Jury Selection

[Airman1270 0]

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

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.

Jurors should NEVER be intimidated into agreeing with a verdict they don't think is right. Yet, this occurs frequently, and undermines the whole purpose of having a jury in the first place.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[futuredivot 0]

I thought that lawyers could only strike a certain number of jurors.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[wmw999 2,147]

I believe they can strike more with cause; it's the peremptory challenges that are limited (e.g. "I just don't like the looks of you" instead of "you stated that you will always believe the police").

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)

[skyrider 0]

I have always said I can tell a guilty person just by looking at them!, Yet, I never get picked for a Jury...

Not sure why?

[rhaig 0]

state dependant, I believe that they may strike without cause up to a fixed number. Beyond that number, they may make a statement to the judge request that juror A be stricken for cause XYZ. The judge decides at that point. At least that's the way I remember voir dire from my criminal law class 15 years ago.

--
Rob

[quade 3]

Quote

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

I don't think you're going to find a lot of disagreement. Unfortunately, the system is what it is and until there is a major revision, nothing will change in the slightest, but there would be a HUGE resistance to changing it at all.

I personally think professional juries would be the way to go, but I'm fairly certain that would never fly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

Quote

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

I don't think you're going to find a lot of disagreement. Unfortunately, the system is what it is and until there is a major revision, nothing will change in the slightest, but there would be a HUGE resistance to changing it at all.

I personally think professional juries would be the way to go, but I'm fairly certain that would never fly.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And make them union professional juries too.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

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

How about an attorney that thinks his position is favorable? 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. Often, I like to see jurors who will not be easily swayed by the dirty tricks of the other attorney.

I think it's nice to have the ability to take the loose cannons out of a jury. But that's just me.

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.

Meanwhile, I would see asking a juror questions about a material matter such as that to be objectionable. If the dumbass attorney on the other side let such examination go without objection then there is a problem with the attorney. Such a thing gives away a case.

Quote

Jurors should NEVER be intimidated into agreeing with a verdict they don't think is right. Yet, this occurs frequently, and undermines the whole purpose of having a jury in the first place.

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.

Quote

Perhaps judges should choose jurors.

Why? What makes a judge better? Isn't it a judge that either grants the motion to excuse a juror for cause?

Peremptory challenges are limited in number. Excuse for cause is a difficult thing. There has to be a solid basis for this and in most cases is rare.

Quote

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.

I see. How about pederasts, gang bangers, alcoholics, etc? What about the clueless and ignorant - it seems you'd want to manipulate the process to ensure that they are not on a jury? Or are they not part of the cross-section you'd like to see?

You are suggesting what you despise.

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.

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?

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.

Or, on the other side, have attorneys who can understand and break down the evidence and explain their viewpoint in a way that is vastly more convincing than the prosecution. Like it or not, Darden and Clark did a shit lousy job of explaining DNA evidence. They were playing defense the whole time and made some serious tactical errors (yeah, let's give OJ the glove. There's no way he can manipulate that. Good thought, guys. (Loyola v. Souithwestern. Loyola won!))

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.

The groups of people you are suggesting would result in a greater percentage of innocent people being convicted. Like it or not, even cops lie. 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.)

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.

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.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[captain1976 0]

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.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[Ron 7]

Quote

I personally think professional juries would be the way to go

And how would you select them?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkydiveJack 1]

I have always beleived that we in the USA have the best legal system that money can buy.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

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

.

I have been an expert witness for the defendant in a number of personal injury lawsuits that were settled after deposition but before trial (in every case favorable to the defendant
It was appalling! The jury clearly was not interested in the technical testimony; one was actually asleep, one was surreptitiously fiddling with something out of the sight of the judge, and the rest looked totally bored.

The "technical" theory that the plaintiff had come up with for why the engine was responsible (since it had not failed prior to the impact) was so absurd that they must have been banking on a jury with no ability to evaluate the merits or otherwise of the argument.

...

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

[billvon 2,433]

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

They can't. They start with a random group of people and can reject a small number. These may well be the "smart" people but that's not quite the same as cherry-picking all clueless people.

>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.

No. Their lawyers could only have removed a small number (around a quarter to a third) without cause. They could then try to remove some _for_ cause, but if they say "we don't think that juror should be on the jury because he thinks genocide is wrong" the judge would not allow such a removal.

And the other side is true as well. If the prosecutor had identified two skinheads in the pool who thought all Jews should die, they could remove them as well.

>Perhaps judges should choose jurors.

And if you were before a judge who had a history of being against skydivers/small businesses/(insert your avocation here)? You'd be out of luck.

The current jury system is not great; there are problems with it especially on complex or technical cases. It's just better than the alternatives.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

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

They can't. They start with a random group of people and can reject a small number. These may well be the "smart" people but that's not quite the same as cherry-picking all clueless people.

>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.

No. Their lawyers could only have removed a small number (around a quarter to a third) without cause. They could then try to remove some _for_ cause, but if they say "we don't think that juror should be on the jury because he thinks genocide is wrong" the judge would not allow such a removal.

And the other side is true as well. If the prosecutor had identified two skinheads in the pool who thought all Jews should die, they could remove them as well.

>Perhaps judges should choose jurors.

And if you were before a judge who had a history of being against skydivers/small businesses/(insert your avocation here)? You'd be out of luck.

The current jury system is not great; there are problems with it especially on complex or technical cases. It's just better than the alternatives.

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

...

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

[billvon 2,433]

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

It is currently _one_ of the parameters, but is not the only parameter, nor is it a requirement.

[quade 3]

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.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

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.

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

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

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

It is currently _one_ of the parameters, but is not the only parameter, nor is it a requirement.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, competence is a criterion for exclusion.

...

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

[kallend 1,647]

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.

As opposed to only the rich can afford to defend a suit, like we have right now.

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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.

Mmmmm, so who defines the certification requirements? Maybe we could offer local classes at the public indoctrination centers? would the training include ability to disregard details if they didn't fit an arbitrary politically correct litmus standard?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,433]

>As far as I have been able to ascertain, competence is a criterion
>for exclusion.

Thus making it a parameter. I have as often seen it used as a criterion for inclusion as for exclusion, although everyone sees only the exclusion since the inclusion is via default (i.e. you have to be rejected from the pool, not selected from the population at large.)

[rehmwa 2]

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.

As opposed to only the rich can afford to defend a suit, like we have right now.

there you go, and, if there are technical requirements only the rich that can afford advanced education too are allowed on juries as well

sure would cut down on the total case load

we could advertise it as a budget reduction initiative - no cases unless the defendant, the prosecution, and the jury - are rich and well educated

sounds pretty "conservative" to me - a real throwback to the 1600's

anyone not rich won't get a court date, but they can just go see one of the 'certified' people for judgment on their serf-like issues

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

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.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

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.

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

[kallend 1,647]

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.

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

...

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