Jury Duty

[doniston]

Assume you are omnipotent for a day. How do you fix the problem. The other lad spoke in rash generalities about executing some and not letting folks go. Neither of which appear to address the problem IRT the jury system of assigning lawful guilt.

Tag, you're it.

First of all, aPart of your quote"

"and you words led me to believe you posed a physical threat.

So you were wrong.----That's what happens when you jump to conclusion.

Second. When you post as part of a quote. that quote doesn'rtreadily allow for it to be quoted in the response. such as the above. I had to paste it rather than just clicking "Quote" ---no biggy.

Third. And now you have come up with a clear question that I can answer (contrary to the opinion of the RetardedGySgt.)

a. the Idea of unanimous vedicts is nuts. If it is that cut and dried then the victim would have no choice but to plead Guilty. Instead, the jury is Instructed (ordered) to discuss there opinions with the other Juries. (contrary to the purposes of a jury) For all intents and purposes. each juror should make up his or her own mind. and a (granted) lopsided majority rules: such as at least 10 of twelve must vote guilty or the jury is either hung, or the perp is found not guilty. and if it is six to six, that is definitely reasonable doubt.

b. the matter of evidence. Far too often vital considerations are dis-allowed by the judge as being irrelevant. When a person is charged with a criminl offense. that he or she should be allowed to bring in ANY AND ALL evidence that is relative to the case. that is simply not done.

Is that enough for you to start thinking about?

 

[doniston]

And at what point should they be prohibited from suing? Access to the courts is one of our rights as citizens. If they get their butts kicked, they get their butts kicked. I don't quite see the problem.

The problem is, that there is presenty no punishment for bringing a bad suite. If the loser had to pay All (and I mean "ALL" )the cost of the suite, there wouldn't be near as many.

 

[pegwinn]

^another one who defends a system that allows people to sue for anything, no matter how stupid. Yep. Since stupidity isn't against the law......
Well, newsflash: you pay for the settlements. Show me why these people deserve to have their cases heard. Lucky for us all that it isn't up to me to show why etc etc. I would suggest that you simply read the text of the Constitution.

the problem is they are wasting court time and taxpayer money so their cases can be heard.
They should be denied and warned if they try their shit again, they will be fined double the amount they seek and spend time in jail.
Seems to work in England as a friend told me. I don't have a problem with that in philosophical way. As a practical matter, your proposal would have the effect of dampening legitimate cases as well. And, civil cases are different than criminal cases. Fact is, we are actually discussing two distinct "systems". By your words I assume you don't approve of any jury system even though you seem to be bashing plaintiffs vice jurors.

First of all, aPart of your quote"

"and you words led me to believe you posed a physical threat.

So you were wrong.----That's what happens when you jump to conclusion. Not really a jump. More like simply reading the words you wrote. IN the interest of civil discussion I will assume half the fault for not asking clarification questions. You get the half for not communicating clearly.

Second. When you post as part of a quote. that quote doesn'rtreadily allow for it to be quoted in the response. such as the above. I had to paste it rather than just clicking "Quote" ---no biggy.

Third. And now you have come up with a clear question that I can answer (contrary to the opinion of the RetardedGySgt.)

a. the Idea of unanimous vedicts is nuts. If it is that cut and dried then the victim would have no choice but to plead Guilty. Not true. The defendant isn't the one required to prove anything. Presumption of innocence is what keeps the judiciary from being a tyrrany. Instead, the jury is Instructed (ordered) to discuss there opinions with the other Juries. (contrary to the purposes of a jury) Not true. I was specifically ordered NOT to discuss the case until both had rested and deliberations began. For all intents and purposes. each juror should make up his or her own mind. In my case, we did. and a (granted) lopsided majority rules: such as at least 10 of twelve must vote guilty or the jury is either hung, or the perp is found not guilty. and if it is six to six, that is definitely reasonable doubt. It sounds like your beef with the jury system is one of procedure as opposed to the system at large. Is that accurate?

b. the matter of evidence. Far too often vital considerations are dis-allowed by the judge as being irrelevant. When a person is charged with a criminl offense. that he or she should be allowed to bring in ANY AND ALL evidence that is relative to the case. that is simply not done. OK. I will defer since I have never been a defendant. OTOH, the prosecution is under far tighter restrictions on what they can submit as evidence. And, they have to give it to the defense as well, no surprises allowed.
Is that enough for you to start thinking about?

The problem is, that there is presenty no punishment for bringing a bad suite. Not Accurate. Please note this link. If the loser had to pay All (and I mean "ALL" )the cost of the suite, there wouldn't be near as many. Agreed

And on that note, Goodnight.

 

[doniston]

Originally Posted by doniston
First of all, aPart of your quote"

"and you words led me to believe you posed a physical threat.

So you were wrong.----That's what happens when you jump to conclusion. Not really a jump.

Nope, it was a jump

(And you make responding very difficult.)

a. the Idea of unanimous vedicts is nuts. If it is that cut and dried then the victim would have no choice but to plead Guilty. Not true. The defendant isn't the one required to prove anything. Presumption of innocence is what keeps the judiciary from being a tyrrany.

True, but without it being necessary ifor unaniminity. a single person would not be able to hold out form aquittal so the effort would be futile.

Instead, the jury is Instructed (ordered) to discuss there opinions with the other Juries. (contrary to the purposes of a jury) Not true. I was specifically ordered NOT to discuss the case until both had rested and deliberations began.

This was my error, a double typo. there (their), and jurors rather than juries. what you stated was what I intended.

For all intents and purposes. each juror should make up his or her own mind. In my case, we did.

perhaps so, but a question, was the decision unanimous to start with, or did some of the jurors have to be convinced to change their vote? IF so, that proves my point. and that happens MOST of the time.

and a (granted) lopsided majority rules: such as at least 10 of twelve must vote guilty or the jury is either hung, or the perp is found not guilty. and if it is six to six, that is definitely reasonable doubt. It sounds like your beef with the jury system is one of procedure as opposed to the system at large. Is that accurate?

The system is OK, but very flawed, as I have started to relate

b. the matter of evidence. Far too often vital considerations are dis-allowed by the judge as being irrelevant. When a person is charged with a criminl offense. that he or she should be allowed to bring in ANY AND ALL evidence that is relative to the case. that is simply not done. OK. I will defer since I have never been a defendant. OTOH, the prosecution is under far tighter restrictions on what they can submit as evidence. And, they have to give it to the defense as well, no surprises allowed.

granted, but rather irrelevant.



Quote:
Originally Posted by doniston
The problem is, that there is presenty no punishment for bringing a bad suite. Not Accurate. Please note this link. If the loser had to pay All (and I mean "ALL" )the cost of the suite, there wouldn't be near as many. Agreed

And on that note, Goodnight.

[/QUOTE] Should I have said "no ADEQUATE" punishment???

 

[pegwinn]

Nope, it was a jump

(And you make responding very difficult.)

We will agree to disagree and move on. Does this style of response bring you more joy than my normal mode? If so, I am gladdened and will endeavor to continue in this vein.

Should I have said "no ADEQUATE" punishment???

Yes

True, but without it being necessary ifor unaniminity. a single person would not be able to hold out form aquittal so the effort would be futile.

Not true. Military law only requires either 2/3 or 3/4 for conviction. And yet they (defendants) fight to the end. Of course the average Military Judge is more competent and authoritative than his civilian judge counterpart. Additionally, the courtroom bs that makes for great TV isn't allowed in a court martial. And finally, the jury pool for a court martial is far more informed and knowledgeable about military law than your average civilian is on civil law.

perhaps so, but a question, was the decision unanimous to start with, or did some of the jurors have to be convinced to change their vote? IF so, that proves my point. and that happens MOST of the time.

Read my blog entry where I described the process. It will answer this question in detail.

granted, but rather irrelevant.

Not at all. If you are to be intellectually honest you have to look at each aspect of the system and how it adds or detracts from the whole. Evidence of prior bad acts for example isn't normally allowed. The balance point is that character reference witnesses in Texas have to show not only the character of the defendant but that his character prevented him/her from committing a crime. IF they cannot then they are irrelevant to the proceeding. It, in some cases, saves time on an already crowded docket.

 

[doniston]

We will agree to disagree and move on. Does this style of response bring you more joy than my normal mode? If so, I am gladdened and will endeavor to continue in this vein.

it is much easier.

Not true. Military law only requires either 2/3 or 3/4 for conviction. And yet they (defendants) fight to the end. Of course the average Military Judge is more competent and authoritative than his civilian judge counterpart. Additionally, the courtroom bs that makes for great TV isn't allowed in a court martial. And finally, the jury pool for a court martial is far more informed and knowledgeable about military law than your average civilian is on civil law. we are in fact speaking of civilian law. NOT Military. I could argue against that as well, but that is not the subject.

Read my blog entry where I described the process. It will answer this

What do you call a blog entry. all I needed was a yes or no. that would answer it

Not at all. If you are to be intellectually honest you have to look at each aspect of the system and how it adds or detracts from the whole. Evidence of prior bad acts for example isn't normally allowed. The balance point is that character reference witnesses in Texas have to show not only the character of the defendant but that his character prevented him/her from committing a crime. IF they cannot then they are irrelevant to the proceeding. It, in some cases, saves time on an already crowded docket.

Now that depends, are we talking about your objections to the system? or mine? In such a case, and as I didn't complain about it. Is it "RELEVANT"to your objections/ or mine.

 

[pegwinn]

it is much easier.

I am pleased.

What do you call a blog entry. all I needed was a yes or no. that would answer it

Actually your questions were, "was the decision unanimous to start with, or did some of the jurors have to be convinced to change their vote?" To dismiss them with a single yes or no would be rude. I offered you a detailed answer as a courtesy. I am beginning to believe that if you are not fighting the poster you are discussing things with that you are not in your comfort zone. Would it help if you tossed an insult into the fray?

Now that depends, are we talking about your objections to the system? or mine? In such a case, and as I didn't complain about it. Is it "RELEVANT"to your objections/ or mine.

Actually what you said was, "the matter of evidence. Far too often vital considerations are dis-allowed by the judge as being irrelevant. When a person is charged with a criminl offense. that he or she should be allowed to bring in ANY AND ALL evidence that is relative to the case. that is simply not done."

I simply addressed another angle of your complaint. Again, intellectual honesty is a must when looking critically at a process as a whole or a procedure as a part. IF you would grant full submission to the defendant why would you not grant the same to a prosecutor?

 

[Larkinn]

the problem is they are wasting court time and taxpayer money so their cases can be heard.
They should be denied and warned if they try their shit again, they will be fined double the amount they seek and spend time in jail.
Seems to work in England as a friend told me.

The problem with your little proposition is that, unlike you, the legal system needs to have consistent standards. Cases do often get thrown out, and most frivolous lawsuits are thrown out...but fining people who bring cases and lose is an incredibly dumb thing to do. In the large large majority of cases the people who bring the cases think they will win...nobody brings suits just for shits and giggles. Hence fining them would cut down on the suits that the poor could bring...regardless of their merit.

 

[doniston]

Actually your questions were, "was the decision unanimous to start with, or did some of the jurors have to be convinced to change their vote?" To dismiss them with a single yes or no would be rude. I offered you a detailed answer as a courtesy. I am beginning to believe that if you are not fighting the poster you are discussing things with that you are not in your comfort zone. Would it help if you tossed an insult into the fray?

How in heavens name can a simple yes or no answer be rude? And don't you think your reference to an insult in that manner is rather snide? Don't you WANT to keep this civil? (Or is it that you think you are losing?)

Actually what you said was, "the matter of evidence. Far too often vital considerations are dis-allowed by the judge as being irrelevant. When a person is charged with a criminl offense. that he or she should be allowed to bring in ANY AND ALL evidence that is relative to the case. that is simply not done."

I simply addressed another angle of your complaint. Again, intellectual honesty is a must when looking critically at a process as a whole or a procedure as a part. IF you would grant full submission to the defendant why would you not grant the same to a prosecutor?

First of all, the Judge is usually alligned with the prosecution. and secondly, Do you beleive that simply because I didn't mention something that I didn't think relevant, that I was opposed to it?

 

[jillian]

First of all, the Judge is usually alligned with the prosecution. and secondly, Do you beleive that simply because I didn't mention something that I didn't think relevant, that I was opposed to it?

Actually, that's a fairly ignorant statement. There are defense oriented judges, prosecution oriented judges and judges who have no particular affinity for either. Any judge who showed too great a bias wouldn't last on the bench very long. And that's a cold, hard fact.

Again, what system do you think would be better than our jury system?

 

[Larkinn]

How in heavens name can a simple yes or no answer be rude? And don't you think your reference to an insult in that manner is rather snide? Don't you WANT to keep this civil? (Or is it that you think you are losing?)


First of all, the Judge is usually alligned with the prosecution. and secondly, Do you beleive that simply because I didn't mention something that I didn't think relevant, that I was opposed to it?

Err no. The Judge is not usually aligned with the prosecution.

 

[doniston]

Actually, that's a fairly ignorant statement. There are defense oriented judges, prosecution oriented judges and judges who have no particular affinity for either. Any judge who showed too great a bias wouldn't last on the bench very long. And that's a cold, hard fact.

Again, what system do you think would be better than our jury system?

The first comment is strictly your opinion, and you are welcome to it--but did you perhaps see the word "USUALLY" involved???

I answered the second in several preceeding posts. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

[jillian]

I answered that in several preceeding posts. Haven't you been paying attention?

Did you respond? I saw nothing but whining about people wasing the court system's time. That said nothing about how decisions are made on the cases that go to trial. Do you believe every case is frivolous?

By the by, while there are some lawyers who take frivolous cases, it is the exception not the rule. No one wants a case that won't make them money.

 

[pegwinn]

How in heavens name can a simple yes or no answer be rude? And don't you think your reference to an insult in that manner is rather snide? Don't you WANT to keep this civil? (Or is it that you think you are losing?)

A simple yes or no to a multifaceted question is normally dismissive. Thus Rude. The reference to insults is based on observation of your exchanges with others. I prefer to keep things civil. However, I have the ability to get into the mud, wrassle the pig, and bbq it if the need arises. Is there a winner or loser in an Internet discussion?

First of all, the Judge is usually alligned with the prosecution. and secondly, Do you believe that simply because I didn't mention something that I didn't think relevant, that I was opposed to it?

It's possible. This is a two dimensional discussion. There are no nuances of body language or inflection to discern. IF the content of your posts in total pointed to an assumption that wasn't true..... My apologies.

Just to clear things up. My interest in posting this thread was to convey my personal experiences on a criminal jury. It (the thread) has since evolved.

My current interest is now..... Is your (or anyone else's) opposition procedural or systemic? IF you support the concept of a jury trial, but believe the method is flawed your opposition is procedural. If you believe the system (all components) are flawed or corrupted, then your opposition is systemic.

The follow on question is of course; How can we realistically fix it so the ideals remain in place and the flaws are banished?

Tag, you're it.

 

[doniston]

Did you respond? I saw nothing but whining about people wasing the court system's time. That said nothing about how decisions are made on the cases that go to trial. Do you believe every case is frivolous?

By the by, while there are some lawyers who take frivolous cases, it is the exception not the rule. No one wants a case that won't make them money.

Since you apparently WEREN'T paying attention to the past multitude of posts. Why should I respond here. you won't pay attention now either.

 

[doniston]

A simple yes or no to a multifaceted question is normally dismissive. Thus Rude. The reference to insults is based on observation of your exchanges with others. I prefer to keep things civil. However, I have the ability to get into the mud, wrassle the pig, and bbq it if the need arises. Is there a winner or loser in an Internet discussion?



It's possible. This is a two dimensional discussion. There are no nuances of body language or inflection to discern. IF the content of your posts in total pointed to an assumption that wasn't true..... My apologies.

Just to clear things up. My interest in posting this thread was to convey my personal experiences on a criminal jury. It (the thread) has since evolved.

My current interest is now..... Is your (or anyone else's) opposition procedural or systemic? IF you support the concept of a jury trial, but believe the method is flawed your opposition is procedural. If you believe the system (all components) are flawed or corrupted, then your opposition is systemic.

The follow on question is of course; How can we realistically fix it so the ideals remain in place and the flaws are banished?

Tag, you're it.

NOTE: IMHO simply changing the parameters as I have suggested. not the whole system. Touche'

 

[pegwinn]

NOTE: IMHO simply changing the parameters as I have suggested. not the whole system. Touche'

There is where we differ. I would literally rebuild the justice system from the ground up.

The ideal system of justice IMHO is one that has the absolute (literal) truth as its' goal. Once the literal truth is known dispensing justice is easy.

I envision a "truth machine" ala Halpernin. All parties to a case would testify to the degree needed to get the literal truth out in the open. The only person protected would be the defendant. While he has the right to remain silent, he doesn't have the right to lie. Thus his options are to speak the literal truth or remain mute.

I would require both prosecutor and defense to submit a brief in a JAG format to the jury in advance.

I would allow the jury to pose questions to the judge who would then forward them to the trial attorneys.

I would assign a separate judge to pass sentence. He or she would receive the transcripts of the trial with all gender and socioeconomic status or other identifying characteristics censored out. He would have no idea if the sentence being passed is on a gay black poor male, a homeless illegal alien, a woman, young, old, etc etc.

That is the broad brush strokes. We can quibble over details at another time.

 

[jillian]

Since you apparently WEREN'T paying attention to the past multitude of posts. Why should I respond here. you won't pay attention now either.

Actually, all I saw from you were bizarre comments of judges being alligned with the prosecution and how people shouldn't be allowed to file suits.

Oh...right, and you think unreliable and hearsay evidence should be used against a person and he/she shouldn't be entitled to a unanimous jury.

I saw NOTHING about what system IS better than the jury system. And I saw nothing justifying you letting down your fellow citizens who have asked a jury of their peers to judge their case. I saw a lot of bluster about how you have been permanently excused from serving.

First... people can't be prohibited from filing suit because SOMEONE has to make an adjudication as to merit... which means the case has to be heard or disposed of on motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. That means that it gets to be filed and THEN someone acts on it. And there are already sanctions in place for the filing of frivolous claims. Losing in court does not mean it was frivolous, though.

Second... most lawyers wouldn't take frivolous cases... there's no money in it and that's a cold, hard fact.

Third... hearsay is excluded, except for certain exceptions because it is unreliable... like a game of telephone... he said that she said that he went... yadda, yadda, yadda.

When you post something of merit, I can assure you I'll pay attention. But mostly, I think you've been permanently excused from being on a jury because of your stated refusal to listen to evidence, regardless of what it shows. I think that's just bizarre.

So, answer the question, what's better than the JURY system... (and, note, I didn't ask how you'd improve ours... I hope that makes it easier for you).

 

[doniston]

Actually, all I saw from you were bizarre comments of judges being alligned with the prosecution and how people shouldn't be allowed to file suits.

Oh...right, and you think unreliable and hearsay evidence should be used against a person and he/she shouldn't be entitled to a unanimous jury.

I saw NOTHING about what system IS better than the jury system. And I saw nothing justifying you letting down your fellow citizens who have asked a jury of their peers to judge their case. I saw a lot of bluster about how you have been permanently excused from serving.

First... people can't be prohibited from filing suit because SOMEONE has to make an adjudication as to merit... which means the case has to be heard or disposed of on motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. That means that it gets to be filed and THEN someone acts on it. And there are already sanctions in place for the filing of frivolous claims. Losing in court does not mean it was frivolous, though.

Second... most lawyers wouldn't take frivolous cases... there's no money in it and that's a cold, hard fact.

Third... hearsay is excluded, except for certain exceptions because it is unreliable... like a game of telephone... he said that she said that he went... yadda, yadda, yadda.

When you post something of merit, I can assure you I'll pay attention. But mostly, I think you've been permanently excused from being on a jury because of your stated refusal to listen to evidence, regardless of what it shows. I think that's just bizarre.

So, answer the question, what's better than the JURY system... (and, note, I didn't ask how you'd improve ours... I hope that makes it easier for you).

And so apparently you are a shyster like Gloria Alred as well as blind , and prone to exageration. and LIES.

for instance, you never heard me utter anything like people should not be allowed to file suites. That is strictly your imagination.

nor did I at any time say or imply that I would not listen to eveidence presented. what I DID say, is that I would make up my own mind as to what the evidence showed, and then would not discuss it with other jurors, They too should have made up their own minds.

But I do in deed take unberance that you have no better respect for yourself than to become an attorney. If you had paid attention you would have recognized a far differnce circumstance than you presently surmise.

I also didn't suggest that we get away from the Jury system, just improve it. as an attorney, you don't follow the facts very well, ---Like I said, a shyster.

 

[jillian]

And so apparently you are a shyster like Gloria Alred as well as blind , and prone to exageration. and LIES.

for instance, you never heard me utter anything like people should not be allowed to file suites. That is strictly your imagination.

nor did I at any time say or imply that I would not listen to eveidence presented. what I DID say, is that I would make up my own mind as to what the evidence showed, and then would not discuss it with other jurors, They too should have made up their own minds.

But I do in deed take unberance that you have no better respect for yourself than to become an attorney. If you had paid attention you would have recognized a far differnce circumstance than you presently surmise.

I also didn't suggest that we get away from the Jury system, just improve it. as an attorney, you don't follow the facts very well, ---Like I said, a shyster.

No, genius... I hate Gloria Alread. Nor do I ever lie... although you like repeating lies, I've noticed. You also fail to grasp the simplest concepts or follow through. Rather, you change subjects when beaten....

Speaking of which, when you say people shouldn't be allowed to file "frivolous suits", that presupposes someone judges in advance that they are frivolous. I stand by what I said. I also stand by what I said about you being permanently excused from jury service. A juror is supposed to make up their own mind and be independent. That would be a valued trait if the person weren't a complete nutter.

But do keep trying. You might learn to argue properly one day.

As for me being a lawyer, not a shyster, dearie.... I'm quite good at what I do. But thanks for your concern.

Cheers...