Does being a veteran keep you from serving on a jury?

Well, I've reached the age where I am no longer subject to being called, so one less thing to worry about. Good luck with the letter, fingers crossed for you.

TSgt Denise Moody - Depends on the reason for the disagreement. What if the law is contrary to the Constitution? I don't recall swearing to support and defend the laws or regulations.

The only "jury" I ever actually served on, despite being called many times over the years, was when I was an AF 1LT. It wasn't actually a court martial, but it was run like one, and the panel acted the way the panel in a court martial would act. Guilt was obvious, but our main task was to recommend punishment to the Convening Authority. We decided there were mitigating circumstancing, and that they guy should be given a second chance, rather than a discharge. He finished his enlistment, and got out with a honorable discharge.

Capt Joe Sylvester - If the law is on the books, as a juror, you are charged to follow that law. It's through the appeal process that laws that are against the Constitution are remedied. That remedy gets the law off the books. Now your can be an activist juror/jury and go against the unjust law, but that doesn't get the law off the books. It's still there to cause another person harm.

Now the board you seem to be referring to isn't the same as a trial, and mitigating circumstances can be taken into account. With a trial the mitigating circumstances should have been taken into account with the charges filed...the difference between manslaughter and murder. Juries can take those circumstances into account if they are determining punishment, if that's part of their duty.

TSgt Denise Moody - It can help to convince Congress, or a state legislature, to take an Unconstitutional (different than unjust) off the books. Even a successful appeal may only overturn the law in a single district, unless the prosecution appeals the appeals court's ruling. Even then, it's still on the books, and a prosecutor may attempt to enforce it because "this case is different" than the one the Courts ruled on. A good example of the affect, although involving a law changed by the legislature involves Texas' law on carrying a firearm in a vehicle. It was always a defense to prosecution that the violator was "traveling". But traveling was not defined in the law, over the years it got interpreted more and more strictly, from crossing a county line, to two county lines to an overnight stay. (I recall one case where the man and his son were traveling from Dallas to Galveston, which fit all the criteria, and he was still arrested and prosecuted). The legislature attempted to fix that by defining traveling, as it was originally understood, being in a vehicle going somewhere. And still DA's in Houston, Austin and Dallas were charging people. Finally, having had enough of that, the legislature changed the law so that if you were traveling, it was no longer a crime to have a handgun in the vehicle.

The appeals judges and even the Supreme Court are not the only arbitrators of Constitutionality.

Capt Joe Sylvester - It takes both the court system and the legislative system to fix laws. One way is through the appeals process to get the law declared Unconsitutional. The other method can include an activist jury, judge, or ground roots campaign to get the state legislature to act. Either method can be long.

I don't agree with the drug laws. A lot of them need to be tossed, others modified. In no way should the user be jailed. That's probably why I didn't get seated on two trials. But the one I did get on that opinion didn't bother the prosecutor and the defense was more interested in the veterans/retirees opinions on officers. Did we think that officers always told the truth, never broke the rules. My answer to that question was hell no, they are just as likely to break the rules as enlisted. He loved that answer and I was seated. ;)

Seems to be pretty much the case. Lawyers know what types they do/do not want based on details of the case.