Posted on 09/18/2013 3:33:29 AM PDT by markomalley
A multibillion dollar case between two giant pharmaceutical companies grappling over arcane antitrust issues has unexpectedly turned into a gay rights legal imbroglio that raises questions over whether lawyers can bounce potential jurors solely based on their sexual orientation.
The case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Wednesday centers on whether Abbott Laboratories broke antitrust laws when it increased the price of its popular and vital AIDS drug Norvir by 400 percent in 2007. But broader public attention likely will be given to the three-judge panel's look at whether Abbott wrongfully removed a juror in the case brought by competitor SmithKlineBeecham.
The cost increase angered many in the gay community. SmithKlineBeecham, meanwhile, claims it was meant to harm the launch of its new AIDS treatment, which requires use of Norvit. And the company contends "Juror B" was removed simply because he was gay.
"It's a big deal," said Vik Amar, University of California, Davis professor. "The headlines from this case are going to be about antitrust law — it will be about sexual orientation in the jury pool."
Before trials, lawyers for both sides are allowed to use several "preemptory challenges" each to remove someone from the jury pool without legal justification.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Welcome to Gomorrah.
I know homosexuality is a sin but my concern for this case goes beyond that regarding if this case will set a precedence on the ability of people to serve on a jury if they have sort of stake in the product (i.e. could gun owners be kept off a jury because the outcome would affect a gun law)
Yes. Just as anti-gun activists can.
Wouldn’t that mean juries could only be made up wishy washy idiots who have no opinions on anything with goo for minds for the lawyers to shape? Actually, I seem to recall a chapter of To Kill a Mockingbird where Finch basically says that and why
Mark Twain said something pretty similar, I believe.
I would greatly prefer a system like UK’s, where you basically get a randomly-selected jury.
But since we’re stuck with our present system, I don’t think you want people on the jury who’ve already made up their minds about the issue in question before the trial starts.
“(i.e. could gun owners be kept off a jury because the outcome would affect a gun law)”
Very good point!
Homosexual acts are sins; but if I was on the jury, I’d be highly suspicious about a 400% price increase unless there were a lot of lawsuits involving the drug.
“Wishy-washy jurors are exactly what the lawyers want.”
As a trained stage hypnotist ( training which I will never use on stage, but learned just to understand the process of mind control techniques) I can say that this is an easy process.
This is why Elizabeth Loftus, the leading researcher and expert on plasticity of memory was hired by the OJ Simpson team to assist in selecting jurors. This is done far more than people would ever imagine.
These same techniques are utilized were used by O’Bummer to manipulate his disciples into making and believing irrational statements. When you get people to emotionally attach to an issue, logic goes out the door.
From the article:
“Before trials, lawyers for both sides are allowed to use several “preemptory challenges” each to remove someone from the jury pool without legal justification.”
So AP decided to assign this article to a guy who is so clueless about the legal process that he refers to peremptory challenges as “preemptory challenges” (and haughtily places it in quotes, as if he was teaching readers a new term)? AP is competing with the Lambda Legal Fund to see which one is more ridiculous.
Speaking of the UK system, an interesting thing I learned when visiting Colonial Williamsburg was evidently in those days it was considered legal and moral to have the jury made of people who knew you. They evidently, in the eyes of the law, would have to greatest ability to judge your character and whether or not you could have committed this crime. It was actually George’s changing of juries to “impartial” people that the Virginians saw as an injustice.
ok then what groups did the homosexual associate with? free STD drugs advocacy? infections for everyone?
I doubt it is the sexual behavior as much as the affiliate groups.
If you go waaay back, the origin of the jury system is that you would get together the specified number of qualified jurors (which means “swearers”), varying by accused crime, to swear that you were innocent. So the juror was originally an advocate, not a referee.
reporters are beyond stupid in legal reporting. The classic is a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss is always filed. If granted, there is 20-30 days to amend and refile without penalty. This could happen several times. The more likely outcome is motion denied and the case continues. SOP.
You are right about jury challenges. The left is claiming the issue not the solution.
Another protected class created by judicial fiat. Yay.
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.