Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we consider why so many Americans seem to dredge serving on juries, even though we seem to like to judge each other, you know, on a day to day basis, as far as what other people are doing.
Hello, welcome to the Call like I see it podcast.
I'm James Keys, and joining me today is a man who knows a little bit, even though he might. Might not have passed the bar. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. You ready to get your problems off your chest today?
[00:00:41] Speaker B: Yes, sir. That is one of the truest statements I've heard so far today.
Have not passed the bar exam.
[00:00:49] Speaker A: That is true. That is true. Exactly.
[00:00:50] Speaker B: There's a high probability I'll never sit for it, so I will never.
[00:00:54] Speaker A: But you do know a little bit. So, you know, so we. All right, all right. Now, before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe and like on YouTube or your podcast platform, doing so really helps the show out. We're recording on July 22, 2025. And today, you and I recently discussed offline a lot about my recent experience serving on a jury here in Broward County, Florida, and how when I was first selected, you know, like many Americans, when this comes up, you know, I was hoping to get out of it. And then once I was actually, once I was pulling into the pool, I was hoping to get out of it once I was actually selected, you know, I was upset, you know, like, oh, my gosh, what's this going to do? You know, like, my schedule's gonna be all thrown off and everything like that. So we figured we'd bring this discussion online and, and kind of, you know, so I want to get into that, you know, kind of the, the mindset that a lot of us walk around with as far as something like jury duty. But first, you know, I wanted to share some takeaways I had from actually being on the jury and then get your reaction on that. So, you know, looking at it, the first thing that really came away from, I noticed being on the jury is, and then I'm an attorney, so, I mean, I've been on the other side of this coin, but the, the idea of how much power as a jury you feel, you know, it's like, hey, this thing that we're in right now, there's going to be a decision and somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose. And you're sitting at the jury and everybody's sitting there like, oh, please, you know, rule for us, you know, here's why you got to do for us. Here's why you got to do for us. And so it's actually if you do, if you're. If your mindset's in the right place, you realize, like, hey, you're in a pretty power position of power here in this courtroom versus all these people and however much money might be at stake or, you know, I mean, in serious cases, you know, you got the criminal court system and, you know, people's freedom at stake, and the juror sits there in a position of a lot of power, and, you know, all this information is being presented to you to try to get you to. To lean one way or lean the other way. So that was one thing that really just kind of stood out to me is like, somebody in this courtroom is going to win, somebody's going to lose. And the people sitting with me at the jury box were the ones that were going to decide that. And the other thing that really stood out to me was just the nature of how busy we all are, you know, and as, you know, as Americans and how that really drives, in my opinion, a lot of the, you know, for myself. And then I saw just with other people I was with, like, it was. It was very disruptive for everyone's life, you know, and it's not like it was a commitment from a.
In a day that was unreasonable. You're gone. You're there from, know, 9 to 5 or, you know, 8:30 to 5 or something like that, or sometimes a little earlier. So the amount of time in a day was not unreasonable. It's just, you know, it's pulling you out of whatever you're supposed to be doing or you need to be doing or you have been doing and making you come here and just say, okay, hey, you have to do something else, and all that other stuff has to wait or somebody else has to cover it for you or whatever. And, you know, the laws are in place if you're employed that your employee, your employer has to still pay you for those days. And, you know, like, there's things in place to make it as less disruptive. But I think that really is a big part of, you know, the. The like. So anything. Somebody's going to pull me out of my life and then drop me back in. And, you know, it's not like the world stops for me, I think, creates a lot of, you know, kind of just maybe it's anxious, you know, anxiety or whatever, or just like, it makes people very, very, very.
It makes something that people not necessarily want to do, you know, just, hey, Just pull me out now because it's not vacation, you're not pulling out, you know, for a vacation and so forth. It's something you got to go do and you're sitting there and so forth. So I mean, just. Do any of those kind of stand out to you or, you know, just kind of what were your. What as you've heard me talk about it, you know, what kind of stands out to you about it or just more generally?
[00:04:24] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's a few things stand out and I think it's a very interesting perspective. The fact that you're an attorney that has, you know, obviously been in a trial, a courtroom from your professional standpoint, and then you're sitting here as a juror on the other side of it. So it's rare that I've actually myself, personally have known someone that's been on both sides. You're my first.
[00:04:50] Speaker A: A lot of times attorneys don't get picked. Yeah, a lot of times attorneys be in the pool and then they're like, yeah, we don't want attorneys, you know, in the, in the, in the jury box, you know, so.
[00:04:58] Speaker B: But yeah, so it's interesting. So. And that's why I'll have a few follow up questions for you too, in general later, you know, in this discussion as we go on. But I think that the part that sticks out to me a lot, James, is that I, and more like to learn from you and your thoughts is the busy part. Because my mind has always been focused on the kind of civic duty part of jury and me as an American citizen doing the right thing for the system, understanding the history of not only the country, but humanity. Right. How the country was formed, why it was formed, the way it was formed, the ability, you know, the idea of representative government, that the individual citizen has rights, things that, you know, the colonists didn't have under a king of England back in the 1700s. So that's where my focus was. But you're right that I guess what your comments about being busy help me appreciate just in this as I'm listening to you is just like the Constitution was formed at a time where life was different for humans. Right? Like in the 1700s. Think about it, everybody. Most of society was agrarian.
And what did that mean? People had more time for themselves, for life, for their family. They lived with each other and all that kind of stuff. Families were close. Today we have nine to five jobs, most people working more than 40 hours a week. Most people don't live near their families. Families spread out and move around. Most People are stressed out. Most people have all these distractions like television and, and the Internet and radio and all these other things which you didn't have back in. When this country was founded. So I think particularly there's something.
[00:06:39] Speaker A: Let me add this to. Because particularly among the people that served in juries at that time, remember, jury duty was not always something that was open to all of society. So if you have a restricted group of society members that are eligible to serve on this, and that's generally a privileged group who is going to have even more time if they're agrarian, they're not in the field, you know. And so, yeah, like the, the, the group of people as it's been expanded out to cover more and more people and now, you know, all of us can serve then, you know. Yeah, it implicates more intrusion into certain people's lives that, you know, it may not have been, you know, that, that for the people who were originally served.
[00:07:18] Speaker B: Yeah. And so, and that got me thinking of. I wrote down here theoretical versus practical and. Because when I was young, I used to not understand what's. What is a theoretical physicist? How do you get paid for just thinking about stuff? It's like, shouldn't you be like a ph.
A physicist that actually is doing like working on stuff that can be done.
[00:07:35] Speaker A: So.
[00:07:35] Speaker B: But I get it now that I'm older, we need those guys to actually, you know, think about things that, that then the practical people can apply. So my idea, my thought, yeah, my thought was kind of the theoretical idea of having representative government, having, you know, an engaged society which has the time and, and kind of. And I want to say this because in the United States we have this tension, the idea of community, right. The communal aspect of being in a society versus the individual. And I think that's where the jury duty to me, unintentionally, the way it's gone, we have a little bit of a fraying of this system in terms of civic duty, people feeling engaged and involved with the structure of the system. This as relates to the Fourth Amendment due process and all that, and being judged by jury of your peers instead of being judged by just a judge or a tribunal. So, and so what it got me then thinking of. And this is what I want to get your thoughts on because it reminds me of a few things we've had recent conversations on is the idea of maintenance, meaning that our democracy needs to be maintained. Just like we did a show last week about like cardiac. Our bodies need to be maintained as we age. And so our democracy's aged, it's changed. Like you just said, we got 300 million people now. Most people live in cities, they're not on farms, so on and so forth. So should we look at how do we maintain this system now that we're busier and all that?
Do we need intervention to make sure that human beings in America, citizens still are engaged and participating in the system in a way that maintains it so that we don't have this nihilism where people feel outside the system? And I feel like until talking to you about this recent experience of yours, I didn't appreciate something as simple as jury participation is actually very important for us as individuals. Like to know that you're connected to this greater system and how it works.
[00:09:35] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I think that, well, you threw a lot out there. But I think when you look at it from a constitutional standpoint and what the American system, how it was set up, it was very ends driven. It's like, okay, here's what we want to happen. You got a constitutional right to, a right to a jury by your peers.
Doesn't really get into how we're going to implement that. It's just like this is what we want.
And so, and that's judging throughout history, judging throughout even the history of this country. That is a better thing. A jury, your peers is a better way to have disputes and, or accusations settled than some person in an ivory tower or a White House somewhere telling, saying, hey, this person, all these people need to get rounded up or all these people are guilty or whatever. Like having due process and being able to be judged by a jury or peers is very valuable. It's not something that I think that many people, most people would want to go away from and just have again, somebody in an ivory tower or a White House just saying this is what you have to do or this is, or excuse me, this is just what it's going to be. I, I've, I've done this by decree, you know, so, but the, the means, how you get to that ends is where the, that's the devil in the details, so to speak. And I do think what, where we're, the situation that we're in right now. I think the, the, the disconnect is in large part because the, we have to, we have to focus on keeping the main thing, the main thing. And so I think voting is another example of this where, and now some of this is done intentionally because there are powerful people or powerful interests that don't want masses, the masses to vote or a lot of people to vote or don't want certain groups of people to vote. And so what you see a lot of times is that the way the system is set up, it's not conducive for people to actually engage in these civic duties, you know. So one area where jury duty is conducive, for example I mentioned briefly was that the way the laws are set up, at least here in Broward county, is that if you have to serve on a jury, your employer obviously can't fire you for that. Your employer can't or you have certain protections, I should say you have certain protections from an employer if you're employed as far as your pay as well. So that is that those are rules in the system that are conducive to allowing people to engage in these duties without completely, if you had, if you were to lose your job for somebody in jury duty, I mean nobody would do, you know, I could be like, oh well, eat tomorrow or serve on a jury duty for some high minded civic duty, you know, of course high minded civic duties go by the wayside if you can't eat tomorrow, you know. So yeah, the, the having the system. And so I think with voting, for example, one area where we, we don't keep the main thing, the main thing like having our voting days or at least a couple of days a year of vote that where we're going to be voting, having those being national holidays, that would reflect a seriousness about that. This is something important. We think it's so important that we're actually going to give people make sure it's a, it's a day off for most people and we want people to participate in this instead. You know, we, we see a lot of times hours being restricted, polling stations closed. And like I said, some of this is intentional and some of it is just a lack of investment and commitment. You know, like it could be either or, but. And so instead of making it easy for people to vote, instead of removing barriers for people to vote, we see people putting up barriers or making, hey, you got to go stand in line for four hours if you want to vote. And it's like, well that looks like we don't want people to participate in that same duty. So jury do the same kind of thing. These are things that you have to go away from your day to day responsibilities in life in order to give something back to the system. And if the system wants to encourage those things, then you would think the system would have mechanisms built in place that would facilitate making that more easy. And like I said with jury duty, I would say that they did do that. Okay. It still doesn't take the place of just how busy we are right now and whether do we need to be that busy? Because productivity is still going up, going up, going up. And it's not like people are getting more money for being more productive anymore. So, you know, like, that's a whole nother setup as far as how economic spoils in our country is. Are being distributed right now.
[00:13:34] Speaker B: Well, I think you bring up a great point, because that came to my mind. I have it in my notes, too. We were on the same page with the voting because I thought the same thing, that the system, in terms of, I guess our elected officials have made the rules that we elect.
[00:13:52] Speaker A: Well, to say it's a great point you make. They make up the means. The ends are kind of still set in, like, hey, we want to have elected officials. How are we gonna do that? The people who are in the positions at that time get to decide those means.
[00:14:06] Speaker B: No, but I think. And it's a great point because, look, I'm gonna say this. I won't speak for you. I'll speak for me. And I'm gonna cite something from the Pew Research center, but I used to be very naive in projecting my own thoughts about America and the world onto everyone else in this country. So I thought most people were down with the whole Bill of Rights thing and this whole representative government, whether you want to call it a democracy or. Yeah, yeah, or constitutional republic, whatever, but the fact that we all participate, we get to vote. And like you said, all the things that, you know, hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died for. I mean, we can go with the Civil War to all the way to suffrage movement, to whatever right. That people. The whole, really, this 20th century was a representation of people gaining access, more people access to rights in this country. And so I'm going to read something from April of this year. The Pew Research center did a survey, and it says 67% of US adults, 2/3, said serving on a jury is part of what it means to be a good citizen. And it says just 31% took the opposite view and said jury duty service, quote, does not have much to do with being a good citizen, end quote. And that, you know, we've talked about this private and on other shows that kind of. It seems like there's one third of any given population that is willing at any given time to go authoritarian and to not and to be undemocratic for whatever. You know, whether it's A religious thing, whether it's a, you know, a caste system thing, whatever. And then there's two thirds that can be, you know, coaxed into being okay about democracy. And out of that 2/3, there's probably one third that is more like me that's going to say, I think everybody should have this at all times. And then there's that middle third that can be swayed either way. And so that's. That was a good reminder to me, James, that we have people, a third of our 31%, almost a third of our country, that are even saying they don't think that participating in a jury makes one a good citizen. So what it tells me is not that they're bad people, but that, again, this idea of maintenance that we need to keep maintaining this system, it's got to be an active. And I think your point about how we as Americans accept our voting situation when we vote in elections is also an example of that, where there's forces and groups out there that make it very difficult for the average American to participate. And I think it's the same thing. I never thought of it this way, James, but if you make it more difficult for people to participate in jury service, that means they're less attached to the system in terms of seeing how it works.
[00:16:45] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:16:46] Speaker B: Seeing how injustice might be delivered to certain Americans, so on and so forth. So just to finish off here, it goes back to me that. That everlasting fight in America since its founding between kind of the oligarchy, class, those with power and capital, and then the citizenry, the masses, and how that relationship is, is going, is going to kind of ebb and flow well.
[00:17:09] Speaker A: And those with power who are less inclined to want to give up any of that with the masses, you know, and so. And I think a lot of times the kind of breakup that you talk about and that's, you know, it's generalized, obviously, but it's. It's really a question of how much do you need? Do you need to get what you want all the time, or is there any room for compromise? And I think it breaks down a lot of times on those lines, because in a jury, you know, like in. In the experience I just had, we had to reach a unanimous verdict. And this is a civil case. This wasn't a criminal case, but it was, you know, ended up seeing six. Six people. And we had to reach a unanimous verdict. So we all had to discuss. And then we. It wasn't a situation where one person's like, well, I get what I want all the Time it was like, okay, we have to compromise. And so I think that breaks down, you know, kind of, and you see personalities across your personality spectrum, across, you know, large groups of people where some people are just less inclined to be okay with not getting what they want sometimes. And sometimes getting what they want, sometimes not getting what they want. And other people are more understand or more comfortable with that, that give and take, you know, of a pluralistic kind of place. And then that middle third, so to speak, might be the people that generally speaking are okay with it, but can be put in a mindset. You know, if they're shown certain things or certain things are emphasized to them, whether they're true or not, that can be put in a mindset where it's like, hey, you know, I'm done, you know, not getting what I want all the time. I need to get what I want all the time. And so they, they, they seem to be a swing group. They can go back and forth depending on what they did, either the level of threat they perceive around them or the level of discomfort they perceive around them. So, you know, I think that's why it's kind of this perpetual thing where we're dealing with, you know, for, for in the United States trying to do this thing that has not really been done throughout societies in the history of the world. You know, it's. Most societies have been very hierarchical and rigid. Hierarchical. Like there's a hierarchy here, but it's, there's supposed to be some flow between it. You know, like a regular person should be able to go serve in Congress if they can win an election which is, is doable, you know, so to speak. And that happens from time to time. So, you know, it's, there's not supposed to just be a ruling class and there is a group of people that are in charge at a given moment, which is hierarchical. But that's not necessarily set in stone.
The, the piece about juries and how that being part of the civic responsibility. I think some of that though would just be the self centered nature of a lot of people. And I don't say this again, that's not with shade, that's just, you know, like that, that's part of the human condition. You know, all of us have that to some degree and some people are, are able to look past it better than others, you know, whatever. But none of us would want, you know, like a rigged tribunal against us. You know, like nobody, you know, but nobody's saying, oh, I would like the people who dislike me. And you know, Only the people who dislike me. Not a selection of people throughout the society where some might not like me, some might like me or whatever, but only the people who dislike me be the one that judge me for my transgressions or if I have an argument with somebody, I want the people who don't like me to be the one that, that decides who wins. So that jury duty is a reciprocal responsibility in that sense, in that we serve in a jury, we as an individual, you know, in our society serve in a jury for someone else and try to be impartial and weigh in on that. So with the understanding that that also means that if we get in a dispute, an argument with somebody, I mean, I say that in the context like a civil lawsuit, you know, hey, you were supposed to pay me and you didn't pay me, so I'm going to sue you. Or you know, again, you're accused of something and you know, you want a unbiased jury of your peers, you would like that. So you then engage in that behavior for someone else, you know, and then that's where that disconnect is. Especially when, you know, the harder it is to make ends meet in society, the more remote those high minded ideals are. So you know, the representative democracy is a very high minded ideal. Like human beings lived a long time without that. It's not something we need in order to live. You know, food tomorrow and tonight is something we need to live. Shelter is something we need to live. So the harder it is to get those things in a society oftentimes the more remote these more abstract ideals which make, could make for a better society but you know, are very, they are not putting food in your stomach. I think that's the disconnect we see a lot. And so is, is our system set up in a way that allow like it'd be one thing if our system wasn't doing so well from a creating wealth standpoint, then it'd be like, hey, times are tough, you know, like it's not like anybody's making money hand over fist, but it's like times aren't tough big picture wise. But what's happening is, is that it's just really good for some or for a few and getting tighter and tighter, tighter for a mini. And again that friction I think also leads to less buy in and less willing to say hey, let me participate in this reciprocal system and so forth. So I really think it comes down to a lot of times of the society that how our society has been, has been run, you know, and how the things that, how the things that we're doing well are spread out in society. That leads to a lot of these kind of, you know, the mindset or more scarcity mindset of, you know, no, I don't want to do something right. I got to deal with my today, I got to deal with my tomorrow. I don't have time to participate in this, you know, abstract, you know, thing that will make something fair for somebody else on the hopes that it'll make it fair for me if I ever need it sometime in the future.
[00:22:31] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's. I mean, you bring a lot of good stuff there. I mean, one of the things that I'm reminded of as you're talking is George Washington's farewell address when he warned about, you know, hyper partisanship and the passions of men and all that, that can be stoked because to your point, when passions are stoked, usually it's fear related, something negative about another group in the country or an outside force, another country that's going to come in to keep people in fear and put them in check. And we know that from psychological studies when people are scared, like you said, they're not thinking about all these higher minded ideas. They just want somebody to come in and solve the problem now. So what we deal with in, you know, kind of human societies, right, is, is the fight for those that want, or let me put it this way, for those that are more comfortable in a pluralistic, democratic society. The challenge is to try and fight those voices that can bubble up and create this kind of, you know, dislocation in the, in the population or community due to arising and stoking some of these fears and passions. And it's difficult to do that when you're also trying to have a quote unquote free society with freedom of speech and all that, because then you appear to be authoritarian if you start trying to squash and silence people. So it's a very. And I think that's why the people who have what I would say the ulterior motive to the pluralism, democracy style, right? The ones that do want to gain power and ascend through division, they kind of have a leg up in a society like ours. Because I do.
[00:24:09] Speaker A: I mean, I think history would show they have a leg up generally because though that's generally been the prevailing sentiment.
[00:24:14] Speaker B: Yeah, so and so, and as we. So that's why you don't. That's why I appreciate everything you were saying there because it made me realize like, yeah, this is this again, the country in a certain way was founded as an idea to try and create a society that had again, complexities, three equal branches forcing debate and all that so that the system could try and protect itself from those kind of demagogues that could rise up. And the reality is that are, like.
[00:24:43] Speaker A: You said, or like we said, are in a, are able to leverage things like emotion to get in and have a leg up in just a head up fight against people who want, you know, more open situation.
[00:24:54] Speaker B: Yeah. And what I realized just to finish that thought is the system itself actually was very good and has been very good and has a lot of checks and balances to protect us as the citizenry against those kind of nefarious forces. The problem is, is that, I mean starting decades ago that basically just a lot of the laws that were in place to stop some of this stuff were chipped away, like campaign finance laws, you know, and all that keep money and the government little bit separated so that all this money can't come in and influence it from just a few key players like we see now billionaires and you know, having so much influence. And then the other is, you know, those actors within the system. Right. Like, I mean, I don't know if the founding Fathers perceived that a Supreme Court would actually give a president full immunity from the law because that. Just because he wasn't supposed to be out. Yeah, because it upsets the output card of the original system. So that's all I'm saying is that the system itself could protect itself. But we have had people put in the system who actually have gone about dismantling the internal protection.
But I wanted to ask you one final question, James, since you are the focus of our discussion today, your experience and your profession. So there's another article that I know we'll have in the show notes that it's another study from Pew that showed in 2006 this is about fewer Americans being called for jury duty.
So in 2006 there were 307,204Americans who were called for jury duty. And out of that, 71,578 were selected to be jurors.
Ten years later in 2016, that number was down to 194,211 jurors called and only 43,697 who were actually selected.
So I wanted your thoughts, James, as someone who's a legal professional, like when you hear those stats that much of a drop off in the amount of Americans who are not only being called but actually being selected, like really participating in this, I would Say, what do you. What do you see in that? Good or bad or kind of. What are your thoughts as a. As an American and a professional?
[00:27:12] Speaker A: It's mixed because the primary reason for that, and I think if I know which state you're talking about, this is looking at federal juries, where the information is a little more.
[00:27:19] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:27:20] Speaker A: And just what that is, the driving force of that is more cases settling, which is. Is not bad for the system in the sense that it saves costs. You know, if two people, you know, or if a criminal defendant can come to a plea bargain, then fine. Or if a. If two people having a dispute, if they're able to settle their. Their dispute without the court having to go all the way through trial, then all of that saves money, you know, for the legal system. And some of that, you know, with the. With. With the idea of prosecutors overcharging so that they can then get a ple. Bargain later, some of that stuff is, you know, like, needs to. A closer look, needs to be taken at that and make sure that there's accountability as far as stuff like that. But nonetheless, ultimately, that's a good thing from a standpoint of being the system, the dispute resolution system operating more efficiently. On the flip side, though, it also has been shown that participating in juries helps people connect with the legal system and the importance of it and so forth. So doing that, you know, it's kind of like the discussion we've had in various shows where we talk about national service and how the idea of national service goes beyond just, oh, okay, we can get some stuff done, but it's also about doing stuff together as a society to build connections and bonds between individual people and also between people and the thing we're trying to do here. And so jury duty is another one of those kind of things, is it builds connections, again, not just between people, but between us and the American experiment. The American experiment is an exception in society. It's not the normal. Absent a lot of effort and work, this kind of thing would not arise naturally, and it would not maintain naturally. And so, you know, that. And that gets in the stuff we were talking about earlier as far as just the need and the importance of trying to maintain a lot of these ideals and so forth, because this stuff doesn't exist in nature. This would not be the way things are.
And even with our own system, I know you said that, you know, like, it's been pretty good. And I would agree with that. I would. But I would say it ebbs and flows, you know, like, it's been. We were kind of in a flow. We seem to be moving more towards an EB where a lot of these values are not valued. But there were times when they weren't also. I mean, there were times when, you know, it's not lost on me that there were times when blacks couldn't serve on Jews, you know, and it's like, okay, well, you know, so that's something that, you know, and for myself, my own personal experience was like, I had to once I freaked out initially, like, oh my God, I got a bunch of stuff I got to do, you know, this week. I can't just be, I can't just check out, you know, and do this. And so, you know, I figured out what I need to do and kind of move things around as need be. And then I was like, okay, I'm going to take time to enjoy this and just say, hey, this is an experience that you know, is like, okay, this is not an everyday thing, you know, this is me participating in the system that, you know, I, I look at and say, hey, you know, more people need to participate in the system. Well, this is my chance to do some of that and to also, you know, try to enjoy the actual thing and then come to a decision. And so I think that that is a hurdle that anyone can get by. You know, once you figure again, it's difficult. And I think that society should do more to make it easy for people or make it easier. It'll never be easy, you know, but to make it easier for people to be able to pull out of their normal day to day responsibility during the business hours and do something like this. But ultimately, you know, the ability to, to plug in to the system, participate in it and then pull back out increases your perspective and so it's ultimately good for society. So yeah, it's great that the system's more efficient now, but that leaves a little bit in terms of our own ability to, to connect with the system also. So it's kind of a double edged sword.
[00:30:50] Speaker B: Yeah, no, that's interesting.
[00:30:51] Speaker A: So yeah, yeah, no, no, for sure. So, but I think we can wrap this topic from there. It, it's something though that is around all of us, you know, in terms of getting called for jury and stuff like that. I think I've seen, you know, like maybe 15 of people of adults get called at various points in a year, you know, whether state or federal, whatever. And so whether you get selected obviously is depending on the process in your counties and states. So you know, it's something that touches all of us, you know, over the course of five years or ten years or whatever.
And, you know, but it is, like I said, if anything, if you're able to look past, if you're selected to look past the initial shock of it and, you know, you have to process that, but. And then get in, just, you know, take the opportunity to appreciate what it is that you're plugging into and that, again, this is an exception in world history. And then, like I said, hey, people love, you know, to hear people spill the tea, and people love to be able to say what other people should be doing, everything like that. So it kind of fits in with a lot of things that people like to do. Anyway, once you get past a lot of that initial kind of, oh, my gosh, you know, this is going to really make things difficult for me for the next week or whatever. It would be so. But we appreciate Rob for joining us on this episode of Call like I see a 3. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:32:06] Speaker B: I am Tundlana.
[00:32:08] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk soon. And we'll have a call out coming this week as well, so check that. Also.
