I've always wanted to tell a jury, in a courtroom full of jurors, that I could not serve because I'm from the planet Zargranon and I am duty bound not to interfere with human matters. God, that's fricken be hilarious.
"Yes. Centuries. Two of them, so barely centuries."
I was going to let this slide, but just I have to comment on this.
The common law system the US uses is much older than two centuries. Why do you guys (and gals) feel a need to comment on topics you know absolutely nothing about?!
"I thought juries could ask questions in the United States as well"
They can. I've been a lawyer working for a court for over a decade. I have not seen a single case where a jury didn't ask a question.
Of course Mike and Rose M. Welch want them to ask questions and perform research independently of the court system, even though they do no such thing in "Englad."
Agreed. At one time the most efficient means to distribute news was for every community to have its own printing press. Those days are long fricken gone.
The same could be said of local TV broadcasters, other than local news, what purpose do they serve? I don't understand why the major networks simply don't drop their affiliates and run their own cable/satellite networks.
Juries can ask questions in our system. But they are not allowed to do it independently. They do it as a part of our system of evidence just as they do in England.
"Ima, Is your argument that jurors are simply to stupid to properly research and evaluate additional evidence?"
God, I'm repeating myself again and again.
If you're right that jurors should be allowed to do their own research, then verdicts would become less fair. As I've said, we have centuries of laws on the books dealing with evidence in an attempt to make sure trials are fair.
If juror could do their own independent research their verdicts could be highly unfair and legally valid. For example, a juror sitting on criminal trial against a black person could rely on research that black people are born criminals. Would that be fair? Under your system, it would be. Under our present system, it could happen, but at least it would be a basis for a new trial. The unfairness could corrected.
"No one should ever lose a court case because the jury couldn't do a google search to get additional factual information that a lawyer did not anticipate affecting their decision"
You simply have no idea how cases and trials operate. They take years to get to trial where evidence is requested and exchanged, depositions are taken, and motions to dismiss are filed.
Please give me one case, just one case, where a person was denied a fair trial because the jury could not research an issue. If you think we should throw out our current system, where there are laws in place to ensure the evidence is fair, and replace it with a system were jurors can rely on any evidence they want, please give me a valid reason for this change. I don't see it.
"Seems to me the issue is the type of question that the jury can ask."
Medical terminology is usually not a fact in dispute, but is simply a fact. So you're right, juries can ask that sort of stuff. We've given juries dictionaries, maps, and calculators before to help them reach verdicts. Once again, those types of facts are not in dispute.
"If a juror happens to have foreknowledge that a particular person's testimony is widely disputed..."
In the real world I'd think that if the juror had such knowledge, he'd never be allowed on the jury. If he is allowed to deliberate, he's allowed to take his common sense and experience with him.
"In the medical example, a juror looking something up in a medical textbook should not invalidate his/her opinion as a juror. I think that is what Mike is referring to, not judgment by the court of opinion"
If that is what Mike is arguing, he's not making it very clear. His argument as presented again and again is that jurors should be allowed to research the facts in controversy in the case.
But even if he is talking about researching facts that are not in dispute, the jury should still do that via processes that are already in place.
I'm sure some people will think my "fairies" example is ludicrous and would never happen in the real world. You're right. But the reason it would never happen in the real world is because our common law adversarial system has developed centuries of law on evidence as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. Mike's argument eliminates those evidential safeguards and would let anything come in.
No one wants to be the guy who gave the drunk driver, who just ran over a cute little girl, his license back the month before. Those ALJs bend over backwards to ensure that no one gets their licenses back. They're a complete waste of time as far as I'm concerned.
You can appeal those ALJ decision to a higher court, but you're faced with the same situation. No one wants to be responsible for the guy getting his license back and then getting in serious accident.
"If they didn't ignore at least one 'expert' opinion, any jury would be hung."
I never said a jury cannot ignore the evidence presented. What I said is that they have to base their verdict on the evidence presented. There's a difference.
You're right. And despite the law against murder, I can still kill the person sitting next to me. But that does not mean we should eliminate laws against murder.
I've worked with juries for a little over a decade. Overwhelmingly they do follow their duty to rule only upon the evidence presented. I can only think of one case where a juror ruled based upon her own research, and for that we had a hearing where she admitted she did her own research, and she served a weekend in jail.
Under Mike's argument jurors would not be bound by any evidence and could do anything they wanted. And as I've explained, that would lead to much more unfairness.
I've already explained this before, but jurors take a promise to make their decision based only upon the evidence presented.
Under Mike's argument, that promise would no longer exist. The jury would be free to use any "evidence" it feels appropriate to help them. As I've pointed out above, it could lead to highly unfair proceedings.
I work in a court day after day. If a jury has a question about medical terminology, that can be answered.
And if a party fails to prove its case, it is not being punished. It simply lost. Why should someone win a case who failed to prove their case? That makes no sense.
Judge: Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury foreperson: Yes your honor. Despite the fact that the plaintiff presented no evidence and did nothing but drool on the table, we award her 2 trillion dollars based upon our research into the existence of fairies.
They can. They can do anything. But under the law jurors make a promise to make their decision based only upon the evidence presented. Mike's argument eliminates that promise and would allow a juror to use any evidence he or she might find.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should Mike make his arguments clear? So we better understand them.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was going to let this slide, but just I have to comment on this.
The common law system the US uses is much older than two centuries. Why do you guys (and gals) feel a need to comment on topics you know absolutely nothing about?!
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They can. I've been a lawyer working for a court for over a decade. I have not seen a single case where a jury didn't ask a question.
Of course Mike and Rose M. Welch want them to ask questions and perform research independently of the court system, even though they do no such thing in "Englad."
On the post: Frost & Sullivan Analyst Apparently Has Never Heard Of Network TV: Says Video Can't Be Free To Consumers
Re:
The same could be said of local TV broadcasters, other than local news, what purpose do they serve? I don't understand why the major networks simply don't drop their affiliates and run their own cable/satellite networks.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Frost & Sullivan Analyst Apparently Has Never Heard Of Network TV: Says Video Can't Be Free To Consumers
I'm thinking most people on the net weren't around in the good old days when nearly everyone had rotary antennas and got their TV programing for free.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He had to look?
Brilliant!
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
God, I'm repeating myself again and again.
If you're right that jurors should be allowed to do their own research, then verdicts would become less fair. As I've said, we have centuries of laws on the books dealing with evidence in an attempt to make sure trials are fair.
If juror could do their own independent research their verdicts could be highly unfair and legally valid. For example, a juror sitting on criminal trial against a black person could rely on research that black people are born criminals. Would that be fair? Under your system, it would be. Under our present system, it could happen, but at least it would be a basis for a new trial. The unfairness could corrected.
"No one should ever lose a court case because the jury couldn't do a google search to get additional factual information that a lawyer did not anticipate affecting their decision"
You simply have no idea how cases and trials operate. They take years to get to trial where evidence is requested and exchanged, depositions are taken, and motions to dismiss are filed.
Please give me one case, just one case, where a person was denied a fair trial because the jury could not research an issue. If you think we should throw out our current system, where there are laws in place to ensure the evidence is fair, and replace it with a system were jurors can rely on any evidence they want, please give me a valid reason for this change. I don't see it.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Medical terminology is usually not a fact in dispute, but is simply a fact. So you're right, juries can ask that sort of stuff. We've given juries dictionaries, maps, and calculators before to help them reach verdicts. Once again, those types of facts are not in dispute.
"If a juror happens to have foreknowledge that a particular person's testimony is widely disputed..."
In the real world I'd think that if the juror had such knowledge, he'd never be allowed on the jury. If he is allowed to deliberate, he's allowed to take his common sense and experience with him.
"In the medical example, a juror looking something up in a medical textbook should not invalidate his/her opinion as a juror. I think that is what Mike is referring to, not judgment by the court of opinion"
If that is what Mike is arguing, he's not making it very clear. His argument as presented again and again is that jurors should be allowed to research the facts in controversy in the case.
But even if he is talking about researching facts that are not in dispute, the jury should still do that via processes that are already in place.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He had to look?
You can appeal those ALJ decision to a higher court, but you're faced with the same situation. No one wants to be responsible for the guy getting his license back and then getting in serious accident.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said a jury cannot ignore the evidence presented. What I said is that they have to base their verdict on the evidence presented. There's a difference.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He had to look?
If you're convicted of drunk driving, yes, they can take your license. Not forever. For a year. Your state's laws and regulations may be different.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re:
If they want, they can wait until they leave the deliberation room or until the trial is done.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've worked with juries for a little over a decade. Overwhelmingly they do follow their duty to rule only upon the evidence presented. I can only think of one case where a juror ruled based upon her own research, and for that we had a hearing where she admitted she did her own research, and she served a weekend in jail.
Under Mike's argument jurors would not be bound by any evidence and could do anything they wanted. And as I've explained, that would lead to much more unfairness.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re:
Under Mike's argument, that promise would no longer exist. The jury would be free to use any "evidence" it feels appropriate to help them. As I've pointed out above, it could lead to highly unfair proceedings.
I work in a court day after day. If a jury has a question about medical terminology, that can be answered.
And if a party fails to prove its case, it is not being punished. It simply lost. Why should someone win a case who failed to prove their case? That makes no sense.
Judge: Jury, have you reached a verdict?
Jury foreperson: Yes your honor. Despite the fact that the plaintiff presented no evidence and did nothing but drool on the table, we award her 2 trillion dollars based upon our research into the existence of fairies.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>