Posted on 01/17/2011 5:11:04 AM PST by KeyLargo
Lots of good points of view here. As I see the general issue, lots of innocent people get convicted for a variety of reasons while even more of the guilty go free either by a faulty or manipulated judgment of the jury or by evidence being withheld or even the entire proceeding being ‘thrown out.’
I agree that the more a juror knows of the facts and circumstances about the entire case, the better. However, insuring that jurors don’t dupe themselves by reading editorials or other opinion pieces about the case is very problematic. After all, anyone can write or blog about the “facts” in a case when in reality the biased journalist or blogger either skewed the information or perhaps he made it up altogether.
After all, we all know that if you read something on the internet, it must be true.
“I agree that the more a juror knows of the facts and circumstances about the entire case, the better. However, insuring that jurors don’t dupe themselves by reading editorials or other opinion pieces about the case is very problematic. After all, anyone can write or blog about the “facts” in a case when in reality the biased journalist or blogger either skewed the information or perhaps he made it up altogether.”
This is exactly why I would pay a web designer to put up a web site telling “my side” of the story if I was ever accused of anything. Jurors googling would then be pre-loaded to vote for me instead of against me.
So true. I once had the experience of being called to sit on a federal jury. It was a medical malpractice case being heard by the "Rocket Docket" US District Court in Alexandria and I was looking forward to the experience. But the Voir Dire was eye-opening. The questions seemed to be designed to eliminate anyone with even the faintest modicum of professional expertise in any field. The final jury was composed of young housewives, younger students and feeble elderly folks. One woman who was ultimately selected was prone to disruptive outbursts and gave inappropriate and confrontational answers to the judge. Excepting the latter I don't think these people were dolts and clods, but they seemed ill-chosen for a case that was obviously going to hinge on complex medical and scientific evidence. The group that was struck were almost to a man highly-educated professionals.
Yes...I was struck. But I will humbly admit that I was the last strike, lest my previous comment seem boastful. ;-) Maybe I should have called the judge "Mister Judge"...that seemed to work for one girl.
jboot, Your account of the “dumbing down” process during jury selection is appalling and all too true.
A biggest part of the problems w/ our jury system can be summed up in one word: lawyers. Apply such descriptive adjectives as you see fit in a given case - smart slick sleazy crooked paid-off dirty stupid uninterested etc and many more. This lawyer pool is to include the trial judges and the lawmakers that craft our laws and helped to form the rules of evidence. And also all in the appellate system up to and including the Supremes.
There is a reason why lawyer jokes are so ghastly funny. They are true.
No, it's getting harder for judges to insure that juries are not influenced by inadmissable evidence.
The idea that juries are supposed to judge based entirely on the evidence presented to them, without considering the entirety of their knowledge, is an ahistorical invention of law school professors. We have the right to be judged by a jury of our peers precisely because they are presumed to have a knowledge of the circumstances that a judge cannot.
So, the opinions expressed here are not new.
Jurors must be detectives, they must be intelligent, diligent and be servants of only the “Whole Truth”. This modern judicial confection of limiting evidence and testimony and turning the Jury into nothing more than caged monkeys is a perversion of Justice.
I've not had the opportunity to do this, but I've been told that to avoid jury duty, just tell 'em I'm an engineer (the truth, in my case).
This is because the last thing anyone wants in a courtroom is a smart person who's used to figuring things out for themselves.
During the course of the trial he saw the plaintiff, whom he described as a [portly gentleman], enter a late model LTD outside the court, driven by his wife, herself a [portly lady]. He report this incident (but not his research) to the judge. The judge told him as long as the incident did not influence his decision as a juror, could remain on the jury. He did not inform the judge about his research.
Initially the jury was almost unanimous in wanting to award the plaintiff some monetary compensation. My friend proceeded to give them the benefit of his research, essentially giving “expert testimony” during deliberations. In the end, he turned the entire jury and the plaintiff got the figurative donut to go along with the dozen or so jelly filled he probably consumed on a daily basis.
After the trial, one of the court officers told him that the plaintiff was a professional litigant, that he constantly was bringing cases, especially against doctors. Walking to his car in the parking lot, he happened to pass the doctor who had been the defendant and was pleased to give him a grin of tacit acknowledgment.
Justice can work in strange ways.
criminal trials are supposed to be unfair.
They are unfair to the prosecutors. Jurries are not supposed to be impartial.
The right to trial by jury was meant to prevent the government from being able to railroad the innocent. All it takes is one hanging judge and one Mike Nifong. The jury is meant to be a check on their power. Think of the “show trials” in benighted People’s Republics all over the world every day.
The right to trial by jury was meant to prevent the government from being able to railroad the innocent.True, so long as you understand that "innocent" does not always mean "did not violate the law".
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.