So news comes out that President Obama has skipped jury duty in Chicago. Is that a good thing?

Here in New York, it used to be that there were exemptions from jury duty for lawyers, doctors, and a panoply of others. Everyone and their brother seemed to have a legit excuse. The legislature killed that off, and now all the exemptions are gone. Rudy Guiliani famously sat jury duty while mayor, as did Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Chief Judge Judith Kaye.

But how about the President?

On the plus side of having him sit, it promotes jury duty and the concept that power is dispersed among the people. The distribution of power among the citizens and away from the Crown was the very essence of the Revolution. The Declaration of Independence, once you get past its magnificent opening, leads into its bill of particulars regarding the usurpations of power by King George with this:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States

And among that list of usurpations is this:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury

And this is not just enshrined in the Declaration, but the Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment protects those charged with crimes and the Seventh Amendment guarantees juries in civil trials:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

There is little disagreement among the people of the need for the dispersion of power -- though oddly there are conservatives that wish to consolidate power among the few and call this "reform." This concept of greater government power has thus far been widely rejected. (I never really understood how conservatives that preach limited government wish to endow it with more in this circumstance, but that is an issue for another day.)

Notwithstanding the noble goal of jury duty, any lawyer that has spend 12 seconds in the jury selection process knows that many people want to talk their way out of it, even personal injury lawyers. But I have sat, as has my wife and my brother.

On the flip side of having Obama serve jury duty is the security problem, not just for the courthouse but for the nation as a whole as it requires the man with the button to be in one place for an extended period. Leaving aside the issue of distraction for the other jurors, the forcible placement of the President in one place could turn into a life and death problem for all of us.

So, while I am a huge fan of the jury system, when it comes to the top honcho, I believe that deferment until he leaves office is appropriate.

Over at Concurring Opinions, law professor Adam Benforado asks this simple question, after being called for jury duty:

For trial attorneys out there, I'm curious: would you rather have a law professor on a jury or a practicing litigator?

The question isn't really framed well. It is a popular misconception that lawyers get to pick the jurors that we desire. But it doesn't work that way.

We don't pick the ones we do want, but rather, do everything we can to make sure the lemons don't ever see opening statements.

Thus, peremptory challenges get used on the the potential jurors sitting with their arms folded and a scowl on the face, who nevertheless answers all the questions appropriately about how fair they can be.

You do your best to dump the bad apples and are stuck with the rest. That's jury selection in a nutshell. Picking between practicing lawyers or law professors isn't a choice many will ever get, and will be superceded by a million other factors.

But all other things being equal, I would pick the one I most want to have a beer with.

For more on that, see: Who Sits Jury Duty? (The Turkewitz Beer Test)