California Law Rule 2.1002
“One Day or One Trial”

The way in which jury duty existed in the state of California prior to May 1999 was as follows:

A person picked for Jury Duty would be called in, and have a ten (10) day period in which said person could be picked from a pool of people, for possible duties as a juror. During this time, many people cited “Financial Hardship”, and were excused.

With the introduction of Rule 2.1002 (introduced in May 1999 as rule 861 by the Judicial Council, implemented by May 2002, and renumbered as rule 2.1002 on January 1st, 2007), the new juror policy became “One Day or One Trial”. You go for one day. If, in the course of a day, you are not picked for a jury, you may go home. You can not be called again for a minimum of one year. If you do get picked, you will only be in service as a juror for the duration of that one trial. The catch is that the “Financial Hardship” policy (note I do not say excuse, for it is in fact a reason) has been severely restricted.

Before I continue, let me address the situation of a freelance employee. This can range from a screenwriter, to a set designer, to a producer, to a songwriter, to a variety of any other people who have chosen to leave the “9-to-5″ workforce, and be self sufficient.

The essence of freelance work is that since you are not part of the “system”, you must hunt down employment opportunities. Jobs will come at you at unpredictable times, and if you are not available to take the jobs, you will lose them. The jobs will simply go to another person. If this happens too often, your business will suffer.

The U.S. Government penalizes individuals for going outside of the normal work model. People who work “9-to-5″ jobs pay their taxes, and usually get a refund, due to the fact that their employers have already removed the “tax money” from their steady paychecks. Individuals who are freelance employees, however, are paid (and taxed) differently. A freelance employee gets paid a a lump sum, and it is up to the freelance person to set aside money from that payment for taxes. In a real world situation, a freelance person’s job opportunities are sometimes few and far between. There can be dry runs that last for many months. During this time, many freelance workers can be characterized by one simple word: stressed.

The California Judicial Council shares the Internal Revenue Service’s characterization of freelance employees. Under state law, a “9-to-5″ worker can not be fired due to Jury Duty. However, a freelance employee does not have the same standard to hold up to. Freelance employees can have multiple employers. Freelance individuals are constantly on the hunt for additional employment. Even one day of opportunities missed can have severe repercussions on that person’s future money making possibilities.

Let’s use the example that I witnessed today. In the juror box was a female voice-over actress. This actress relies on jobs coming in for her to survive. Even on the drive into the courtroom, she received a job offer. The court, however, did not care. The court system does not recognize the additional hardships that freelance employees face. When looking at “Financial Hardship”, the court house employees see a usually high monetary figure as income, and figures that the individual can afford to be out of the work loop for the time of a trial (stated as between one to five days, but in this particular case is estimated at around three weeks). What the court fails to see is that while her income was high, her expenses were high as well. Just because it appears on paper that a person has a sizable income, the actual considerations relating to the possible lost jobs, and tarnished industry name, let alone life expenses, are not taken into account. The court system does not choose to see this aspect of a freelance workers life, and as such, is actually causing more “Financial Hardship” for said individual. Indivuduals within the jury pool (not within the jury box) in the court room had the audacity to make rude comments about the woman, simply because she honestly answered that she was worried about her career. How dare they take such an attitude! The woman is honestly worried about her career, but all these “citizens” saw was a person making an excuse. It is not an excuse. It is a reason, and a damn valid one!

Let’s also take my example. For the year 2007, I only had two gigs. So far, in the year 2008 only one gig is available to me. The market has dried, and I am suffering as a result. Even after write-offs, my taxes will still be in excess of $3,000.00, a figure I do not have, nor am I even close to having. Instead of using my time to try and stir up new business, I am being forced to sit on a jury. If you were up for a jury trial, would you seriously want people on the jury who are not paying attention to your case, and instead are stressing over how they are going to make ends meet. In the case of the individual currently on trial before me, he is getting to experience that firsthand. All that is on my mind is my work. I am sweating bullets, trying to figure out how I will get a new gig before I need to pay my taxes, and the absolute last thing I care about is the innocence or guilt of the individual in front of me. Regardless of that fact, which I did voice with full honesty in the court room, I am a juror. You may look upon me as selfish, or as shirking my responsibilities as a U.S. citizen. I see it as trying to preserve my status as a working U.S. citizen. The first person in my example actually had job opportunities, and had to disregard them to “do her duty”. I don’t even have the opportunities, nor do I now have the time to search for them, with this currently “obligation”. I am not even taking into account how hypocritical it is for me to even be involved with a court system that I have absolutely no faith in. I am solely addressing my concerns as a U.S. citizen who is trying to ensure that he can still have a roof over his head come May 1st.

Freelance people are not using phony excuses to get out of jury duty. These freelance people are expressing, usually with much emotion, just how fickle the freelance industry is, especially if you work in an industry that is not protected by any form of a union. If you are not around for a job, the job will go to someone else. If you miss a number of jobs (sometimes even just one), not only is your name soiled within the community you work for, but that income (and possible future income) is lost. $15 a day, plus one-way mileage costs of $0.34 (effective January 1st, 2003) is nothing in the way of making up a tarnished industry name. As freelance people, we desperately strive to get our names out in the workforce, and to get ourselves work. Having the U.S. Government fail to recognize a freelance person’s unique work situation is without excuse. Being looked upon as people who are just looking for an excuse to get our of a “civic duty” is not only rude, but unfair. I have already felt the stigma from people who look upon my employment, and make the judgment that I simply work at home, and as such must have an easy life. That sort of generalization is something that truly burns me up. In any work day (which is every day, including weekends and holidays), I will work anywhere between 10 and 20 hours. As I am the type of person who does not like to stop until a job is done (or I pass out from lack of sleep), I will occassionally pull one or two “all-nighters”, just because I have the fire within me to finish the job. That, my friends, is “passion”. I do not have a soul-sucking “9-to-5″ job. I have a job (multiple ones, if I am lucky) that I am passionate about, and that passion translates into the work I do for my clients. Just because some “9-to-5″ employees do not share my passion for work does not entitle those people to pass judgment.

Simply stated, the law is broken. When making the “One Day or One Trial” rule, all considerations for the freelance workforce were completely thrown away. The concept that an employer can not fire you while you are serving as a juror does not take into account lost revenue and employment from other jobs. This is unjust, and the law needs to change.

As stated in an earlier post, I am starting talks with a State Senator. I am fully committed to showing the Judicial System that their law is flawed, and by treating freelance employees with such disregard, they are crippling the industry. The freelance industry is a huge workforce, especially within California. The recent Writers Strike displayed that, with a vengence.

This is not a civic “duty”. Under this current law, it is just doody.