Jury Selection

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

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.

In some cases, like messy rape cases and other emotionally-envoking cases D attnys recommend a bench trial over a jury. Judges are more desensitized to all that gory stuff, whereas juries are shocked and and will find for guilt and/or impose harsher sentences in jurisdictions that allow for jury sentencing.

[Lucky... 0]

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.

If it's frivalous the judge can assign costs and attny fees to the loser. But if you have some measure of a case they won't so that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

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?

With a frivalous case, the judge can assign costs and fees, that's civil deterrence against filing BS lawsuits, to increase it would be to scare off legit lawsuits, sending a message to tort feasors that they can run free.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

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.

.

The average joe these days can't make change at a supermarket check-out. Expecting someone who is technically illiterate to understand the issues in, say, a patent infringement case concerning optoelectronics is just absurd. You only defend it because you're part of the system that benefits from it.

...

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

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

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.

In this case, how would that discourage prosecutors? In criminal cases it's not "Prosecutor v Defendant" it's "State v. Defendant" so ultimately the state (and taxpayers) would have to pay jurors.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

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.

In this case, how would that discourage prosecutors? In criminal cases it's not "Prosecutor v Defendant" it's "State v. Defendant" so ultimately the state (and taxpayers) would have to pay jurors.

And you don't think prosecutor's crappy records would haunt their careers?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

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.

In this case, how would that discourage prosecutors? In criminal cases it's not "Prosecutor v Defendant" it's "State v. Defendant" so ultimately the state (and taxpayers) would have to pay jurors.

"Voters of the [state/county/city] of XXX. Take a look at the amount of YOUR money my opponent has wasted pursuing frivolous prosecutions in our district. This is not the kind of wastrel that should be in charge of law and order here. Blah blah blah IT'S TIME TO THROW THE BUM OUT".

...

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

[billvon 3,119]

>"Voters of the [state/county/city] of XXX. Take a look at the amount
>of YOUR money my opponent has wasted pursuing frivolous prosecutions
>in our district. This is not the kind of wastrel that should be in charge of
>law and order here. Blah blah blah IT'S TIME TO THROW THE BUM OUT".

To which his opponent replies:

"My opponent wants to let criminals go! He keeps talking about reducing prosecutions, and letting murderers, rapists, swindlers and thieves go free without a trial. Vote for me - I'm TOUGH ON CRIME."

In my experience, more people go for the latter.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The average joe these days can't make change at a supermarket check-out.

The average Joe can. Try shortchanging the average joe to find out.

Quote

Expecting someone who is technically illiterate to understand the issues in, say, a patent infringement case concerning optoelectronics is just absurd.

Not necessarily, sir. This is where the behind-the-scenes and out-of-sight-of-the-jury things happen. I'm not sure if you've ever been present prior to a trial happeneing and observed the judicial control. When dealing with the issues of a patent infringement in an optoelectroics case, how many issues are there? Thousands? One? Six? Each one distinct?

I've managed to see a jury fairly well understand some pretty complicated arguments of causation of injury regarding medicinal versus mechanical cause of a CVA because the issues were narrowed, the experts were great, and attorneys on both sides made it as simple as possible.

I've been in jury pools (never named to a jury, unfortunately). I've been before juries. I've won and lost. Even in the loss, I thought that the jury probably got it about right - the Plaintiff didn't deserve $100k, but $3k was about right for the alleged injuries. The jury understood.

Quote

You only defend it because you're part of the system that benefits from it.

No. I find some things to want to change. Perhaps it's why I've taken two cases to jury trial and about 30 to bench trial. Usually, I'd rather have a judge. It's simple and the judge knows antics when he sees them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Where'd ya go? I was hoping for replies.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

In this case, how would that discourage prosecutors? In criminal cases it's not "Prosecutor v Defendant" it's "State v. Defendant" so ultimately the state (and taxpayers) would have to pay jurors.

And you don't think prosecutor's crappy records would haunt their careers?

Not really. I have friends who work for the prosecutor's office in Chicago and they are hardworking individuals that truly believe in what they do - and I am certain there are more like them.

However, i've also heard the story of the 'lifer' at the prosecutor's office, the kind that don't ever move up because of sheer mediocrity but also don't get fired because of how hard it is to get rid of someone in a government job. In my opinion, those are the people that are most likely to abuse their power or not adhere to the way the system is supposed to be.

Plus, prosecutors already make a lot less than lawyers in the private sector. Combine that with the sheer volume of cases they get, and the pressure to prosecute that will come from their bosses all the way up to the mayor's office, and pretty soon it's really not worth it to anyone to decide to become a prosecutor. So, you'll end up with either a) a shortage of prosecutors - leading to the hiring criteria being lowered and more of the 'lifer' types to get in or b) the cost of hiring and retaining prosecutors increasing dramatically.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Where'd ya go? I was hoping for replies...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Wow. Thanks to all. This is the first time I've been back since the first post. Can't stay long, but there are some things I'll add soon...

Cheers,

• Quote

[Airman1270 0]

Hi folks. My interest in this matter began sometime in the mid-90's. Following a high-profile trial some jurors were interviewed. I remember one juror saying something like "...I wanted to vote "X" but felt I had to vote "Y"..." This grabbed my attention, as this is not the purpose of the jury system. No juror should ever feel intimidated into agreeing to a verdict he doesn't think is right. It doesn't matter what 11 other people think and it sure as hell doesn't matter what the judge thinks.

At about that time the first Jack Kervorkian trial was getting under way. The defense attorney forced the jury pool to fill out a 67-page questionnaire, the purpose of which was to ferret out Christians and anyone else whose moral/religious beliefs led them to conlude that it was wrong to help depressed people die. Can anyone honestly explain how this is what the nation's Founders had in mind when they implemented the jury sytsem in the first place? Of course they found a dozen clueless dolts who bought the argument that K. wasn't really trying to kill people, he was just trying to end their suffering.

Try killing a cop and then explaining to the jury that you didn't really mean to hurt him, you just wanted to be left alone. Never mind that you could possibly win, depending on the circumstances. Would a judge even allow this defense to be made?

Remember Paul Hill? He was accused of shooting an abortinist, then was convicted & executed after the judge would not allow him to present a defense. This has to be one of the greatest national scandals since WWII, yet it occurred barely under the radar with no outrage by the media. If he had shot a congressman, or the pizza guy, or his wife the jury would have heard all about what he was thinking, why he did it, what led to this action, etc. But since everything about abortion has been removed from the democratic process, he was railroaded. This is nazi stuff.

Of course, the issue here, again, is jury selection. How were they able to find 12 people who didn't stop and think "Wait a minute, there's something wrong here. Why are we not hearing a defense?" It would seem that at least one guy would have voted to acquit based on this fact alone.

You know how they would occasionally cover newspaper vending boxes in the courthouse so jurors would not see the contents? I once asked a lawyer "If these people are so shallow, so easily manipulated that exposure to a newspaper would render them incapaple of deciding a case fairly, why are they selected as jurors? Why don't you just select a bunch of smarter people?" I don't remember the exact answer, but the short version is that I had stumbled upon something of a trade secret.

Years ago a co-worker was called to serve. She would have been the ideal juror, as she wasn't stupid but neither was she an intellectual heavyweight. She paid no attention to current events and had no clue what was happening in the world outside of her job, family, and shopping. The defense began by asking if anyone listened to Rush Limbaugh. She should have truthfully said "no" but she felt led to mention that she did hear the show from time to time because her co-worker listened. The lawyer pressed, asking if she agreed with his views. She said "I don't know what his views are, I don't listen to the show." She was rejected. I can only conclude that the lawyer was pulling a fast one, knowing his case would not survive the scrutiny of intelligent, informed people.

In the late '90's I spoke with Rush about this subject, which came up after one of his employees was rejected outright because she worked for him. (The case involved some guy who was slightly injured while riding a bus and was trying to blame the bus company for his own negligence.) I said that if ever called I will not tell them I listen, but will pass myself off as someone who doesn't pay attention to current events so as to have a better chance of being selected. Nor will I mention that I skydive. It seems this information could only set off someone's red flag, especially if it's one of those lawsuit cases where someone wants to sue someone else not for doing something bad, but for failing to prevent a bad thing from happening.

If a lawsuit stems from a traffic accident they do not discard prospective jurors because they hold a driver's license. So if a case involves a skydiving incident, why do they reject jurors who have jumped? If it's a valid case it would seem that an experienced skydiver would be better able to recognize true negligence (such as putting out a static-line first-timer in high winds at dusk) than ol' average Joe. Of course the same juror is not likely to define "negligence" as a customer getting hurt due to his own actions.

Cheers,
Jon

[Airman1270 0]

...I've been in jury pools (never named to a jury, unfortunately)...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Thanks. Good attitude. It would be nice if more people regarded the jury summons as a responsibility, or even an opportunity, rather than as something to be avoided.

Cheers,
Jon

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hi folks. My interest in this matter began sometime in the mid-90's. Following a high-profile trial some jurors were interviewed. I remember one juror saying something like "...I wanted to vote "X" but felt I had to vote "Y"..." This grabbed my attention, as this is not the purpose of the jury system. No juror should ever feel intimidated into agreeing to a verdict he doesn't think is right. It doesn't matter what 11 other people think and it sure as hell doesn't matter what the judge thinks.

Vague scenario, but you're identifying jury nullification as far as I can see. When the jury votes their conscience and ignores the law and the judges instructions, that's jury nullification.

Quote

At about that time the first Jack Kervorkian trial was getting under way. The defense attorney forced the jury pool to fill out a 67-page questionnaire, ...

Forced? And if it were your criminal trail then he used your const rights to ensure an impartial jury. But of course you're a god-fearing, Republican-loving conservative, so you are not therefore a lawbreaker.

Quote

...the purpose of which was to ferret out Christians and anyone else whose moral/religious beliefs led them to conlude that it was wrong to help depressed people die.

Yea, anti-Christian infidels should not only have been excluded, but they should have been shot on site; we need to get back to good Christian values in this country as we did when slavery was alive and well.... ahhh, the good ole days.

Quote

Can anyone honestly explain how this is what the nation's Founders had in mind when they implemented the jury sytsem in the first place?

What the FF wanted in the late 1700's means shit for today, there are probably >100 major SCOTUS decisions regarding juries since then, so fuck the FF.

Quote

Of course they found a dozen clueless dolts who bought the argument that K. wasn't really trying to kill people, he was just trying to end their suffering.

And if that very same panel of people found your way, they would have been geniuses with good Christian / family values like you. Why don't we just ensure that every jury pool has good Christians packed in it by going out and killing all non-Christian types. Oh, I see some Christians have already thought of that.

Quote

Try killing a cop and then explaining to the jury that you didn't really mean to hurt him, you just wanted to be left alone.

Could you be further away from a logical analogy? K's patients were volunteers at the very least, they sought him out. You could make the argument of mental competency of his subjects, but other than that it's just your opinion. See, you're guilty of the same thing that you accuse the jury of. What you need to focus on is the legislative end rather than the judicial end. Your issue is with the laws rather than the implementation of them.

Quote

Never mind that you could possibly win, depending on the circumstances.

Of the laws in the states, or fed if that was the jurisdiction, you couldn't win with that defense. The only viable defense would that of self-defense if you could prove the cop was not acting with the law and that he was intentionally trying to kill harm/people not in the order of justice.

Quote

Would a judge even allow this defense to be made?

Not without supporting evidence that this cop was defective and was acting with malice.

Quote

Remember Paul Hill? He was accused of shooting an abortinist, then was convicted & executed after the judge would not allow him to present a defense.

I recall the essence of the case. BTW, present what defense? You come incomplete by not stating what his defense was, you appear to be just another zealot defending a zealot. Pls, get your facts together and make your argument for your fellow Christian killing doctors.

Quote

This has to be one of the greatest national scandals since WWII, yet it occurred barely under the radar with no outrage by the media.

That's because the media hates Christians, conservatives and basically, all "good people." Biggest national scandals since WWII? You are so hell-bent on loving Jebus the buttfuck princess that you cannot even see clearly. How about the US devastating several entire tribes in the South Pacific with nuclear testing? How about Watergate? How about Viet Nam, Kent State. Jesus fucking Christ, dude, your vision is so focused on Jebus that you cannot even see straight. If you want a travesty in justice, look at OJ's Vegas trial. The judge kicked off all black jurors and 5 of the 12 remaining said they heard of the 95 acquittal and disagreed with it. Yet I don't hear you harping injustice there, do I?

Quote

If he had shot a congressman, or the pizza guy, or his wife the jury would have heard all about what he was thinking, why he did it, what led to this action, etc.

Bullshit. As a person who sits in at murder trials whenever I can, I've seen many, most of the time there's only me and 1 or 2 others, so most murder trials go waaaay under any radar. I think it's pathetic that Americans are so apathetic.

Quote

But since everything about abortion has been removed from the democratic process, he was railroaded.

What you mean is that since a fetus is not considered a person, the court won't recognize a person who terminates pregnancies to be a murderer. Again, yours is a matter of legislation rather than judicial. Of course that isn't totally correct, as the SCOTUS is the primary legislator and they are within the judicial branch. So yours is actually a matter filing amicus briefs and trying to change the SCOTUS decision.

Furthermore, globally you and yours need to quit the hypocrisy in that rushing to the aid of a fetus on one hand, willing to kill for it, then telling those w/o HC to fuck off, not my problem; your message is convoluted with stark selectivity.

Quote

This is nazi stuff.

And yet you back GWB with his Iraq War and consider that not to be Nazi stuff, right? Again, you're being selective.

Quote

Of course, the issue here, again, is jury selection. How were they able to find 12 people who didn't stop and think "Wait a minute, there's something wrong here. Why are we not hearing a defense?" It would seem that at least one guy would have voted to acquit based on this fact alone.

Dude, you have offered shit for information in this case; you brought it, you support it. Did teh defense acquiesce? Complete your post.

Quote

You know how they would occasionally cover newspaper vending boxes in the courthouse so jurors would not see the contents? I once asked a lawyer "If these people are so shallow, so easily manipulated that exposure to a newspaper would render them incapable of deciding a case fairly, why are they selected as jurors? Why don't you just select a bunch of smarter people?" I don't remember the exact answer, but the short version is that I had stumbled upon something of a trade secret.

Trade secret . Let me guess, was this lawyer a Christian too? There's no conspiracy, for bigger trials, like OJ's 95 trial, the jury is sequestered for that reason. But for virtually all trials there is no such right. You have a right to a fair trial, but to a certain point.

The jury is admonished not to talk to each other or anyone until the case is handed to them and the trial is complete. If they break that then they do, that's the chance you take which is WHY A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO SUBMIT A 67-PAGE QUESTIONAIRE.

Quote

Years ago a co-worker was called to serve. She would have been the ideal juror, as she wasn't stupid but neither was she an intellectual heavyweight. She paid no attention to current events and had no clue what was happening in the world outside of her job, family, and shopping. The defense began by asking if anyone listened to Rush Limbaugh. She should have truthfully said "no" but she felt led to mention that she did hear the show from time to time because her co-worker listened. The lawyer pressed, asking if she agreed with his views. She said "I don't know what his views are, I don't listen to the show." She was rejected. I can only conclude that the lawyer was pulling a fast one, knowing his case would not survive the scrutiny of intelligent, informed people.

This post has to be a joke. Let's see"

Major premise: ALL WHO LISTEN TO LUSH RIMJOB ARE INTELLIGENT AND INFORMED

Minor premise: CO-WORKER LISTENS TO LUSH

Conclusion: CO-WORKER IS INTELLIGENT AND INFORMED



See, the problem here is that you come in with biases like: Christians are good people, non-Christians suck, Lush is smart and so are his listeners, etc. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS, VOIR DIRE, IS SUPPOSED TO DO; ELIMINATE BAIS. You are truly one of the least knowledgeable posters here in regard to the legal system.

Quote

In the late '90's I spoke with Rush about this subject, which came up after one of his employees was rejected outright because she worked for him.

So this was before he was a known drug addict, right?

Quote

(The case involved some guy who was slightly injured while riding a bus and was trying to blame the bus company for his own negligence.)

Your version. I'm sure the facts weighed out some real evidence other than Christian bais.

Quote

I said that if ever called I will not tell them I listen, but will pass myself off as someone who doesn't pay attention to current events so as to have a better chance of being selected.

IOW's, lie under oath after swearing to tell the truth under God. Are you starting to understand why I think you're being a hypocrite?

Quote

Nor will I mention that I skydive. It seems this information could only set off someone's red flag, especially if it's one of those lawsuit cases where someone wants to sue someone else not for doing something bad, but for failing to prevent a bad thing from happening.

Again, lie after swearing, under God, to tell the truth. Fortunately for justice, civil suits have the jury as basically advisory. Any judgment can be modified or thrown out via judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

But I'm sure if you're ever a defendant/litigant you will want your full rights under the const. and anyone abridging those or asserting you are fucking the system is full of shit.

Quote

If a lawsuit stems from a traffic accident they do not discard prospective jurors because they hold a driver's license.

Again, your naivety is starting to become cumbersome. Depending upon jurisdiction, you have a set number of strikes where your lawyer can toss jurors w/o cause, so yes an attny could toss you for that.

Quote

So if a case involves a skydiving incident, why do they reject jurors who have jumped?

BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BIASED. Is this hard or am I beating my head against the keyboard for nothing? Probably, one side would embrace you, the other hate you and use a strike.

Quote

If it's a valid case it would seem that an experienced skydiver would be better able to recognize true negligence (such as putting out a static-line first-timer in high winds at dusk) than ol' average Joe.

Hey, I know, maybe that experienced skydiver, if he/she had enough jump experience would make a better FUCKING EXPERT WITNESS THAN A JUROR. But I'm just guessing. In fact, the side that didn't want that juror probably wouldn't have to use a strike, the judge would probably strike you first based upon questionaire.

Quote

Of course the same juror is not likely to define "negligence" as a customer getting hurt due to his own actions.

That's because the definition of negligence and even some of the application to a given case is a MATTER OF LAW and is for the judge to define. The jury is the FINDER OF FACT, so they try to understand who's lying and what really happened, take the judges instructions/definitions and conclude the case on that protocol.

You seem like a nice guy, very naive, but nice and not real informed on law. You probably have your pockets of knowledge, but law isn't one. So drop your biases and learn first, things will make more sense.

[Lucky... 0]

I hope you respond to my previous post, but I'd like to clarify that your purpose for starting this thread has nothing to do with juries and everything to do with Christianity. Look, if you want people to buy your pro-Christian philosophy and agree with you that killing fetuses is teh same as killing humans, then quit advocation capital punishment and denouncing healthcare for all. By being pro-DP and anti-HC you stuff your position that your drive is about caring for people right in the shitter. All of your positions must be consistent that it's all about the welfare of people or you just appear to be bent on one agenda as an extremist.

Seriously, abortion is a bad thing, so let's provide everyone HC, stop killing people via the DP and provide sex education for kids starting before puberty, then we can stop killing fetuses as it would be an unhumane thing to do. Your positions are contradictory, I see people from your camp as extremist agenda-driven cherry-pickers. I've had this very conversation with groups protesting at universities and they kinda reluctantly agree.

[Airman1270 0]

Huh?????

Not sure what brought this on, but are you saying the only people who should serve on juries are atheists and/or clueless, uninformed people?

This country is being turned into a police state. (Perhaps I'll explore this in detail on another thread.) The point here is that Americans are not being taught their proper role as jurors, and those who do understand are likely to be rejected. This is how the left gets away with continually imposing more restrictions on our lives.

In the 1920's when otherwise "law abiding" Americans were being prosecuted under the new prohibition laws, juries many times refused to convict. None of this "follow the law" crap. Juries understood their responsibility to act as a hedge against the extremes of the legislature and, at times, of law enforcement. They did not say "Aw, gee, this guy was only making beer, something that was perfectly legal a few years ago. He wasn't bothering anybody but damn, they got this new law so I guess we have to convict..." This string of acquittals helped open the door to repeal of these laws.

As for the anti-Christian bigotry, there's much you misunderstand but it's probably not easy to exchange information about the subject without being accused of "prosyletizing."

Cheers,
Jon

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I see people from your camp as extremist agenda-driven cherry-pickers.

Irony score....too high to calculate.

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