to use without reasons.

The fact that she was chosen, when there were probably nine people rejected for that jury for every one that served, should tell you something about how normal is normal. No one here has mentioned this, so I wanted to bring this up.

What's obvious is that the lawyers on both sides in that trial wanted somebody who was open to thinking differently than usual. People often have deep seated preset ideas. I wrote a play about a young man making decisions that would decide much of the course of his life. He was consulting with his girlfriend and a platonic friend. The girl cast as the platonic friend was as or more attractive than the girlfriend. She was nicer to the male lead, and more honest and kinder in general than the girlfriend, who was a deceptive schemer. The male lead gives reasons he looks down on the platonic friend and values his girlfriend, but those are made patently ridiculous. He also does periodically ridicule the platonic friend as she helps him through his troubles... troubles the girlfriend makes worse. OK, I admit that the girlfriend was blonde, and the platonic friend was not. The audience typically rallies to the side of the manipulative girlfriend he praises without good cause, and hates the platonic friend he attacks without good cause. They start echoing his words about why he dislikes her, even though other characters make it clear that his statements are untrue. The play was an interesting study in the herding instincts of those watching. The only people who look past his rantings are usually the heads of successful organizations and businesses, and exceptionally creative people and successful investors... people who don't follow the crowd. Even people who specifically share many of the platonic friends good traits and claim to value those traits, but who are go-along people, usually rant about how much they hate her.

So, I'd argue that, if you believe in your case, this would be a good reason to think somebody in a Starfleet Uniform might make it more likely the jury will have to consider the facts, and not just run with the 'in' crowd because you are concerned about a herding reaction in the jury room.
 
All she did was wear a starfleet uniform in public, and people are saying she needs professional help?

I thought us nerds were supposed to be more accepting of eccentricities. :confused:
 
I thought even though we are nerds, that doesn't preclude us from having respect for the justice system. A Star Trek uniform doesn't say "I'm taking this seriously" to me. But that's just my opinion, of course.
 
Certainly everybody has a right to wear pretty much what they want - to jury duty or elsewhere.

But I have a right to think, "Jeez, what a nut."

Wearing something ridiculously inappropriate to a serious occasion such as jury duty - a Trek uniform, biker leathers, a cheerleader costume, bunny ears - would indicate to me one of two things: The wearer has no respect for the occasion or the wearer is at least slightly nutty.

If this woman sincerely believed that a Star Trek uniform was appropriate, she's a nut. Sorry, but that is how it really and truly strikes me. If this woman did it to get out of jury duty or to make a joke out of jury duty, she should have been ashamed of herself. I expect she wasn't, but she should have been.

And I agree with Arpy that including a tricorder and a phaser elevates it to an entirely new level of either oddness or lack-of-respect-for-the-institution-ness.

I don't think I could have summed it up better.

Of course you have the right to wear whatever you want. But she was crazy. I remember her quote from Trekkies saying "If my crew saw me take off my uniform, how could they respect me?" or something along those lines. If it was "I like the show", then that's different. But it wasn't, it was like she was leading some kind of cult.

Sports uniforms are a part of our current society, Star Trek uniforms are not. Someday they might be, but right now, they're just goofy anywhere but the TV screen or a Halloween costume...or maybe at conventions.
 
IMO it was a rather bad idea. Jury in general is, but dressing up for such a serious thing especially.
 
I continue to wonder more about the judge and lawyers who CHOSE her to serve on that jury than about her. What were THEY thinking? No question that showing up dressed like that was odd. I do wonder what she does for a living.
 
^ Did she show up for the jury pool that way? Or did she not strut her Trekker stuff until she had already been impaneled?
 
How does one strut one's trekker stuff? Or is this something that I should not know...

I'll get me coat.
 
Here's a news story about it (sandwiched between two other stories):

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjP8LqSPj8A[/yt]
 
I;m not so sure someone who's unstable "deserves" our compassion. We may give it if we are so inclined, but "deserving" puts them on some elevated social plain that I'm not willing to grant ANYone. I know a few unstable people, some of whom have my compassion, but others of whom, I find, only "deserve" avoidance for the sake of my own mental well being.
 
She was probably a serious member of that "Starfleet" group. I've been acquainted with fans in that group, and they take themselves pretty seriously.

Upon first encountering this thread, I thought: "Hey, that's a great idea - maybe next time I can borrow one of those and get out of jury duty." But then I read that she was actually selected for the jury. WTF? Just what exactly does one have to wear to get a free pass outta jury duty, anyway?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top