jury duty or "just following orders"

Home Forums Rants jury duty or "just following orders"

Viewing 46 posts - 1 through 46 (of 46 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #617489
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    So I just got released after 3 days of jury duty.

    Now putting aside the inefficient and frankly disrespectful way the whole thing is done (Having me come in for three days when all they needed was an hour or so of questions which could have been easily done via an online questionnaire is disrespectful in my opinion, but I digress).

    Now the way it worked is as follows they called up 18 jurors to the box at a time then the judge followed by the prosecution and the defense asked a series of questions to the panel. Sometimes generally and sometimes directed to an indivdual.

    Heres where i got confused. A recurring theme was would you follow orders even if you disagreed. For example they asked a lawyer in my group,” if you disagreed with a judge’s interpretation of the law would you put aside your own interpretation?” The lawyer said yes

    “Would you convict if you thought the law was wrong?” I was the only one who said no! I brought up Rosa PArks as an admittedly extreme example. But I’d like to think I wouldnt have convicted her. Most agreed in that case. But still said that generally speaking they would convict if they disagreed with the law or thought judge misinterpreted the law or if a translator didnt translate properly.

    One juror spoke up and said he is a school teacher and when children ask “why?” he says becasue those are the rules. The judge nodded approvingly and asked if anybody disagreed. I wanted to yell Of course I do, we arent children! We are freethinking individuals!

    Is groupthink like this a virtue? Do the lawyers no this isnt the wa normal grown ups work, and they are just looking for sheep whose minds they can meld? Or am I missing something?

    And dont get me started on this imaginary notion of pretending biases dont exist

    /end rant

    #1145314
    Avi K
    Participant

    I refer you to the articles on jury nullification in the Wikipedia and various legal websites.

    #1145315
    akuperma
    Participant

    Jurors have a right to ignore the law and acquit a person. If a teacher doesn’t know that, it suggests serious incompetence of your school district in recruiting teachers. The law used to be different (jurors would be arrested for not convicting someone), but it was changed well before American independence. While judges and lawyers often want jurors who will follow the judges instructions, it is well known that they can ignore the judge as a matter of law. If a jury wrongfully convicts, the judge can ignore the jury and acquit, but not the other way around.

    Some states (New York) have a ridiculous “voir dire” with heavy involvement by the lawyers, as opposed to others (Maryland) where the lawyers don’t get to ask any questions of prospective jurors. That could be changed easily by statute, but its up to each state.

    #1145316
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Sure I know its legal. And I didnt bring up “jury nullification” during my questioning since I had made my point without relying on “buzzwords”

    My question is is doing what your told “like schoolchildren” a good thing? Which is clearly (and literally! once the school teacher spoke up) how it was being presented by the judge and lawyers

    #1145317
    apushatayid
    Participant

    When I was called for jury duty and was empaneled for a civil case I told the lawyers who were asking the questions to find a jury , “I would vote however it was necessary to finish the case as quickly as possible”. That got me dismissed from the case pretty quickly.

    #1145318
    Joseph
    Participant

    It is halachicly impermissible to sit on a jury case between two yehudim. And it is impracticable to sit on a case with even one yehudi party, unless you will be able to judge in accordance with halacha (which is highly improbable.) By a case between two yehudim you cannot participate as a judge/juror even if you will rule in accordance with halacha.

    #1145319
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    A recurring theme was would you follow orders even if you disagreed. For example they asked a lawyer in my group,” if you disagreed with a judge’s interpretation of the law would you put aside your own interpretation?” The lawyer said yes

    In matters of Jewish law this can be a virtue, e.g., the exchange between Rabban Gamliel (the Nasi) and R’ Yehoshua over the proper date of Yom Kippur in the Mishna (2nd chapter of Rosh Hashana I think). For civil law, I don’t see how it’s a virtue.

    One juror spoke up and said he is a school teacher and when children ask “why?” he says becasue those are the rules. The judge nodded approvingly and asked if anybody disagreed. I wanted to yell Of course I do, we arent children! We are freethinking individuals!

    Why didn’t you say (or yell) that? Other people in your panel may have felt the same way you did, but perhaps nobody wanted to rock the boat. That’s part of how groupthink works.

    Is groupthink like this a virtue?

    No.

    Do the lawyers no this isnt the wa normal grown ups work, and they are just looking for sheep whose minds they can meld? Or am I missing something?

    A grownup may not work that way individually, but I think they do know that that’s how groups of people work, and so they utilize groupthink to help orchestrate the outcomes they desire. Why pose questions to a panel of potential jurors and challenge them to disagree with each other instead of interviewing each jury candidate separately?

    #1145320
    akuperma
    Participant

    Joseph: In many if not most matters in which a jury is likely to be involved, Jewish law follows the local goyim’s law under the doctrine of “Dina di-malchusa dina”. Furthermore, a jury never determines the law but only the facts (thus being a judge is a more serious shailoh, since judges actually decided cases and rule on the law).

    #1145321
    Joseph
    Participant

    akuperma: There’s several problems with what you espoused. First, dina d’malchusa does not override halacha, when halacha is different than secular law, when it pertains to matters between yehudim. Secondly, and even more important, Jews are generally prohibited from using secular courts and are obligated to rather use beis din. This prohibition is applicable even if both Jewish parties to the case agree to use secular court rather than beis din. And another Jew cannot be party to the process of other Jews violating this severe prohibition.

    Also, how the “facts” are determined in a secular court differ with how the facts are ascertained in beis din. (i.e. admissible evidence, testimony, witnesses, etc.)

    #1145322
    Ex-CTLawyer
    Participant

    CT does the jury system well.

    You are called for 1 day of duty. If you are not picked for a trial you may not be called for 3 years. At 5PM the evening before your jury date you call an automated system and may receive a message not to come in because they have enough people.

    The basics ubiquitin describes are shown in a video to all prospective jurors before panels are sent to voir dire before judge and attorneys. No wasting time hearing it more than once if you are sent to be interviewed for more than one trial.

    Jurors must follow the judges instructions as to the law when deliberating. It is not up to a juror to decide what the law means.

    Lawyers are not exempt in CT. It is frustrating when you believe you understand the meaning of the law better than the judge. BUT remember the judge’s instructions to the jury is the result of a 3 way negotiation between the judge and the attorneys on both sides. It is not a juror’s place to override this.

    #1145323
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    I think the assumption is that the judge will not have some ridiculous interpretation of the law, and that the law itself will be fair and reasonable.

    Under those assumptions, even if a juror feels his interpretation is better or that he would have written the law differently, his job is to follow the judge’s interpretation, not his own, and the actual law, not his own preferred law.

    Otherwise the whole jury system would be anarchistic.

    #1145324
    Joseph
    Participant

    The whole jury system is absurd. A bunch of drunkards who know the law as well as they know the outer galaxies and a system that mandates inclusion of even the most incompetents of society is an unjust system.

    The jurors just want to get home and away from their $40/day mandatory gig. And if issuing a verdict is getting in their way and causing them to miss their favorite TV sitcom, they’ll just render the quickest verdict rather than appropriately deliberate.

    #1145325
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    CT LAwyer

    That sounds fantastic! yet another reason to move to CT.

    What of Jury nullification. Which I understand to mean a Jury has a right to acquit a defendant even if guilty of the charged violation. I believe this right has been upheld and at times has actually been required of judges to mention to jury (though this part has often been struck down)

    Is my understanding incorrect.

    DY

    So thats what I said, being a murder case, I doubt I would differ with the law. Whent the judge asked for an example I said Id like to think I wouldnt find Rosa Parks in violation of the LAw in Alabama though she clearly was.

    Say Metzitza B’peh was deemed illegal would you find a mohel who preformed it guilty? More to my point though, would I be wrong to acquit him? Or for that matter regarding sentencing If you knew a defendent would get an excessive prison sentence for a minor crime or for something you didnt think should be a crime like marijuana possession (hypothetically). OR if somebody felt the death penalty was immoral I think it would be wrong to find a gulity person guilty and condemn to death

    (Lets leave Jospeh’s valid concern aside for my examples please)

    Avram MD

    “In matters of Jewish law this can be a virtue..”

    Not quite. The stroy with R” Gamliel is different becasue regarding Rosh Chodesh even if Beis din is wrong even intentionally, they are still followed “Atem afilu mezidim”

    Of course we have a whole mesechteh horiyos outlining when Beis din is to be disregarded. Though Their is also concern of Zekan mamre. Though I grant there are limited instances where your point is true.

    “Why didn’t you say (or yell) that?”

    I was on the fence It was partly becasue they were all so emphatic and the Judge was nodding so approvingly that I was concerned disagreeing without having ample time to explain myself, might be a chilul Hashem. And It wasnt really my platform to take the time I needed. I had already made my opinion known by that time after all.

    But maybe I should have

    #1145326
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Wow ubequitin!

    I thought you are a democrat, 😉

    #1145327
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    First of all, ubiquitin, good job on the thread.

    Briefly: MBP – My loyalty to Yiddishkeit supersedes my patriotism.

    Excessive penalty – depends how excessive.

    Marijuana – depends how strongly I felt about it.

    Death penalty: ditto.

    #1145328
    Holala
    Participant

    Ubiquitin u are 100% right

    #1145329
    akuperma
    Participant

    Joseph:

    1. While frum Jews rarely sue each other in a non-Jewish court, it does happen when a third party is involved (e.g. the insurance company in a state with “fault” insurance, or in bankruptcy when a third party assumes a claim);

    2. The American rules of evidence are very narrow, whereas in halacha the Beis Din can use any information at their disposal (we don’t have “exclusionary rules” as even when a type of evidence is not formally allowed the court can still consider it). On a jury, you are legally free to consider facts that are excluded – a good example is most jurors know that when a defendant “please the fifth” it is because he is guilty of something he doesn’t want the jury to know about, and all the “curative” instructions from the judge don’t help.

    3. If frum Jews avoid serving on juries, you can count on people we don’t like taking our places. It similar to voting – you can argue against it, but the bottom line is that’s its in our interest to serve as jurors.

    #1145330
    Avi K
    Participant

    Joseph, secular civil law can override Halacha in two instances:

    1. Commercial and labor laws have the status of minhag hamedina (Piskei Choshen, Dinei Halva’ah 2:29 note 82 and Hilchot Geneiva, chapter 1, note 4, p. 13 and Iggerot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat 1:72).

    2. A takkana for the benefit of society which the bet din would have made if it had the power (Rama C.M. 73:14, Chatam Sofer Teshuvot Chatam Sofer C.M. 44, Teshuvot Imrei Yosher 2:252:2, Teshuvot Doveiv Meisharim 77, Iggerot Moshe C.M. 2:62) and Kitvei HaGaon Rav Y.E. Henkin 2:96 but see Shach C.M. 73:39 who disagrees).

    While, of course, l’chatchila the litigation should be in a competent bet din if there are three frum Jews on the jury it might be muttar b’diavad as the litigants agreed to be judged by them. Whether a non-frum Jew can count as one of the “shepherds” is another question.

    #1145331
    Joseph
    Participant

    Both litigants did not agree to be adjudicated by them. Once the plaintiff files the lawsuit, the defendent hasn’t a choice but to respond to the secular court.

    #1145332
    lesschumras
    Participant

    Akuperma, then why are the Satmar brothers in Civil court?

    #1145333
    Avi K
    Participant

    Joseph, I was referring to the jurors. Both litigants agreed on the jurors. The defendant could have requested a non-jury trial. He could also have requested ADR. In some jurisdictions the judge can direct the parties to a court or court-approved provider.

    #1145334
    Joseph
    Participant

    Avi, 1) A plaintiff has the right to a jury trial even if the defendant wants a non-jury trial. 2) A non-jury trial isn’t any better halachicly than a jury trial. 3) The plaintiff can utilize the courts even if the defendant would rather an ADR. 4) Even if both litigants agreed to use the secular courts, it is still generally assur to do so and they must use a beis din.

    #1145335
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Akuperma, then why are the Satmar brothers in Civil court?

    I don’t understand your question; he said it’s rare, not impossible.

    Also, one of them is there because he was sued and has no choice.

    #1145336
    Avi K
    Participant

    Joseph,

    1. Whether there is a right to a jury trial in a civil case depends on the state and the case. The judge generally has wide latitude.

    2. True. However, we are tlking about a b’diavad situation.

    3. Again, it depends. Soemtimes the court can order ADR.

    4. See #2.

    5. See the article “Jury Service in Halachah” on the website “dinonline”.

    #1145337
    lesschumras
    Participant

    DY, it’s a cynical Kal v’chomer. If it’s not Assur for them to go to civil court ……..

    #1145338
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Who said it isn’t? Maybe it is (and again it’s still unfair to blame both) and maybe he got a psak that extenuating circumstances allowed it. Do I know? Do you know?

    And why did it get into this thread?

    #1145339
    Ex-CTLawyer
    Participant

    akuperma………..

    “1. While frum Jews rarely sue each other in a non-Jewish court, it does happen when a third party is involved (e.g. the insurance company in a state with “fault” insurance, or in bankruptcy when a third party assumes a claim);”

    Actually, I have found in my years of practice that when there are frum Jews on both the Plaintiff and Defendant sides of the courtroom, it is NOT one frum Jew suing another Frum Jew, but one or both parties in the lawsuit are actually corporations. The frum Jews tend to either be principals in the corporations or agents for the corporation.

    While individual Jews suing another Jew are supposed to make use of the Beis din, corporations are not necessarily bound to do so.

    In divorce work, I recommend a beis din when both husband and wife are Jewish, and then have the secular court ratify the decision/agreement of the BD. I feel no obligation to force use of a BD when a Jew is suing a corporation that may be owned (in part or full) by a Jew(s).

    #1145340
    Joseph
    Participant

    CTL: Halacha doesn’t recognize the concept of a corporation as being a unique person different than its principal. If the corporation is fully owned by a Jew or Jews, it would have the same halachic obligation as a Jew or Jews would have. (It is a trickier question when it is only partially owned by Jews.)

    #1145341
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    Though I grant there are limited instances where your point is true.

    ??? ???? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????????

    I think the “limited instances” are where the point is not true.

    I was on the fence It was partly becasue they were all so emphatic and the Judge was nodding so approvingly that I was concerned disagreeing without having ample time to explain myself, might be a chilul Hashem. And It wasnt really my platform to take the time I needed. I had already made my opinion known by that time after all.

    But maybe I should have

    That is how groupthink works.

    #1145342
    Avi K
    Participant

    Joseph, that is a big discussion about which much ink has been spilled. If you want to be machmir you cannot own shares in any corporation that operate on Shabbat or pays or receives interest. If you own shares in a corporation that owns chametz you must include them in your pre-Pesach sale. Non-kosher food is also a problem as one may not conduct business with them on a regular basis. Meat cooked in milk is completely out. If you want to be really machmir you will not invest in a pension fund or insurance policy where the fund invests in such companies.

    #1145343
    Joseph
    Participant

    Avi, I specifically specified an all-Jewishly owned corporation and specifically excluded a partially Jewish owned corporation. Your comment is pertinent to a mixed Jewish/Gentile owned corporation. An all Jewishly owned corporation is surely prohibited from the activities you cited.

    #1145344
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Hobby Lobby also considers the corporation as an extension of its owners.

    #1145345
    Avi K
    Participant

    Joseph, regarding closely held corporations you are almost certainly right. It does seem anomalous to allow Jews to exempt themselves from prohibitions just by declaring themselves a corporation. However, if it is a public corporation whose present shareholders are all Jewish but might not be in the near future it gets sticky. What about a huge corporation whose CEO is Jewish (as was DuPont when Irving S. Shapiro headed it)? It would seem that he is no different than any Jew who works for a gentile.

    Gavra, Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation and this was he basis of SCOTUS’ decision.

    #1145346
    nfgo3
    Member

    To the opening poster: One thing you are missing is an indication of where you were serving your jury duty. In many counties of New York State, the current system is radically better than it was 10 or more years ago, with far less time wasted than under earlier procedures. Jury duty is generally admittedly an inconvenience, but it is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, and there is probably not a better one in civil societies.

    #1145347
    Joseph
    Participant

    A better one would have a panel of judges, learned in law, judge the case, rather than a panel of laymen unlearned, potentially homeless or alcoholics jurors being paid $40/day wanting nothing more than to be done with it the sooner the better. And if a quick guilty verdict helps them not miss their favorite TV sitcom or finally get back to their $9/hour construction job instead of this involuntary $5/hour court service, render the verdict ASAP is what they’ll do, justice be darned.

    #1145348
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    nfgo3

    I served in NY.

    I dont care how much time used to be wasted. The bottom line is I had to take off 3 days of work for a question session that took all of an hour and could have been done online!

    However upon further reflection, there is a reason for this. The Judge and lawyers want sheep as jury. Sheep that dont have their own opinions, sense of right and wrong and that can be controlled (The judge in this case practically said this)

    What better way to turn people into sheep than have them wait around for a day send them home have them come back the next day lots of standing around, lining etc etc until finally a few at a time are addressed.

    you say

    “and there is probably not a better one in civil societies.”

    What makes you say this? The crime rate is higher than many civil societies, the incarceration rate is higher? In what was is our way better?

    I have to say I agree with Joseph

    Avram

    “I think the “limited instances” are where the point is not true.”

    so if My Rav says Chazir is Kosher I can eat it?

    If he says Johns’ cakes are kosher not knowing that they contain lard (but I know) can I eat it?

    #1145349
    nfgo3
    Member

    Re Ubiquitin’s comment beginning “nfgo/I served in New York ….” Your proposal to do some screening of jurors on line is interesting, and maybe it will be tried in the future.

    Re Joseph’s comment beginning “A better world ….” Your proposal assumes that permanent panels of judges have more integrity than non-permanent panels of non-judge civilians. Yes, there are a few drunks and jerks among the general population, but overall, I think civilian jurors/fact-finders work better than politically appointed “judges” who, incidentally, have their own shares of drunks and jerks, not to mention crooks. Watch the sentencing of Skelos, for example.

    #1145350
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    so if My Rav says Chazir is Kosher I can eat it?

    No. And that would be an example of a limited instance where the point is not true. And that rabbi would likely be out of a job by the end of the day.

    If he says Johns’ cakes are kosher not knowing that they contain lard (but I know) can I eat it?

    No. And that would be another example of a limited instance where the point is not true. And that rabbi also would likely be out of a job by the end of the day.

    How do these extreme and thus limited examples contradict what I wrote? Or do rabbis in your community routinely tell people that pork is kosher and rule that foods are kosher without first knowing their ingredients?

    #1145351
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram, im sorry Im not sure what we are disagreeing about.

    In Yisdishkeit if you know that a Rav is making a mistake it is assur to follow his wrong psak (see maseches Horiyos).

    Lehavdil, In the legal system if a law is wrong or you believe a judge is interpreting it incorrectly I maintain you shouldnt follow.

    Are you saying it is less common in Halacha? Or that there is no such thing as a “law being wrong: ” in halacah Sure I have no problem with that

    Nfgo3

    Know that will never be implemented. A simpler solution is to just have those that can be processed in a given day come in. Say a judge/lawyer can screen 100 jurors a day there is no reason for 200 to come in with 100 just staring into space. However I have come to realize that this is done to dehumanise them and turn them into sheep

    #1145352
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    Avram, im sorry Im not sure what we are disagreeing about.

    An outline of how I perceived our conversation.

    1. In your OP, you implied that to subsume one’s opinion in favor of an authority’s was wrong. This might not be an accurate interpretation of your position – see below.

    2. I replied that, in matters of Jewish law, sometimes this can be a virtue.

    3. You seemed to disagree with that, and argued that such cases were rare. Thus Jewish law encourages disagreement with judges/beis din/rabbis if you feel your interpretation of the law is better.

    4. I replied again, stating my opinion that it was the cases where disagreement with judges/beis din/rabbis is good are rare.

    5. You responded to this with examples that would be very rare in Orthodox society, which I feel does not contradict my response in number 4.

    In Yisdishkeit if you know that a Rav is making a mistake it is assur to follow his wrong psak (see maseches Horiyos).

    This might be why there is confusion as to what the disagreement is. When you said – For example they asked a lawyer in my group,” if you disagreed with a judge’s interpretation of the law would you put aside your own interpretation?” The lawyer said yes – I didn’t see this as a case where the judge was fundamentally wrong because he didn’t have all of the facts/was biased/was stupid, etc. But a case where there are two valid arguments and the judge and lawyer take opposite sides of the issue.

    Lehavdil, In the legal system if a law is wrong or you believe a judge is interpreting it incorrectly I maintain you shouldnt follow.

    As you stated, a “wrong” law wouldn’t exist within halacha. As far as interpret incorrectly; that word didn’t appear in the judge’s question to the lawyer. What would your response be if “incorrect” were replaced with “different”?

    #1145353
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram

    “You seemed to disagree with that, and argued that such cases were rare. Thus Jewish law encourages disagreement with judges/beis din/rabbis if you feel your interpretation of the law is better.”

    sorry, I didnt mean that at all. I’m sorry if it cam out that way.

    “I didn’t see this as a case where the judge was fundamentally wrong because he didn’t have all of the facts/was biased/was stupid, etc. But a case where there are two valid arguments and the judge and lawyer take opposite sides of the issue.”

    I meant it where the Lawyer was convinced the judge had it wrong. Much like IF a Rav where to say Chazir was kosher.

    The example you provided regarding R” Gamliel is a rare exception to the above. Where even if “wrong” beis din and beis din alone has authority over Kiddush hachodesh, even if wrong, and even if intentionaly wrong “Atem afilu mezidin”

    Now none of this is black and white. I’m not saying that all lawss should be disregarded and jurys should completyl disregard everything a judge says. It was more a pattern that was clear where the lawyers/judges did not want informed opinions/or decisions rather ones they can manipulate.

    I’ll elaborate on another example that I earl;ier gave passing refrence too.

    Witnesses in the case where foreing speaking. LEts say Swahili. There was aSwahili speaking indivdual in the group. He was cautioned not to pay attention to the Swahili speaking witnesses therby “translating” for himself. but rather to only listent o the translator’s translation of the witness.

    #1145354
    Avi K
    Participant

    In some jurisdictions people can volunteer for jury duty. Often they are retirees who find it a good way to spend their free time. Some of them are quite knowledgeable as they come to the courthouse regularly to watch trials.

    As for what jurors lawyers seek, it depends on the case. For example, lawyers defending members of minority groups often seek young college-educated jurors as they are presumed to be more liberal. Of course, the prosecutor can reject them but each side only gets a certain number of rejections that are not for cause.

    #1145355
    BarryLS1
    Participant

    Defense attorneys don’t want people who can think for themselves. The last time I was on Jury Duty, 10 of us were called up to the Judge. One clueless woman was the only one chosen for the Jury. The Defense Attorney knocked out everyone else.

    He asked me, ” Do you have a problem with people running around in the streets with guns?” I answered, “I have a problem with criminals running around the streets with guns, don’t you?” Seems like a reasonable answer to me, but he knocked me out. At least it was only one wasted day, not three.

    edited

    #1145356
    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    sorry, I didnt mean that at all. I’m sorry if it cam out that way.

    I meant it where the Lawyer was convinced the judge had it wrong. Much like IF a Rav where to say Chazir was kosher.

    Ok, I get it now.

    Witnesses in the case where foreing speaking. LEts say Swahili. There was aSwahili speaking indivdual in the group. He was cautioned not to pay attention to the Swahili speaking witnesses therby “translating” for himself. but rather to only listent o the translator’s translation of the witness.

    Wow, crazy. I have served as a juror, and I know that sometimes something gets said that is objected to, and the jurors are later asked to disregard it, but to tell a juror that s/he must listen only to a translation seems extreme. I guess the opposing attorney can make sure there’s another Swahili speaker who can catch mistranslations and raise an objection.

    #1145357
    Avi K
    Participant

    Ubiquitin, why didn’t the other lawyer object to the instruction and if overruled use it as a ground for appeal?

    Barry, maybe he felt that you were personally hostile to him. If not, he may have wasted one of his peremptory challenges. BTW, a lawyer may not use them to exclude a jurors based on race, ethnicity, or sex (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)). Thus, the opposing lawyer can issue a “Batson challenge” to the jury. If this goes the way of general anti-discrimination laws expect this to develop into a whole megilla.

    #1145358
    BarryLS1
    Participant

    Avi K: I didn’t say it in a hostile way. I think my background worried him more than my remark. Only thing is, I would never, ever want to convict someone who is innocent. My guess is that he knew his client was far from that.

Viewing 46 posts - 1 through 46 (of 46 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.