I served four days a week for three months, with the ominous threat of being "extended" one day a week for months more on end to finish a murder trial (which we

I served four days a week for three months, with the ominous threat of being "extended" one day a week for months more on end to finish a murder trial (which we ultimately were not). My employer paid my salary for the duration. If it had not, I would have been excused for "financial hardship." One of the most frustrating aspects of the grand jury process is that the ADAs instruct you on the elements of the law after you've heard the evidence, and tend to do so poorly. By the time they've even told you that they're charging trafficking, and what that means specifically, it's often inconvenient to bring someone back to testify as to gross vs. net weight, that sort of thing. For one charge, the ADA read aloud a very long paragraph from the statue, of which only one sentence was relevant. I also found that some jurors leaned heavily on "probable cause" as an excuse to be sloppy. The bar is lower, it's not like we're convicting the guy, and besides, do you think the cops didn't do their job? That said, most of the cases were strong. There was little doubt that the accused performed the action. Most of the doubt was whether the action satisfied the elements of the crime. Out of hundreds of charges, we only returned a "no bill" (declined to indict) on one. However, I strongly believe that we incorrectly returned a "true bill" (voted to indict) on two charges. The experience was educational, but not one I'd wish to repeat. Most of my co-jurors look back on it much more negatively than I do. Edit: I should add that the ADA was very unhappy with the one "no bill" that we returned, incredulous that we could come to the conclusion that we did.