Jury Selection

[quade 4]

So how much do you think a lawyer charges per hour of court time?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm still convinced that not many people can afford a penalty of $435/hour for the entire time of the trial and deliberation - hence, only the rich will be able to afford to bring suit.

Since he stated that the loser pays, does it mean that in your world there's a correlation between "poor" and "loser"?

What part of 'only the rich can afford a $435/hour penalty' was past your ability to comprehend, perfesser?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So how much do you think a lawyer charges per hour of court time?

A lawyer can agree to take the case 'on comp'. Is the jury going to hear the case 'on comp'?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

So how much do you think a lawyer charges per hour of court time?

A lawyer can agree to take the case 'on comp'. Is the jury going to hear the case 'on comp'?

Pro Bono is what juries are doing right now and how's that working out?

I dunno, maybe there could be a system set up for hard cases where plaintiffs fall below a certain threshold level of income then everybody, including the Judge, works Pro Bono. Kind of like a free legal system. Oh wait, socialism! Crap!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So how much do you think a lawyer charges per hour of court time?

A lawyer can agree to take the case 'on comp'. Is the jury going to hear the case 'on comp'?

Pro Bono is what juries are doing right now and how's that working out?

I dunno, maybe there could be a system set up for hard cases where plaintiffs fall below a certain threshold level of income then everybody, including the Judge, works Pro Bono. Kind of like a free legal system. Oh wait, socialism! Crap!

Sarcasm doesn't prove your point either, Paul. Juries aren't working 'for free'. "Jury pay" isn't going to replace lost wages, but they aren't working for that sandwich at lunch, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,589]

I think that defendants currently have the right to waive the trial by jury to be heard and judged by a single judge -- who supposedly is a professional.

While it's not perfect, and seems tortured sometimes, I think that having an option of being judged by "everyday joes" is probably reasonable when someone is partaking of the judicial system.

Maybe instead of being judged by a single judge, folks could also opt to be heard by a panel of 3 judges.

But I also like the thought of people participating in our judicial system, because for those few who actually serve their jury time, it means they might just have a little more understanding that all those people are not, in fact, necessarily morons (only sometimes )

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 4]

Quote

"Jury pay" isn't going to replace lost wages, but they aren't working for that sandwich at lunch, either.

It's $15 for the entire day in my county. That will -almost- buy you lunch at the county courthouse.

I'm a freelancer without the benefits of a company willing to supplement "jury pay." If I have to give up a work day to serve on a jury it's a pretty big freekin' cut in pay.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm still convinced that not many people can afford a penalty of $435/hour for the entire time of the trial and deliberation - hence, only the rich will be able to afford to bring suit.

Since he stated that the loser pays, does it mean that in your world there's a correlation between "poor" and "loser"?

What part of 'only the rich can afford a $435/hour penalty' was past your ability to comprehend, perfesser?

Try your hand at some simple logic, it might amaze you:

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm still convinced that not many people can afford a penalty of $435/hour for the entire time of the trial and deliberation - hence, only the rich will be able to afford to bring suit.

Since he stated that the loser pays, does it mean that in your world there's a correlation between "poor" and "loser"?

What part of 'only the rich can afford a $435/hour penalty' was past your ability to comprehend, perfesser?

Try your hand at some simple logic, it might amaze you:

Seems like it's lost on you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,119]

>Right now there is absolutely no incentive to be a juror; NONE.

Well, you avoid getting a fine, so there's a financial incentive.

>It should come out of the pockets of the losers.

That would seem to make justice a rich man's sport. If someone is not 100% sure they will win (and few people are) there may well be people who cannot afford the risk of losing, and thus avoid using the courts even if they are 90% certain they are in the right.

>My guess is the amount of money you'd pay the jury on average would
>be more than compensated by the amount you wouldn't have to pay the
>lawyers in jury selection.

Most of the cases I've been on have been an hour or two, tops. Heck, that time was zero for the one grand jury I was on.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm still convinced that not many people can afford a penalty of $435/hour for the entire time of the trial and deliberation - hence, only the rich will be able to afford to bring suit.

Since he stated that the loser pays, does it mean that in your world there's a correlation between "poor" and "loser"?

What part of 'only the rich can afford a $435/hour penalty' was past your ability to comprehend, perfesser?

Try your hand at some simple logic, it might amaze you:

Seems like it's lost on you.

Tsk tsk tsk

[quade 4]

Quote

>Right now there is absolutely no incentive to be a juror; NONE.
Well, you avoid getting a fine, so there's a financial incentive.

No. That's the incentive for reporting for jury duty. A LOT of people, still want to get out of the jury pool itself as quickly as possible and perform all sorts of "tricks" to do it. Again, there's no incentive to be ON the jury.

Quote

>It should come out of the pockets of the losers.
That would seem to make justice a rich man's sport.

And that's different from now, how?

Quote

Most of the cases I've been on have been an hour or two, tops. Heck, that time was zero for the one grand jury I was on.

Your experience is vastly different than mine then. I've spent 3 days at the courthouse only to finally be thrown off a jury after another full day of selection. That's a huge waste of my time. On the lawyer side of things, if it's a big enough case, the time they spend in jury selection goes well beyond the time they spend in court itself. They'll research the individual prospective jurors and ask them questions based on that research. That takes time and people that all gets charged back to the client.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,119]

>>That would seem to make justice a rich man's sport.

>And that's different from now, how?

There is no financial penalty for suing someone who you believe has done you wrong.

[quade 4]

Quote

>>That would seem to make justice a rich man's sport.
>And that's different from now, how?
There is no financial penalty for suing someone who you believe has done you wrong.

And don't you see there being something wrong with the amount of nuisance cases that causes?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,119]

>And don't you see there being something wrong with the amount
>of nuisance cases that causes?

Yes, that is an issue. I don't think that the best solution is to make it more difficult for _anyone_ to bring suit.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Why should technical competence not be a selection parameter in a case involving technical complexities?

If a lawyer and his/her expert cannot talk right down to earth in a way that the average joe can understand, then there should be a new lawyer, a new expert, both, or another case theory.

I've had a couple of potential experts that were friggin brilliant but would simply fall flat in front of a jury. I knew it. You've got to make it interesting.

That's part of advocacy, John. The ideal expert is one who high intellect and qualifications are matched only by humility and communication skills. The expert is paid to educate the juror.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[happythoughts 0]

I was a juror on a civil suit involving car brake failure.
Anyone with a knowledge of brakes was eliminated by
the defending lawyer immediately. No knowledge wanted.

Next, the person being sued lied about the date he made
the repairs. Then, the victim lied about his injuries
(he was videoed building a low concrete block wall around
his patio during his "convalescence").

Another time, it was a criminal offense.
The only witnesses (domestic noise) were a couple
and two police officers. The rich guy's g/f wasn't going
to say anything bad about her sponsor. The cops were
twisting every word that came out of their mouths.
I began to wonder if everyone was talking about the same event.

Overall, just a wonderful experience.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The current system of allowing lawyers to cherry-pick clueless ignorant people to serve on juries is a silent national scandal.

Let's let the conservative right pick them, or better yet, just declare the D guilty since the cops say he did the crime.

Quote

A few years back, if the Nazis had been tried in American civilian courts, their lawyers would have rejected any potential juror whose moral/religious convictions led him to conclude that it was wrong to pack people into boxcars.

Depending upon the jurisdiction, you have so many preemptory strikes, unlimited number of strikes due to obvious bias under certain criteria.

Quote

Perhaps judges should choose jurors. If a lawyer is convinced he has a solid case he should be eager to present it to an actual cross-section of the community. This would include people who own businesses, watch news programs, listen to talk radio, go to church, are related to a cop, or have ever been a crime victim.

You've basically listed RW conservatives; wonder why D attny's want them excluded? They have a pedisposed bias many of them.

Quote

If he does not believe he can win without manipulating the process in such an extreme manner, perhaps he does not have a valid case.

A D attny doesn't need a valid case, he/she must work based upon the client's wishes. Funny how the people who pretend to love the US Const actually deplore it.

Quote

Otherwise we end up with an OJ Simpson-type jury made up of brain dead idiots who don't have the capacity to comprehend the evidence presented and are easily persuaded to accept cheap appeals to emotion by dishonest attorneys.

The 95 vedict or the recent one? I'm sure you mean the former. Let's look at the evidence:

- Tainted, mishandled DNA and other evidence that should never have been admitted but worked against the prosecution.

- Mark "Der Fuhrer" Furman racist pig doing what he could to twist the evidence and truth.

Remember that reasonable doubt thingy? Bwtween the 2 of these this is a mountain of substantial doubt.

Now let's talk the recent Nevada jury:

- 5 of the 12 primaries stated on juror questionaires that they disagreed with the 95 acquittal.

- The judge shifted all black jurors to alternates at teh end of trial.

Again, those who claim to love teh US Const are teh ones who really replore it. Actually, to be fair, thjey just don't understand it but drop it around as if they do.

Quote

If you think I'm wrong I'd be intersted in hearing why you think this would result in a greater percentage of innocent people being convicted or of guilty people going free.

It's about the process and following it even if we know the D is supposedly guilty. Ever hear of the Salem witch trials? What you're proposing is thatwe go back to that and you aren't aware of it.

[Lucky... 0]

Furthermore, it's the adversary system that sucks, prosecutors are about winning, not the truth. This pushes D attnys into the same position. If prosecutors wanted other than the win the system would clean up and be more respectable.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Intimidated by whom? Other jurors? Ever hear of a deadlocked jury? It happens so frequently that it is saddening that defendants have to go through so many trials.

Jury nullification can work either way.

Quote

For example, when selecting a jury, I prefer to cherry pick jurors who are not clueless or ignorant. In fact, I like jurors who will be capable of deeper thought on things.

So you want liberal jurors? Not making a political statement, but conservative thinking is not real flexible and juts follows lock-stepped.

Quote

It's not like that. I've taken cases to trial that I think I can win. The difference is that if I see a juror who seems clearly to harbor a preconceived slant against my client or case then I don't want that person on. Why is that such a bad thing?

Think of having your mom mad at you. Nothing you could ever explain or say will change her opinion. Do you want her to be determining your fate? Or would you like to put it before someone more neutral?

I don't think Airman understands that as a D attny you can't decide whether you want to defend your client or not if you've taken the case, absent cause and that you have to go the general direction that the Def wants. You can modify your strategy, but within parameters.

Quote

Like it or not, even cops lie.

No shit, counselor, you must be a terrorist . Only terrorists think cops are anything but golden. Cops constantly lie and are some of the least articulate, least intelligent witnesses there are. Oh, did I say, least honest as well? They testify as if we should just consider their testimony as judicial notice.

Quote

Criminal Prosecutors at are the very top of my legal shit list because they cannot be held liable for malpractice or malicious prosecution. (What do you think a person does if there is little or no consequence for malfesance? Yep.)

We're totally on the same page here. Their only jeopardy might be losing tainted evidence/witnesses they mightbe trying to push thru knowing it shouldn't be in. The very same organization defending deterrence are free from the efffects of it.

Quote

If 10 guilty people go free instead of an innocent person being convicted, I would rather see that than 10 innocent people convicted with one guilty person acquitted. Those are my values.

I've said a slightly diff version of that for years. The flag-wavers tossing around this constitution are simply unaware of what it means, it's just a guise for their uber-conservative agenda.

Quote

But when a prosecutor has trained his sights on you, I suspect you'd want to try to give yourself the best chance. A prosecutor may lose a case. You may lose your freedom.

Or life. There needs to be recourse for dirty prosecution. Hell, Gov Ryan did just that, set the entire death row free, so they put him under teh microscope and found some tax or other issue and jailed him. Love teh US crim injustice system.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Judges and Prosecutors do not want jurors to know the actual power they have. Everyone who serves on a jury should check out what most people don't know.

http://fija.org/

Remember, the Salem Witch trials where they hanged, drowned and tortured innocent people was not stopped because prosecutors decided they were wrong, rather they stopped because jurors acquitted over 100 of these trials in a row so prosecutors just gave up.

Other than some real hanis crimes, prosecutors for the most part prosecute for their own personal gain and not because its in the best interest of society.

+1

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I personally think professional juries would be the way to go

And how would you select them?

It would be a total revamping of the system. People would train for it. You'd become certified as being able to pay attention to details well enough to make reasonable judgements about facts. It would be a freelance position where you'd go down to the courthouse and register, be put in a pool and pulled at random. The cases you're assigned to can't bump you off. The loser would pay each juror 500% of minimum wage for their time which would absolutely cut down on nuisance suits and cases that the prosecutors can't make stick. In criminal cases where the defendant loses, he'll work off the time in jail.

It would eliminate the entire jury selection process which is a huge freekin' waste of time anyway.

Of course, that's just a rough idea.

I find proff juries extremely scarry. Payoffs would soon follow as they became comfortable with the system. Ignirance is a good in a way, most of these newby jurors are very scared of the system, renering at least honesty. Juror nullification would run rampant with proff juries.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The loser would pay each juror 500% of minimum wage for their time

Thus making it where only the RICH can afford to bring suit.

Not at all. Right now there is absolutely no incentive to be a juror; NONE. Somebody would have to pay for it to be worth being a professional juror. It should come out of the pockets of the losers (Who else? The winners? The government?), but if you think about these huge nuisance cases that go on for weeks on end, the amount of money the jury fee would entail wouldn't be the largest part of that anyway. Everybody in the courtroom is a professional and is getting compensated for their time EXCEPT the jury. That's asinine and exactly why nobody wants to do jury duty and you end up with flippin' morons sleeping in the jury box. My guess is the amount of money you'd pay the jury on average would be more than compensated by the amount you wouldn't have to pay the lawyers in jury selection.

I'm still convinced that not many people can afford a penalty of $435/hour for the entire time of the trial and deliberation - hence, only the rich will be able to afford to bring suit.

Your math is errant, civil juries generally aren't comprised of 12 jurors. I agree with you that the loser or winner paying for juries is crazy tho. Furthermoe, it would deter civil littigation and promote tortuous behavior that would go unchecked.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So how much do you think a lawyer charges per hour of court time?

You can pro per / pro se for free.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So how much do you think a lawyer charges per hour of court time?

A lawyer can agree to take the case 'on comp'. Is the jury going to hear the case 'on comp'?

Pro Bono is what juries are doing right now and how's that working out?

I dunno, maybe there could be a system set up for hard cases where plaintiffs fall below a certain threshold level of income then everybody, including the Judge, works Pro Bono. Kind of like a free legal system. Oh wait, socialism! Crap!

In my state they just deverloped a fund to pay people their wage if their employer doesn't pay.