Quick Question About Jury Duty

[Vandy Vol]

I thought we already established that the 6th Amendment only guarantees an impartial jury, but thanks for confirming...  I don't believe the term, peer, is even mentioned in the Constitution. 
       

No, but it's mentioned statutorily, as well as within the common law opinions of the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitution.  Obviously, you don't require peers in order to have an impartial jury, but the easiest and most reliable way to obtain an impartial jury is by taking a cross-section of fellow citizens ("peers") within the area.

Perhaps, that's open to debate.  Would a true peer juror's judgement be sympathetic, or would a true peer juror have a better appreciation of the situation or perceived circumstances?  For instance, an undereducated juror may not have the capacity to understand the details of a complex tax issue for which the defendant is accused of violating.  You could argue that the jury selection process should weed that person out of the pool, but what if the majority of your pool is made up of individuals like this?

In your example, such a juror may be problematic; it would depend upon whether their lack of knowledge on the subject would affect their judgment.  Although the tax code is complex, claiming ignorance is not a defense.  So if the uneducated juror says, "Well, shit, I didn't know that was the law either...how am I going to find this person guilty of something that I didn't even know existed?  He probably didn't know it was illegal either."

This is why attorneys have to go through the process of voir dire to weed out those jurors who are going to make unreasonable decisions.  It's also why the judge has to give jury instructions, detailing exactly what it is that the jury is ruling upon and how they are allowed to rule upon it.

Ultimately, the jury members' similarities to the defendant are irrelevant; there are laws that must be objectively and reasonably applied, at least as much as they can realistically be applied in an objective and reasonable manner.  Someone in your profession could do this just as well as someone outside of your profession.

[GarMan]

OK...  You hooked me again.  It's those crotchless panties you wear on Wednesdays... 

In your example, such a juror may be problematic; it would depend upon whether their lack of knowledge on the subject would affect their judgment.  Although the tax code is complex, claiming ignorance is not a defense.  So if the uneducated juror says, "Well, poop, I didn't know that was the law either...how am I going to find this person guilty of something that I didn't even know existed?  He probably didn't know it was illegal either."

I don't believe that claiming ignorance applies here.  We're talking about capacity of understanding that would enable an objective and reasonable judgement. 

Ultimately, the jury members' similarities to the defendant are irrelevant; there are laws that must be objectively and reasonably applied, at least as much as they can realistically be applied in an objective and reasonable manner.  Someone in your profession could do this just as well as someone outside of your profession. 

I don't completely agree with that, at least not in all cases.  This might not matter for many or even most situations, but I don't believe that a true cross section of any community is capable of being objective and reasonable in all situations.  Perhaps, it's the definition of impartial that requires clarification or tweaking...  Thoughts?

[Vandy Vol]

OK...  You hooked me again.  It's those crotchless panties you wear on Wednesdays... 
I don't believe that claiming ignorance applies here.  We're talking about capacity of understanding that would enable an objective and reasonable judgement.

Well, it's the job of the attorney and judge to ensure that even the most complex of laws get explained so that your average person can understand it.  Uneducated Joe may not know what a capital gain is, but someone can explain it to him and present evidence to show that income was fraudulently hidden.

So, unless the juror is uneducated/mentally deficient to the point that they simply are never going to be able to comprehend the concept, it can be explained to them without them having to be a tax whiz.

But, I'm a little confused as to what your point was in regard to this.  If the defendant's uneducated, and if giving him a jury of uneducated people is fair because it allows him to be judged by "true" peers, and if these uneducated people are ultimately too stupid to grasp what's going on in the trial, then...isn't that an example of why obtaining a jury of your "true" peers is not the best way to go?  Wouldn't a random selection from the community give you different view points, and thus tend to represent the "average" standards of reasonableness within the community?

I don't completely agree with that, at least not in all cases.  This might not matter for many or even most situations, but I don't believe that a true cross section of any community is capable of being objective and reasonable in all situations.  Perhaps, it's the definition of impartial that requires clarification or tweaking...  Thoughts?

Well, the issue is that if you start hand picking the entire jury because you have a concept of what's reasonable and you want only those who meet your expectations, then you're going to get results that are skewed toward your points of view.  I would venture to say that our "reasonable man" standard is based upon your average person.  If you get a random cross-section of the community, then you're likely to get a fair amount of average people.

Now, there will still be those radicals that fall on one end of the spectrum or the other; there are always those people who are just out of touch with reality and don't understand how justice and objectivity within the legal system operates.  But, those people can be stricken from the jury, which is why we don't blindly rely upon the cross-sectional ideal to be perfect by itself.

[GH2001]

OK...  You hooked me again.  It's those crotchless panties you wear on Wednesdays... 
I don't believe that claiming ignorance applies here.  We're talking about capacity of understanding that would enable an objective and reasonable judgement. 
I don't completely agree with that, at least not in all cases.  This might not matter for many or even most situations, but I don't believe that a true cross section of any community is capable of being objective and reasonable in all situations.  Perhaps, it's the definition of impartial that requires clarification or tweaking...  Thoughts?

He likes teh wikis.

[Vandy Vol]

He likes teh wikis went to law school.

Fixed.

[GarMan]

So, unless the juror is uneducated/mentally deficient to the point that they simply are never going to be able to comprehend the concept, it can be explained to them without them having to be a tax whiz.

For most cases, this is probably true...

But, I'm a little confused as to what your point was in regard to this.  If the defendant's uneducated, and if giving him a jury of uneducated people is fair because it allows him to be judged by "true" peers, and if these uneducated people are ultimately too stupid to grasp what's going on in the trial, then...isn't that an example of why obtaining a jury of your "true" peers is not the best way to go?  Wouldn't a random selection from the community give you different view points, and thus tend to represent the "average" standards of reasonableness within the community?

You lost me...  If "stupid" people standing judgement over "stupid" people is deemed as a problem, then why would "stupid" people standing judgement over a more complex situation not also be a problem?  In fact, why wouldn't "average" people standing judgement over more complex situations not result in the same sort of issue? 

Well, the issue is that if you start hand picking the entire jury because you have a concept of what's reasonable and you want only those who meet your expectations, then you're going to get results that are skewed toward your points of view.  I would venture to say that our "reasonable man" standard is based upon your average person.  If you get a random cross-section of the community, then you're likely to get a fair amount of average people. 

Yep...  And, back to the point, is an average person capable of being reasonable and objective on issues that extend beyond their capacity to understand and rationalize?  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that we need a new Amendment to the Constitution.  I would still defend our legal system over those that exist everywhere else.  However, this situation has always concerned me.  I think some of the jury interviews after many of these high profile cases illustrate some level of risk.

[Vandy Vol]

You lost me...  If "stupid" people standing judgement over "stupid" people is deemed as a problem, then why would "stupid" people standing judgement over a more complex situation not also be a problem?  In fact, why wouldn't "average" people standing judgement over more complex situations not result in the same sort of issue?

This is essentially the purpose of the judge's ability to set aside jury verdicts.  The main purpose of the jury is to be the fact finder.  Based on the evidence presented, which side do you think is telling the truth beyond a reasonable doubt?  I think that this is a relatively simple task that even "stupid" people can perform.

Of course, the jury also has to apply the truth that they determine to the letter of the law.  But, if the jury comes to the wrong decision due to a misunderstanding of the law, or if they simply find someone guilty despite clear evidence to the contrary, then the judge has the ability to set aside that verdict.

Because the judge is (in theory) a legal expert on what is being adjudicated, he has the means to correct a jury verdict that may have been reached incorrectly for one reason or another.

[GH2001]

Fixed.

So did most of Congress...whats your point?

[GarMan]

So did most of Congress...whats your point?

BANG!!!   

[GH2001]

BANG!!!   

You don't talk to me that way. I'm a division manager. People are scared of me.

I drive a Dodge Stratus.

[Vandy Vol]

So did most of Congress...whats your point?

That when it comes to very basic knowledge of the workings of the legal system, someone who's been to law school is going to be able to explain it to you without resorting to teh wikis.

[Kaos]

That when it comes to very basic knowledge of the workings of the legal system, someone who's been to law school is going to be able to explain it to you without resorting to teh wikis.

No offense to the many barristers here, but I've had about fucking enough of the "I went to law school, so I know..." bullshit. 

Lawyers, motherfucker, work FOR ME.  They do what I tell them to do.  I keep three in my fucking pocket at all times.  And you know what?  If I ask each of them the same fucking question I'm most likely to get three different answers.   For the most part they offer THEIR OPINION on how x, y and z are interpreted. 

I can figure most of that shit out myself.  I use lawyers for one primary reason.  To protect me from other fucking lawyers.  And that's fucking pathetic. 

Some of the dullest, most obstinate, least ethical and least intelligent people I've ever met in my life have been lawyers. 

Present company (with some possible exceptions) excluded, of course. 

[Vandy Vol]

No offense to the many barristers here, but I've had about fucking enough of the "I went to law school, so I know..." bullshit. 

Lawyers, motherfucker, work FOR ME.  They do what I tell them to do.  I keep three in my fucking pocket at all times.  And you know what?  If I ask each of them the same fucking question I'm most likely to get three different answers.   For the most part they offer THEIR OPINION on how x, y and z are interpreted. 

I can figure most of that shit out myself.  I use lawyers for one primary reason.  To protect me from other fucking lawyers.  And that's fucking pathetic. 

Some of the dullest, most obstinate, least ethical and least intelligent people I've ever met in my life have been lawyers. 

Present company (with some possible exceptions) excluded, of course.

Sorry, but with this particular topic, there is not going to be three different interpretations.

In Alabama, if you are convicted of three DUIs within five years, it's a class C felony.  That's explicit within the criminal code.  If three different attorneys give you three different "opinions" on that, then you need to fire at least two of them, if not all three.

Similarly, when it comes to how juries are chosen, there's a process with defined rules.  These rules aren't "interpreted" by attorneys, so you're not going to get three different "opinions" on how juries are chosen.  Federal law clearly states that juries are to be selected from a "fair cross-section of the community," so you're not going to get an "opinion" on how jury pools are selected.  The Supreme Court has given its reasoning as to why this cross-sectional ideal complies with the concept of having an impartial jury, so while someone may disagree with the Supreme Court, the law itself is very clear and there is no need for "opinion."

Now, if we were discussing something that depended upon subjective variables, such as the outcome of a particular case based upon evidence presented, or a judge's ruling on an objection that is premised upon the probative value of testimony not outweighing the detrimental effect it will have against the defendant, then yes, you're going to get opinions from attorneys as to how that will turn out.

But, in general, when it comes to rules, procedures, and definitive items within statutes, an attorney should know (or be able to quickly find out) the answer to your question.  And this answer should align with other attorneys' answers.  If it doesn't, then you've made a poor choice in choosing your attorneys, so you better hope that you can accurately "figure most of that shit out" for yourself in order to determine which of those three don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Kaos]

Sorry, but with this particular topic, there is not going to be three different interpretations.

In Alabama, if you are convicted of three DUIs within five years, it's a class C felony.  That's explicit within the criminal code.  If three different attorneys give you three different "opinions" on that, then you need to fire at least two of them, if not all three.

Similarly, when it comes to how juries are chosen, there's a process with defined rules.  These rules aren't "interpreted" by attorneys, so you're not going to get three different "opinions" on how juries are chosen.  Federal law clearly states that juries are to be selected from a "fair cross-section of the community," so you're not going to get an "opinion" on how jury pools are selected.  The Supreme Court has given its reasoning as to why this cross-sectional ideal complies with the concept of having an impartial jury, so while someone may disagree with the Supreme Court, the law itself is very clear and there is no need for "opinion."

Now, if we were discussing something that depended upon subjective variables, such as the outcome of a particular case based upon evidence presented, or a judge's ruling on an objection that is premised upon the probative value of testimony not outweighing the detrimental effect it will have against the defendant, then yes, you're going to get opinions from attorneys as to how that will turn out.

But, in general, when it comes to rules, procedures, and definitive items within statutes, an attorney should know (or be able to quickly find out) the answer to your question.  And this answer should align with other attorneys' answers.  If it doesn't, then you've made a poor choice in choosing your attorneys, so you better hope that you can accurately "figure most of that shit out" for yourself in order to determine which of those three don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

I can read. 

I know where books are. 

I know how to look things up. 

That makes me a lawyer. 

I do figure shit out for myself and then present my findings to the lawyers. 

I think they steal what I discover and try to pretend they thought of it. 

[Vandy Vol]

I can read. 

I know where books are. 

I know how to look things up. 

That makes me a lawyer. 

I do figure shit out for myself and then present my findings to the lawyers. 

I think they steal what I discover and try to pretend they thought of it.

So, let me get this straight...your attorneys work "for you," yet you do the work and present it to them?  And then, after learning that they were too incompetent/lazy to figure things out on their own, you still keep them in your "fucking pocket at all times?"  And you expect this type of incompetency/laziness to somehow protect you?





Maybe you've had some bad experiences with the handful of attorneys you've dealt with, but the fact that you assume that most of us don't know what we're doing or that we're posing theories and opinions the majority of the time just goes to show that you haven't spoken with many attorneys and don't know a whole lot about the profession.

[Kaos]

 

Typical.  Don't know shit, but doesn't stop the pontification. 

I've had lawyers on retainer since 1990.  Worked with some of the best firms in Montgomery, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. 

Lawyers serve one purpose for me:  They protect me from other lawyers.  That's sad and pathetic, but it's the reality.  I pay them to do the mundane monkey shit of filing the paperwork and responding to the paperwork that our asinine legal system mandates. 

Over the years I've learned that if I ask a question, 95% of the time they're going to have to look it up and study it.  And the grubbing fucks bill me in 15 minute increments for that research.  I have little control over how much time they think it takes. 

Well, fuck a mighty.  I can read myself.  I know what I want to do and what I want them to protect me from.  So I look it up myself (or get my administrative assistant to do the research) figure out whether what I want to do is going to get me crossways. 

Then I call them and explain what I'm going to do.  I explain why I'm going to do it.  I tell them so that if something does come up, they know what legal precedents I'm using to support what I'm doing.

I write my own contracts.  I allow the lawyers to review them but I'm 100% confident that what I write is better than anything they could come up with. 

When we go to meetings and I need them there (usually because the other party has them) I don't let them talk except to me. 

I'm not downing lawyers in general because for much of my life I thought it was something I'd like to pursue as a hobby.  Was going to go to law school back in the day  before family, kids and life intervened.   

I just know that the condescending bloviating I've seen in this thread and others from people who throw the law degree around like it's some kind of magic golden egg is unwarranted. 

[GH2001]

Typical.  Don't know shit, but doesn't stop the pontification. 

I've had lawyers on retainer since 1990.  Worked with some of the best firms in Montgomery, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. 

Lawyers serve one purpose for me:  They protect me from other lawyers.  That's sad and pathetic, but it's the reality.  I pay them to do the mundane monkey shit of filing the paperwork and responding to the paperwork that our asinine legal system mandates. 

Over the years I've learned that if I ask a question, 95% of the time they're going to have to look it up and study it.  And the grubbing fucks bill me in 15 minute increments for that research.  I have little control over how much time they think it takes. 

Well, fuck a mighty.  I can read myself.  I know what I want to do and what I want them to protect me from.  So I look it up myself (or get my administrative assistant to do the research) figure out whether what I want to do is going to get me crossways. 

Then I call them and explain what I'm going to do.  I explain why I'm going to do it.  I tell them so that if something does come up, they know what legal precedents I'm using to support what I'm doing.

I write my own contracts.  I allow the lawyers to review them but I'm 100% confident that what I write is better than anything they could come up with. 

When we go to meetings and I need them there (usually because the other party has them) I don't let them talk except to me. 

I'm not downing lawyers in general because for much of my life I thought it was something I'd like to pursue as a hobby.  Was going to go to law school back in the day  before family, kids and life intervened.   

I just know that the condescending bloviating I've seen in this thread and others from people who throw the law degree around like it's some kind of magic golden egg is unwarranted.

Its because they wrote the overly complicated legal system and tax code that exists today. You know, so only they can understand it. A lot of "they" being the Executive and Legislative Branches. And yes it is sad K.

So , you went to law school. Congrats. Nothing wrong with that. But your "I'm a lawyer" ego goes beyond this thread and the topic of jurisprudence. You want to tout your JD as reasoning that you know your stuff concerning topics in this thread. Fine. That's great, you probably know the law to the letter. But apparently it's also given you enough narcissism to be the foremost expert on every other topic as well. Including topics some of us MIGHT be a little more knowledgable about than you. I have an MBA, I own a business....but I don't throw it out there every time an economics/small business topic comes up. I'm willing to listen and change my stances and perspective as I learn new things. I've certainly stood corrected before against the face of common sense. You learn from real world experience. Not a book, not a college, not a certificate saying you know a lot about something. Those are tools.

I think what GarMan and Kaos try to inflect here is THE real world common sense knowledge that you can ONLY get from having "been there, done that" or owning a business, etc. I don't 100% agree with either of them on all topics. But that really isn't a reason to flex your own perceived superiority in intelligence because you "went to law school". Pride can be your enemy. Try having a perspective on things, that doesn't originate from a legal book point of view. Not everything is black and white. Not everything is finite. Maybe in your world, at your profession it is. But outside of the legal world and mathemetics, things just aren't. There is nothing wrong with using common sense or saying "hey, thats a good point. I didn't really think about it that way" instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm a lawyer, but thanks for playing". That's just how you come across to people.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever SERVED on a jury? Have you experienced BEING a juror? Just curious.

[Vandy Vol]

Typical.  Don't know shit, but doesn't stop the pontification.

My response was based on the fact that you stated that you had to present something to your attorneys.  That suggests that they are incompetent, and your reliance on that incompetency is not sound.  Incompetent lawyers who can't do their own work aren't going to protect you from other lawyers.

Speaking of which, lawyers don't sue people, just like guns don't shoot people.  Clients sue people, just like gun owners shoot people.  Unless, of course, you're actually being sued by an attorney representing himself.

Over the years I've learned that if I ask a question, 95% of the time they're going to have to look it up and study it.  And the grubbing fucks bill me in 15 minute increments for that research.  I have little control over how much time they think it takes.

Mistake #1:  You hired an attorney that bills in 15 minute increments.  If you've known as many attorneys as you claim, then surely you've met one that bills in 6 minute increments, as that's the industry standard from what I've seen.

Mistake #2:  You hired an attorney who has to look up the answers to 95% of your questions.  You either hired a general practice attorney, or a retard.  If you hire a DUI attorney for your DUI charge, he's not going to have to "look up" 95% of your questions.  If you hire a tax attorney for your tax issues, he's not going to have to "look up" 95% of your questions.  If you've known as many attorneys as you claim, then surely you've met some attorneys who practice specific areas and would be able to answer most of your questions in that area.

Unless, of course, your legal needs are so complex and novel that this is a case of first impression, and thus the attorney would have to research the question in order to find comparable situations that might identify a rule which would potentially apply to your case.  But that's pretty doubtful.

I write my own contracts.  I allow the lawyers to review them but I'm 100% confident that what I write is better than anything they could come up with.

When we go to meetings and I need them there (usually because the other party has them) I don't let them talk except to me.

So...you're 100% confident that your contracts are iron clad, yet you allow an attorney review them, but based on your previous comments, he doesn't know what he's doing 95% of the time?  Either you trust your attorney(s) to be competent or you don't.  If you don't, then you shouldn't pay him for being incompetent or for being lazy.  If you do, then I don't know the purpose of your diatribe about your attorneys being idiots.

I'm not downing lawyers in general because for much of my life I thought it was something I'd like to pursue as a hobby.  Was going to go to law school back in the day  before family, kids and life intervened.   

I just know that the condescending bloviating I've seen in this thread and others from people who throw the law degree around like it's some kind of magic golden egg is unwarranted.

The only reason I referenced the fact that I went to law school was because of a snide comment made about using the internet to find information.  I spent three years in law school poring over those basic principles and the theories behind them; I don't need the fucking internet to inform me of something about our legal system that is as basic as jury selection, so any attempts at implying as much is rather insulting.

[Kaos]

You pore. 

I don't have to.  I just look it up.   Can I cite chapter and verse off the top of my head?  Nope.  But if you give me just a little time to do the research I'm confident I can find everything I need. 

Your reading lacks a little, too. 

I didn't say I didn't trust my lawyers.  I trust them to protect my interests when I do what I'm going to do anyway.  That's why I let them review the contracts.  So they can see what they might have to defend.  Sometimes they make suggestions.  Sometimes I take them.

They know the bullshit monkey stuff about how a contract has to "look" in terms of the whereas and wherefore nonsense.  That has some value. 

And for the record I just assume they bill in 15 minute increments, I really don't know.  It might be five minutes.  I just know that if I send them a joke in an email I get a bill for $85.  Guess I'm not that funny. 

And don't worry about the bloviating bulldog thing.  Others around here have been accused of the same.

[djsimp]

Never turn your back on a gay lawyer, they'll stick it to you while you're not looking.