speaking of jury duty, i have my 2nd hearing (sentencing i guess) for my dui in like 2 months. do they have jurys for those or is it just me and the judge?
Printable View
speaking of jury duty, i have my 2nd hearing (sentencing i guess) for my dui in like 2 months. do they have jurys for those or is it just me and the judge?
Well he'd want to make certain nobody would figure out his client if he's got something to hide. I just think the selection process is wrong because it's like bending the rules before the game starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Perhaps your understanding of "the rules" is mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by voltz
The lawyer was just trying to make sure I would be a "fair and impartial" juror. That's what the jury selection process is about- weeding out candidates that may have a bias one way or another before the case even begins, based on the principle that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If a black man was on trial and one of the potential jurors is a steadfast KKK member, of course he'd have to go to ensure a fair trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by voltz
The defence and prosecution both have to agree on the jurors, or they're out.
Frankly, the kid in my case probably did it. Kids are stupid enough to gang attack people in front of multiple witnesses, and the list of witnesses scheduled to testify on behalf of the prosecution was a mile long.
sleeve, you are the lawyer, whats your thought on jury nullification?Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
agreed, but i still thing that working within the system is more constructive than trying to subvert the entire systemQuote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
we dont really disagree on this topic as much as you think, but what you are suggesting is vigilantism, justice by your definition, i dont presuppose to be able to make that call.Quote:
The only grand ideal Im talking about bringing into the courtroom is "justice" which yes sadly seems to be lacking from courtrooms today. Jury nullification is absolutely a right entitled onto jurists, in extreme cases. Two extreme cases I can think of are drug law-related and California 3 strikes. But again this is very contentious so if you dont agree Im probably not going to convince you.
Just had to go down the Goverment Center today to postpone my Jury Duty from Feb 21st till April 17, going on vacation like a week after I was shedulded to start Jury Duty, can't have that.
I got notice for Jury Duty once (For a case in Toronto). I called and told them to fuck off and they told me I was exempt.
*shrugs*
I guess I'm the only person on this board that actually served. It was a case of two idiots robbing an art gallery or something. The guys were gulty as sin and their lawyers weren't worth a shit, but the prosecutor could only really link one of them to it and knew it. His evidence for the second guy was just pathetic. Still, the damn thing lasted a week, and we the jury argued back and forth about it for a while before we handed down one guilty, one not guilty. Overall, a worthwhile experience that'll I'll do anything to avoid a second time.
Insofar as our system does not inquire into the methods and motivations of jurors after a verdict, jury nullification does exist. It may not be a "right", as diffusionx put it, but it does become an issue in many trials. Jurors may exercise it, either implicitly in their private deliberations or explicitly in their appeals to fellow jurors.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Lawyers, for legal and ethical reasons, cannot explicitly encourage jury nullification in their arguments. But that doesn't prevent us from appealing to a juror's common sense or personal values when considering the evidence. Often that common sense may lead a juror to weigh pieces of evidence differently, perhaps even ultimately in a manner leading to a vote of acquittal. Don't forget that jurors are the triers of fact. It is not their role to determine what the law is, but to determine if a given set of facts meet the criteria for a particular legal result. Somewhere in between the meeting point between this determination and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," jurors can insert their own thoughts and prejudices, and I try to reach out to that.