Our legal system is a bloated white elephant

[El Tejon]

Derek, what if 5 of those jurors are members of the Million Mommies?

Don't you think that the Defendant, accused of self-defense and possessing the means thereof, should be allowed to ask questions of those 5 to determine their potential to be fair and impartial?

 

[p35]

Once I was defending a guy charged with hitting his wife. In voir dire, someone asked if anyone had an experience with domestic violence. One woman raised her hand and said "Yes, I saw my father murder my mother." ohhh...kayy- she didn't get on the jury.

 

[Cosmoline]

The beauty of voir dire is that it exposes open bias *and* gives each side an equal opportunity to knock out jurors for any reason. When each side works against the other, the net result is that the most vocal and opinionated jurors tend to be the first excused, while the quieter and more even-handed jurors get seated more often. That, IMHO, is a good result. If someone is spouting off in voir dire for *either* side with bold statements about how he hates so-and-so's, that person is probably not going to be an unbiased trier of fact. I can think of no better way to weed them out than through the pure adversarial system.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

From where I sit, we've got a bunch of crappy, unpopular laws (drug laws come to mind, among others). One of the big advantages of the jury system (in my non-lawyer perspective) is that a jury can refuse to convict because they disagree with the law being enforced. "Yeah, he was harboring a slave, but slavery's an abomination and I won't send him to prison for it." -- wasn't that the reason fugitive slave laws weren't enforced -- because at least 1 in 12 jurors would simply refuse to convict in the majority of cases?

If we had "random" juries of our peers, I'd think we'd have a few more cases of jurors thinking "yeah, he was growing pot for his mom who's in chemo, but there's no way I'm going to throw a guy in jail for 10 years because he owned a dozen plants." What is it? Ballot box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box? If you take everyone out of the picture who knows anything about the issue, how does that help?

Do you eliminate lawyers from juries (I used to work at one of the largest law firms in the Southeast, and none of the attys that I talked to made it past voir dire.)? How 'bout people with post-graduate degrees (more stories from friends here). How about doctors in cases of medical malpractice (more stories -- and these folks hate stupidity in medicine, but actually have the understanding required to evaluate whether malpractice occurred or not.) It goes on, and on, and on.

Am I worried about having a MMMommie on the jury? Sure. But I'm more worried about losing everyone who admits to having ever belonged to the NRA during selection (more stories -- FIL hasn't been seated on a jury in the last dozen times he's been called -- each time the NRA gets him kicked). Same with everyone who admits to having a carry permit, or owning a handgun.

(Please ignore typing/grammar -- trying to empty all the Guiness in my fridge tonight. )

 

[mantispid]

Jurries are *supposed* to be biased! They are supposed to represent the population. Pro-gunners, anti-gunners, pro-drug war, anti-drug war, etc. etc. The law is on trial as well as the defendant.

When a sufficient percentage of the population dislikes a law, they can nullify it.. and the best way that happens is through random juries w/o any type of voir dire.

I don't *want* unbiased triers of fact. I want highly biased ones, of every shape and size. I want intelligent people of conviction, not mindless zombies that will simply weigh evidence and follow the judge's orders.


That's why, if you're an opinionated type, and you want to be on a jury, the best thing is to simply lie during voir dire and pretend to be an opinionless drone. You're not under oath (at least not around here), so it isn't perjury (though if they put you under oath in your juristiction, you best not lie). That's what several of my lawyer friends have told me to do. They figure that voir dire is a violation of fair justice, and so using force (lying) to defend others (trying to give the accused a fair hearing) is justifiable.


Better to have an endless series of hung juries than to allow convictions under unethical laws.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'd think doing away with voir dire would be the best way to get the judicial system back on track. "A jury of your peers? Sure -- next 15 people, you're assigned to this one..."

Oh, wonderful. It would be just our luck to get a jury panel comprised of people who "graduated" from high school because they were too old to stay, and whose concept of the justice system comes from watching "Cops" and Judge Judy.

Pilgrim

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Oh, wonderful. It would be just our luck to get a jury panel comprised of people who "graduated" from high school because they were too old to stay, and whose concept of the justice system comes from watching "Cops" and Judge Judy.

Let me give you a choice of 2 systems:

1) You get the next 15 people in line -- 12 jurors and 3 alternates. No-one is excused from Jury Duty without a doctor's note, and then they're expected to show up as soon as they're no longer contagious. Everyone serves on juries, and you really do get "the luck of the draw."

2) Everyone with above-average intelligence as indicated by post-grad degrees (PhD's, MDs, JDs, etc) is excluded. Anyone answering "yes" when asked if they've ever been a member of the NRA is thrown out. Basically, the jury is pruned by the prosecution and defense to try and get a jury that's most likely to agree to their side (though sometimes the judge will step in and interfere in a way that the defense doesn't like). At the end of the day, the jury is told their job is only to evaluate the facts of the case, not the law in question.

I'd prefer the former. If I'm being tried under an unjust law, it only takes one to say "no thanks -- I ain't convicting anyone under this statute." Good protection against the feds seizing your property and throwing you in jail because someone else was growing on your property. Against defending yourself from people dressed like terrorists in the middle of the night who happened to be cops. Against losing your yacht because one of your crew had the butt of a marijuana cigarette in his bag. Against installing a toilet that uses "too much" water to flush because you have unusually large turds. Against engaging in oral sex with your wife in a state that outaws it as "sodomy" (think alabama a few years ago, where the only lawful goal was "conception of a male heir."). And the list goes on. Get a random jury, and unpopular/unjust laws won't be enforced, because it isn't worth the time to try and do so.

 

[Cosmoline]

you're exaggerating the impact of voir dire. Each side only gets a few charges, and for cause challenges are limited and controlled by the Court. Since each side only has a few challenges, they tend to cancel each other out by getting rid of the obvious partisans on the panel. Voir dire does not automatically exclude doctors, eductated people, etc. And I'm not sure where you get this business about every member of the NRA being thrown out. I've never seen it happen. And my last jury had TWO medical doctors on it!

 

[Cosmoline]

Also, under your system a juror who proclaims that there is no way in heck he's ever going to give a dime to anyone will still sit on a jury. A juror who says he knows the defendant is guilty will still sit on the jury. It would be a nightmare.

 

[Correia]

I always get a kick out of how everybody despises lawyers, right up until they need one.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

And I'm not sure where you get this business about every member of the NRA being thrown out. I've never seen it happen

Father in law. Every time he goes in for jury duty (he's retired.) It's gotten to the point where he just raises his hand at the beginning, says "I'm a lifetime member of the NRA< should I just go now?" and leaves.

Maybe that's a Florida thing (previously, north GA.)

 

[telewinz]

You get the next 15 people in line -- 12 jurors and 3 alternates. No-one is excused from Jury Duty without a doctor's note, and then they're expected to show up as soon as they're no longer contagious. Everyone serves on juries, and you really do get "the luck of the draw."

You must have little or no experience with our justice system. EVERYONE DOES NOT serve on juries and never will. The defense and the state are permitted to remove certain potential jurors as a matter of course, the judge can remove anyone he feels is unacceptable. Juors are given mail-in questionaires to complete even before they show-up at a court. The judge at the trial I served asked if ANY of the jurors wished to be excused "we are paid well to be here, you aren't", four jurors were excused by the judge. Its very easy and understandable to underestimate the ability of a single juror but a panel of 8-12 "common people" can be very difficult to fool.

Are you sure you are not letting politics cloud your judgement concerning a "new" idea? Just because a political system you disapprove of has a certain justice system should not reflect poorly on the merits of that system. We in the U.S. didn't invent justice you know, there is a great deal of documentation that states the poor man seldom enjoys it.

Why are our prisons filled primarily with the poor? Who's the dream team for them or me or you? I haven't met an inmate with wealthy parents yet, for most their standard of living improved when they entered prison.

 

[Cosmoline]

The defense and the state are permitted to remove certain potential jurors as a matter of course, the judge can remove anyone he feels is unacceptable."

Hmmm. Well depending on the type of case and the court, the defense and plaintiff or defense and state are given between three and six preempts each. That's it. The typical pool is between 30 and 45. The only jurors who can be removed for cause are those with direct contact or relation with the case, a party or a witness, or those who tell the court they cannot be fair. Also jurors in certain death penalty cases who cannot or will not impose the death penalty are not allowed to serve--though I do agree that this prohibition is out of line. There is no prohibition against doctors, lawyers, eductated people, or members of the NRA from serving. HOWEVER, many of the professionals in the pool will have a valid excuse. A doctor, for example, would certainly be excused if he's set to perform a vital operation or if he's on call at the ER. So you don't see too many of them. Lawyers are sometimes bumped because they know too many people in the case, or have already heard about the case on the grape vine--or simply because one of the lawyers on the case dislikes them.

 

[telewinz]

The only jurors who can be removed for cause are those with direct contact or relation with the case, a party or a witness, or those who tell the court they cannot be fair.

I beg to differ, the attorney does not have to state his reason, "for cause".

HOWEVER, many of the professionals in the pool will have a valid excuse.

Not in my county, it has to be an emergency, period. Doctors have other doctors cover their patients all the time.

Father in law. Every time he goes in for jury duty (he's retired.) It's gotten to the point where he just raises his hand at the beginning, says "I'm a lifetime member of the NRA< should I just go now?" and leaves.

More to do with his attitude than his membership in the NRA.

 

[Intune]

Wow, my Dad was a judge and my brother an attorney. All these years and and I never knew their slimeball ways. Hmm...

We have great dinner conversations and you know what? If you have your poopoo together and present a valid, concise argument for your pov, you can change the way people look at a given subject. Whodathunkit? Kinda like what lawyers do, eh?

 

[telewinz]

Lawyers are no more or no less honest than anyone else. People resent lawyers because they wish they had the same opportunities to enrich themselves dishonestly. Most people never earn that degree of trust or level of responsibility during their entire lives.