Do you think "The system works"? US trials.

[marginal prophet]

I don't see that it works at all.
I think it's worse than ever and getting worse every year.
I think it's worse than other countires.
And it's certainly worse than we deserve.

Trials seem to take forever to get into court. Compare trials in prior decades and in other western countries today.
The promise of a speedy trial is never invoked. Every single defense attorney requires you to cede that before proceding. Not to your advantage, but his.
The trials are getting less fair at every stage. Random jury selection was considered open to bias, so now we have jury shopping which is more open to bias. Often the outcome depends on getting a key juror on or off the list.

Or am I wrong?

[jsgoddess]

And it's certainly worse than we deserve.


Pff. We get the government we deserve, all aspects of it.

[Hamlet]

I don't see that it works at all.
I think it's worse than ever and getting worse every year.
I think it's worse than other countires.
And it's certainly worse than we deserve.

Trials seem to take forever to get into court. Compare trials in prior decades and in other western countries today.
The promise of a speedy trial is never invoked. Every single defense attorney requires you to cede that before proceding. Not to your advantage, but his.
The trials are getting less fair at every stage. Random jury selection was considered open to bias, so now we have jury shopping which is more open to bias. Often the outcome depends on getting a key juror on or off the list.

Or am I wrong?You're wrong, but I'd love to see a cite for your statements.

[gonzomax]

O.J. thinks so.Robert Blake thinks so.The best legal system that money can buy .How many poor people have been executed for murders they did not commit.

[Wesley Clark]

90-98% of cases are plea bargained so it doesn't really matter much anyway.

The defense taking time to get to trial is just to prepare, so that is in the benefit of the defendant.

[Valgard]

About two months ago I served on a jury in Federal court. Based on what I saw and experienced I have much more faith in the jury system than I did before. I can go into detail if you'd like.

I think that you've really got to tell us exactly what you think is wrong with "the system" before we can have an informed debate.

[sctrojan]

I think that you've really got to tell us exactly what you think is wrong with "the system" before we can have an informed debate.[/QUOTE]

I have watched this thread to see how it might develop. I taught Trial Practice for nearly forty years so I have some very strong opinions about the system. I did not respond to the first post because it did not identify enough of the perceived problem. For example, the difference between civil and criminal trials is so great that a generalization about one is irrelevant to the other. My guess is that the intended subject is criminal trials.

Before beginnig a critique of criminal trials, be honest with yourself. Do you believe that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person be convicted? This expression of innocent until proven guilty is at the heart of the matter.

For selfish reasons--my desire to read more about how people feel about the trial system, for example--I hope the thread continues to attract attention.

So let's narrow the topic and let's have a go at it.

[Wesley Clark]

About two months ago I served on a jury in Federal court. Based on what I saw and experienced I have much more faith in the jury system than I did before. I can go into detail if you'd like.

I think that you've really got to tell us exactly what you think is wrong with "the system" before we can have an informed debate.

I'd be happy to hear it.

[kelly5078]

Pff. We get the government we deserve, all aspects of it.What does this even mean? Who is deciding what we deserve, then assigning governments accordingly? Some years we're good, but a bit muddled, so we get Jimmy Carter, while others we deserve a bull-headed moron? Some years we deserve a legal abortion, others we don't? Some years we deserve to smoke in a restaurant, but otheres we don't? WTF?? And how about those Darfur guys in Sudan. They must be a bunch of real assholes to deserve a government like that.

Answer to the OP: no, it doesn't work, at least on the criminal side. My family has had experience with it. It's slow, deadly slow. It's overly punitive (judges tend to be ex-prosecutors, which doesn't help). Prosecutors get to sit in the catbird seat. Poor people get inadequate representation. Grand juries are a rubber stamp. The police lie like rugs. People end up settling on things they never even did, for fear of a worse outcome from a trial. Juries are capricious, judges more so. It's all about fear and control, not about justice. I hate the legal system with all my being, and hope to hell never to get near it again.

[ralph124c]

My criticisms of the system are these:
-the trial process is usually very slow
-the procedures are drawn out because of the averserail system
-it is difficult 9as a juror0 to sit on truals lasting more than 2-3 weeks-it gets very hard to remember fine points
-it is expensive 9lawyers charge up to $500/hour)
Would it be better to have trials decided by panels of judges? I don't know.

[Valgard]

I'd be happy to hear it.

Happy to oblige. Pardon me if this is a little long.

The case was a man charged with multiple counts of possession w/intent to distribute cocaine, a conspiracy charge to distribute cocaine, and a special circumstance of an amount over 5kg of cocaine. The events took place about 8 years ago. Evidence consisted mostly of lots of video surveillance by the DEA and testimony by the defendant's former supplier, now serving time in jail for dealing cocaine.

It took a day for jury selection. People were very honest and upfront about their feelings and circumstances. The judge and both sets of attorneys were very polite. We went through something like 60+ people to get 12+2 alternates. Most of the people excused were excused for very good reasons (one lady had obvious trouble understanding English, another person had just lost his job, is the sole support for his three kids and had to cancel an interview just to show up on day 1, that sort of thing). There were a few peremptory challenges by both sides that shed a bit of light on what they might think makes a juror sympathetic to their side - for example I favor legalizing drugs, but I said that I'd enforce the laws as they are now written. The DEA was fine with that as was the defense. Another lady is married to an attorney and has very strong feelings against drug dealers, but when questioned said that she could put aside her personal feelings and decide based on the evidence presented.

I'll also mention that the only black person who was called up for voi dire was immediately excused by the defense (defendant is also black) - as soon as she sat down the defendant spoke to his attorney and the attorney used his next peremptory to excuse her.

Compared to what we've all seen on TV and in movies there was little if any drama during the trial. Everyone was calm. Jurors are allowed to take notes, which we all did.

We were under strict orders not to discuss the case in any way unless it was the entire jury pool speaking in private. Any questions had to be written down, signed and handed to the court clerk. We were very scrupulous about following the rules laid down to ensure a fair trial.

Deliberation took us several days. We had a number of questions about the laws and crimes in question, wanted to review a lot of evidence ("The jury would like to listen to call #7 again and replay the video from Friday April 9th") and so forth. Everyone took things very seriously and we were not flippant in our deliberations - we were all very conscious that we were determining the fate of another person. Probably by dint of not being afraid to speak in public I was voted in as foreman by my fellow jurors which meant I had to keep things on track and got to sign all the little bits of paper ("The jurors will break for lunch from 12:07pm-1:07pm").

There were two counts of possession that we had little trouble reaching a verdict on quickly (the videos, phone taps and eyewitness testimony all backed each other up) and two others that took much longer. I don't recall any spurious arguments ("He just looks guilty" or "I hate drugs so let's just lock this guy up"), we kept on track and everybody expressed their thoughts, talked about how they arrived at their conclusions and so forth. The concepts of "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Beyond a reasonable doubt" stayed uppermost in our minds - several people (including myself) were really sure that the defendant was in fact guilty of two of the counts but not beyond a reasonable doubt and on that basis we found him not guilty of one possession charge, guilty of the conspiracy charge and voted "No" on the special circumstance (over 5kg of cocaine). Verdicts noted down and passed back to the clerk. Before we were called back into the courtroom for our verdicts to be read we were all pretty quiet - even when you have found someone guilty and it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" it is still uncomfortable to sit in judgement of another person.

Hearing our verdicts read and having to individually state that these were our decisions was tough - several jurors cried and it was hard to see the defendant's wife crying and taking their little daughter out of the courtroom.

I felt then, and still feel now, that if I was charged with a crime I would feel very comfortable having a group such as I served with judging my guilt or innocence. Everyone was intelligent, reasonable, behaved themselves and showed huge respect for the rules and the law. No drama in the jury room.

After we had been excused the court clerk asked us to remain in the hallway so that the DEA attorneys could speak to us (evidently not unusual for either or both sides to want to talk to the jury, see how they arrived at their verdicts, what helped or hurt the process). Some things that we found out included:

1. Reason the case took 8 years to get to court was that the defendant had been on the run from the law. He had recently been caught living in Las Vegas under a different name and he changed identies several times. That was not allowed to be mentioned in court.

2. We had incorrectly interpreted part of the conspiracy charge - that would have led to us finding the defendant guilty including the special circumstance (which I assume would have substantially increased his jail time). I note this because we did in fact ask several questions to the court regarding how the conspiracy charge works and what evidence is considered how, but there was a small point that wasn't brought up in our deliberations which would have changed how we viewed certain things.

I left feeling that I had done my job well, as we all had. "The system" that I saw looked like it worked well and we were not a jury of dimwits or "people too stupid to get out of jury duty" (the next time I hear that I'll have a few choice words to say). I don't feel "good" in the sense of boy that was fun, but we did our civic duty and it's a critical part of our justice system so I feel proud to have served.

Juries are capricious, judges more so.

I'm sorry that you had that experience. Neither the judge nor jury showed any signs of such behavior in the case I was involved in.

Happy to discuss even more details if anyone wants to hear them.

[sctrojan]

In my last post, I asked for specificity. OK I got some specificity. The concerns are many and all are important. Let me try only one of them for starters. Trials, after the gavel drops, take too long and demand the impossible from jurors.

The evidence clearly supports this indictment. It has been so for a long time—too long. There are causes. There are causes for everything that is wrong. So let’s forget the causes and assay a possible remedy.

Anyone who has seen a trial or participated in one knows that the use of jurors’ time is incredibly inefficient. They sit in the jury box or the jury room for countless hours while the lawyers and the judge have side-bar conferences. They hear damaging “evidence”, which, after a side-bar conference, is determined to be inadmissible. To avoid a mistrial, which would involve even more time, the jurors are instructed to forget what they have just heard. (There are hundreds of examples.)

A proposed solution--have the presentation to the jury by way of a closely edited recording. All matters that the jury should not experience (including inadmissible evidence and side-bar conferences) would be edited out of the recording.

Improvements involve trade offs. What do you think will be lost and what will be gained if the proposal is implemented.

[Lissa]

What does this even mean? Who is deciding what we deserve, then assigning governments accordingly? Some years we're good, but a bit muddled, so we get Jimmy Carter, while others we deserve a bull-headed moron? Some years we deserve a legal abortion, others we don't? Some years we deserve to smoke in a restaurant, but otheres we don't? WTF?? And how about those Darfur guys in Sudan. They must be a bunch of real assholes to deserve a government like that.

The heart of that statement is that we are responsible for the government we elect, and must bear the results of voter apathy and uninformed choices. If we allow emotion and knee-jerk reactions to the Moral Panic of the Week to decide which officials we put into office, we must live with the consequences.

We've gotten this government because we don't care. We don't care what happens in the rest of the world as long as we have cheap gasoline and cable TV. We don't care about the long-term ramifications of our actions-- let the future deal with it. We don't care about the rights of minority groups because it doesn't affect the majority of us. We don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us because we KNOW we're the best, glory glory Hallelujah!

I am not familiar with Darfur politics, so I don't know if the people voted for the leaders who caused the genocide, but methinks they can't be blamed for their government the same way the apathetic American voter can.

[kelly5078]

Lissa: No, sorry, I'm not buying it. I'll grant that voter apathy is a bad thing. On the other hand, I've got news for you, the ballot box is only part of the way this country is run. There are a lot of people running around with a lot of power who have never had their name on any ballot. There are a lot of people who've been on the ballot, and got in office because they're excellent liars. There are a lot of elected and unelected officials taking money (and football tickets and junkets and so on) and voting against the best interests of the country. Damned if I can see how I "deserve" any of that.

[KidScruffy]

Every single defense attorney requires you to cede that before proceding. Not to your advantage, but his.
I think all generalizations are bad. Always.

Valgard - thanks for sharing your experience.

oslagle - it seems like some of the gravitas of a trial would be lost to the jurors if they are watching it on TV. Also, what would the camera be trained on? Isn't anything relevant revealed by something else going on at the same time as a witness' testimony? And I feel like I'd have a harder time weighing the accuracy or honesty of a witness by watching them on TV rather than in person, but having never been a juror I'm not sure.
My initial response is that too much would be lost by having juries watch the trial on TV (much as I'm against closed-circuit testimony of child witnesses - although that's different in many ways), but I'm certainly no expert (having little experience in a courtroom).

--KidScruffy

[Valgard]

In my last post, I asked for specificity. OK I got some specificity. The concerns are many and all are important. Let me try only one of them for starters. Trials, after the gavel drops, take too long and demand the impossible from jurors.

The evidence clearly supports this indictment. It has been so for a long time—too long. There are causes. There are causes for everything that is wrong. So let’s forget the causes and assay a possible remedy.

Anyone who has seen a trial or participated in one knows that the use of jurors’ time is incredibly inefficient. They sit in the jury box or the jury room for countless hours while the lawyers and the judge have side-bar conferences. They hear damaging “evidence”, which, after a side-bar conference, is determined to be inadmissible. To avoid a mistrial, which would involve even more time, the jurors are instructed to forget what they have just heard. (There are hundreds of examples.)

Well I'm not saying that that doesn't happen, and I know that my personal experience doesn't mean that's how it works everywhere, but based on what I went through I wouldn't agree with this characterization. There were one or two sidebars (including one during voi dire!) but they were over with very quickly - maybe 15 minutes total during the course of the trial. We were never told to "forget what you just heard" although we were cautioned both before and after the trial to only consider what was introduced as evidence in the courtroom. We were not allowed to consider anything else and during our deliberations we kept that in mind (for example we all noted that the defendant never took the stand or even said an audible word, but that is not evidence and it's not up to the defendant to take any action - the prosecution bears to sole responsibility of proving guilt). The hours that we spent in the jury box were spent listening to evidence; whatever legal wrangling was done by the court was done while we were out of the room.

I admit that it took a while but I consider it my civic duty to participate, as did everyone else. It's not like we were overjoyed at the prospect of missing a couple weeks from our jobs but we all quickly recognized that this is what is necessary to keep the trial by jury system working, and we had to sit for this case in order to ensure that when one of us (or a friend or relative) is on trial they get the same fair treatment.

What do you think are the "impossible demands" being placed upon jurors?

[Valgard]

Lissa and Kelly, it looks like the discussion is veering off the OP a bit, from debating our trial system into a general discourse on voter apathy and governmental corruption. Just my two cents :-)

[kelly5078]

Lissa and Kelly, it looks like the discussion is veering off the OP a bitIt's possible.

The OP is a very emotional issue for me, and I guess I got carried away with Lissa's hijack, which is also emotional for me, but not as much as the first.

The excuse we have for a legal system screwed the hell out me and my family for about 13 months, and to the tune of tens of thousands of $$$. They essentially tried to ruin my son's life over something that amounted to nothing. They tacked on more accusations for things he hadn't done. I had to rescue a kid who had done absolutely nothing, but was in jail anyway for three months, which cost me more $$$ (and I didn't even know the kid; I just knew the injustice being done). So sorry if I get a little excited, but I have no damned use for it, and I don't feel I deserve it.

[kelly5078]

Sorry, jsgoddess's hijack.

Appreciate Lissa's point of view, even if I think it's a bit naive, so need for the pit.

[kelly5078]

Try again: I appreciate Lissa's point of view, even if I think it's a bit naive, so no need for the pit. Jeez, I need to get some rest.

[Lissa]

Lissa: No, sorry, I'm not buying it. I'll grant that voter apathy is a bad thing. On the other hand, I've got news for you, the ballot box is only part of the way this country is run. There are a lot of people running around with a lot of power who have never had their name on any ballot.

Many of them were appointed by officials who were voted into office. My husband is one of those people. He was appointed to his position by the director of corrections for our state, who in turn was appointed by the governor.

There are a lot of people who've been on the ballot, and got in office because they're excellent liars.

Again, that's entirely the fault of the voters. Anyone with access to the internet, newspapers or a library can research the candidates running for office, and most of them are not all that clever. There's plenty of info on their misdeeds if one cares to look for it. However, most Americans actually prefer to be lied to as opposed to facing some unpleasant truths.

There are a lot of elected and unelected officials taking money (and football tickets and junkets and so on) and voting against the best interests of the country.

This isn't a big secret. All you have to do is pull up the candidate's disclosure forms. However, everyone's equally guilty. Taking gifts is as much a part of the American political tradition as kissing babies and wearing flag pins. As for voting against the true best interests of the country-- of course. If the voters want it, by god, they'll get it.

Step One in politics: Find a "problem" and make people afraid of it.
Step Two: Announce that you have legislation to solve it. (By the time people figure out what a bad idea it was, you'll be past your term limit anyway.)
Step Three: Incredible profit.

Damned if I can see how I "deserve" any of that.

Sure you do. I do, too. We all do. We know there's a problem, but what have we done to change things? Me, I'm too busy and lazy to do much more than bitch about it. I vote for what I think is the lesser of two evils, write to my politicians about issues I care about and try to educate the people around me without driving them batshit. That's about it. I'm not willing to run for office myself, or dedicate my life to trying to make people see what a fucked-up situation we're in. Hell, I don't even volunteer to help candidates with whose views I agree.

Sorry to say, but we're stuck with what system we've got. The same group of political elites will continue to shuffle the power positions between them, always careful to appear different enough to give the voters the illusion of choice. The mood of America will always swing like a pendulum: a period of conservatism followed by a period of liberalism, and the more intense the fervor, the more intense the backlash. Politicians will always be there to encourage the fervor and Moral Panics, sidestepping neatly the results of their efforts to "solve" the "problems", smiling benignly when the next crop comes along vowing change.

Thus will it ever be. Why? Because we're too fat and happy to get really worked up about anything. Even the poorest American is rich beyond the wildest dreams of those in Third World nations. Revolutions and massive changes only happen when the people are hungry and scared. We're neither. We enjoy getting worked up over the Moral Panic of the week, much the way going to a scary movie is enjoyable, but we know that our lives are comfortable and secure. We have the freedom to scuttle about in our daily lives pretty much however we please, and a few violations of civil rights here and there don't seem to be that big of a deal when they're not happening to us.

I'm a part of it, too. I buy cheap products knowing full-well that they were made by the exploited hands of third world workers in deplorable condidtions. I waste food, power, water, paper and gasoline with impunity, 'cause it's my God-given right as an American to be wasteful. I vote knowing my politicians work to keep those resources coming because they realize that as long as we have Dollar Menu french fries and a hot button issue to keep us distracted, all will be well in the land of the free.

Americans don't WANT change. They want to keep a lifestyle that consumes more of the world's resources than any other nation, and they want politicians who make promises to make things even better. They don't want a sour-puss who warns what consequences our hedonism may have in the future, and they sure as fuck don't want to actually sit down and think about all of the complicated aspects of social problems when it's easier to find someone to blame and a quick-and-easy solution to it so they can shrug it off and get back to watching Survivor.

Yeah, we're getting what we deserve, and what's more, we don't care.

[Lissa]

Lissa and Kelly, it looks like the discussion is veering off the OP a bit, from debating our trial system into a general discourse on voter apathy and governmental corruption. Just my two cents :-)

Yeah, sorry. I tend to do that.

[Northern Piper]

Trials seem to take forever to get into court. Compare trials in prior decades and in other western countries today.
The promise of a speedy trial is never invoked. Every single defense attorney requires you to cede that before proceding. Not to your advantage, but his.A defence lawyer needs time to review your case, to review the evidence disclosed by the prosecution, and to review the law, if there are any unusual points. All of that takes time.

As well, most defence lawyers have a number of clients simultaneously. If you go to the lawyer of your choice, and that lawyer says that he's got 15 trials in the pipeline right now, that will slow down your court date. You could try to find a lawyer who's not busy, but there's usually a reason why a lawyer isn't busy....

If you have the money to hire a defence lawyer to represent you exclusively, that might speed the matter up, but that's not a factor within the control of the defence lawyer.

Plus, "speedy trial" is relative. What is a reasonable time for a simple assault with only a couple of witnesses to come to trial? How about the Enron frauds? A year long lag for the simple assault may not be a reasonable time, but a year long lag for Enron might be seen as a bit rushed.

[sctrojan]

An apparent intractable problem with our system of trials is that delay is to the advantage of one or both of the parties. It is assumed that delay advantages the defendant more often than the prosecution. Witnesses move, die, etc. Witness’s memories deteriorate. To this party, frequently advantaged by a delay, the system gives the right to demand a speedy trial. It doesn’t work and it won’t work.

[FisherQueen]

Things go wrong- things will inevitably go wrong in any system as large as our American legal system. But in general, I think our system is sound, and the problems that need to be fixed are things that will make the system work the way it's intended to work by design-- not things that actually change the design of the system.

[Kalhoun]

An apparent intractable problem with our system of trials is that delay is to the advantage of one or both of the parties. It is assumed that delay advantages the defendant more often than the prosecution. Witnesses move, die, etc. Witness’s memories deteriorate. To this party, frequently advantaged by a delay, the system gives the right to demand a speedy trial. It doesn’t work and it won’t work.
I don't mind delays when you're talking about imprisonment or life/death situations. I think the facts need to be as close to precise as you can possibly get. But when a person drags out a divorce or another money-related case, it is maddening. They're in there trying to piss someone off or get something they aren't entitled to, and the rest of us get caught up in the fallout.

It also pisses me off that MONEY gets you better representation, particularly in life/death/incarceration situations. I don't know what the answer is, but it is a huge problem.

[New Iskander]

Answer to the OP: no, it doesn't work, at least on the criminal side. My family has had experience with it. It's slow, deadly slow. It's overly punitive (judges tend to be ex-prosecutors, which doesn't help). Prosecutors get to sit in the catbird seat. Poor people get inadequate representation. Grand juries are a rubber stamp. The police lie like rugs. People end up settling on things they never even did, for fear of a worse outcome from a trial. Juries are capricious, judges more so. It's all about fear and control, not about justice.And yet some people demand granting the right to a 'fair trial' in US courts to all persons detained by US military in the Middle East.

We better fix all those things you listed before we do that. Or we risk to make complete fools of ourselves once again.

[Ghanima]

I don't think there's any real justice in our justice system. Of course justice is subjective so that makes it difficult to judge. However, it seems to me that in our effort to be "fair" and "objective" we really lose sight of the true purpose behind law and punishment. I think people who are inherently a detriment to our society are regularly let off the hook due to some technicality or other.
My boyfriend was recently on a jury that let a man go who was a hardcore drug addict who shot a man several times. Why? Because they couldn't prove that he "intended" to kill the guy. :rolleyes: So now this guy's kids and neighbors are all vulnerable to this psycho's next outburst. Where's the justice for all of those people?

[pravnik]

My boyfriend was recently on a jury that let a man go who was a hardcore drug addict who shot a man several times. Why? Because they couldn't prove that he "intended" to kill the guy. :rolleyes: So now this guy's kids and neighbors are all vulnerable to this psycho's next outburst. Where's the justice for all of those people?Wait...he was on the jury and he's complaining that "the jury" let the guy go? :confused:

[pravnik]

Anyone who has seen a trial or participated in one knows that the use of jurors’ time is incredibly inefficient. They sit in the jury box or the jury room for countless hours while the lawyers and the judge have side-bar conferences. They hear damaging “evidence”, which, after a side-bar conference, is determined to be inadmissible. To avoid a mistrial, which would involve even more time, the jurors are instructed to forget what they have just heard. (There are hundreds of examples.)

A proposed solution--have the presentation to the jury by way of a closely edited recording. All matters that the jury should not experience (including inadmissible evidence and side-bar conferences) would be edited out of the recording.

Improvements involve trade offs. What do you think will be lost and what will be gained if the proposal is implemented.Well, to begin with I'd argue that any inefficient use of time is hugely outweighed by the inefficiencies of debating points endlessly on appeal and retrying cases over and over and over. It's not just the jury's time that's being balanced, it's the integrity of the system and judicial and prosecutorial resources.

Other than that, lawyers try to clear these matters up ahead of time by having pretrial determinations of admissabilty and motions in limine as much as possible. Are you proposing that the court have a trial, videotape it, have it professionally edited to the satisfaction of all parties, have the lawyers (or judge, in federal court) select the jury, and then show the edited tape to the jurors with all parties present to endure no juror misconduct during the viewing?

[Elendil's Heir]

Yes, I do think the system works - sometimes poorly, sometimes too slowly, I'll admit, but overall surprisingly well, considering the many demands placed upon it and the volume of both criminal and civil dockets these days.

In my experience, continuances are requested by both prosecutors and defense counsel for reasons they think proper. A court is always free to deny a request for a continuance where it seems to be dilatory or merely tactical. Corruption in American courts is quite limited - the last notable crooked-judge case I can think of was in Chicago in the early 1980s; the independence and integrity of the judiciary in other countries can be significantly worse.

Something like 90% of all jury trials in the world are held in the U.S. - even Britain, home of the common-law system, has very few nowadays. Jury selection is really more of an art than a science, but in my experience the great majority of juries really try to understand the cases they're hearing and do the right thing (thank you for your service, Valgard). Jury service is, in most courts, much more intelligently administered than it used to be: permitting jurors to take notes, having early-morning call-ins to determine need, fewer automatic excusals of prospective jurors, much more attention paid to racial and gender exclusions, plain-English jury instructions, and one day/one trial policies. And where a miscarriage of justice occurs, there are several layers of appellate review available.

To paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst system of justice... but for every other one which has been tried up to now.

[Valgard]

I don't think there's any real justice in our justice system. Of course justice is subjective so that makes it difficult to judge. However, it seems to me that in our effort to be "fair" and "objective" we really lose sight of the true purpose behind law and punishment. I think people who are inherently a detriment to our society are regularly let off the hook due to some technicality or other.
My boyfriend was recently on a jury that let a man go who was a hardcore drug addict who shot a man several times. Why? Because they couldn't prove that he "intended" to kill the guy. :rolleyes: So now this guy's kids and neighbors are all vulnerable to this psycho's next outburst. Where's the justice for all of those people?

Keep in mind that the prosecution decides what charges to bring against the defendant. Suppose that Murder 2 requires showing that the defendant was trying to kill the victim and Negligent Homocide only requires showing that the D was so reckless that his actions were bound to result in somebody dying. If you know that you will have a tough time showing murderous intent then it might be better to charge with the "lesser" crime since the odds of a conviction are much better.

(IANAL and it's been many years since my criminal law class in high school. This is just an example)

If the prosecution only brought the Murder 2 charge then that's all that the jury can decide on, and if the prosecution doesn't make their case then the jury has the RESPONSIBILITY to find not guilty. The jury cannot say "Well the D didn't meet the elements of what he was charged with but he committed this other crime so we'll find him guilty of that other crime".

It sounds to me like the prosecution charged the D with one particular crime (and it might have been a tough sell)...they could have used a slightly "easier" crime (more likely to get a conviction) and they could probably also have thrown in a number of other crimes (for example if the D was already a convicted felon then hit him with "Felon possessing a firearm") which might have got the D many many years in jail right there. If on the other hand the prosecution put all their eggs in one basket then they might wind up having the D found not guilty and running around free.

[sctrojan]

Well, Are you proposing that the court have a trial, videotape it, have it professionally edited to the satisfaction of all parties, have the lawyers (or judge, in federal court) select the jury, and then show the edited tape to the jurors with all parties present to endure no juror misconduct during the viewing?

Even knowing that the devil is in the details, I did not elaborate the scheme. You certainly have done a good job of beginning to flesh out the detail. Testimony is frequently presented to jurors in the form of video taped depositions. The procedure is close to that which you suggest.

In an earlier post it was suggested that the jurors would have trouble assessing the credibility of video presented testimony and arguments. Perhaps and if so that would be a negative. I have trouble with the idea that jurors are able to assess credibility. I know that is what they are supposed to do, but I see the suggestion that they do so more of an apology for the system than as a a statement of fact. Second, many persons now have had more experience with video than with interpersonal relations.

[Dunderman]

Thanks for your interesting account, Valgard. One quick, slightly off-topic question if I may:Reason the case took 8 years to get to court was that the defendant had been on the run from the law. He had recently been caught living in Las Vegas under a different name and he changed identies several times. That was not allowed to be mentioned in court.Why was that not allowed to be mentioned? Here in Sweden that would count as an aggravating circumstance and most definitely be mentioned during the trial. Of course, we don't use juries, but still.

[groo]

I've served on juries four times, and in each case I came away impressed by my fellow citizens. Sure, during initial questioning, many people will say just about anything to get out of a jury, but the ones who stay have seemed to me to take their jobs seriously and attempted to render just verdicts. I really think you have to serve on a jury before deciding whether or not "the system works."

My last case was a civil trial which lasted 3 weeks. By the end, three jurors (including me) were past the point where our companies would reimburse us, but we still went laboriously through several years of medical bills, estimated the future earnings lost by the plaintiff and reached some difficult conclusions. (We found for the plaintiff, but in contrast to stereotypical California juries, we awarded her virtually nothing beyond the medical bills associated with her accident. She started crying as we were polled, and one person on the jury broke down as well.)

Things I'd change: speed up the (daily) proceedings so the jury doesn't spend half the day cooling their heels waiting for motions to be decided, and maybe pay more than $5 per day.

[Acsenray]

Thanks for your interesting account, Valgard. One quick, slightly off-topic question if I may:Why was that not allowed to be mentioned? Here in Sweden that would count as an aggravating circumstance and most definitely be mentioned during the trial. Of course, we don't use juries, but still.

WAG: If the question of fact to be decided by the jury was whether the defendant committed the crime in the first place, the judge might have believed that it would be unfairly prejudicial to inform them of the flight. The judge might have believed that (he fled --> he did it) is an incorrect inference.

[pravnik]

Thanks for your interesting account, Valgard. One quick, slightly off-topic question if I may:Why was that not allowed to be mentioned? Here in Sweden that would count as an aggravating circumstance and most definitely be mentioned during the trial. Of course, we don't use juries, but still.ascenray pretty much got it. Here in the states we generally have a bifurcated trial system, meaning first we determine whether the person is guilty or innocent, then if he's found guilty we determine what the appropriate punishment should be. In the guilt/innocence stage, the focus is on whether this particular defendant committed this particular crime. We don't want the defendant convicted for being a criminal in general or having a bad character in general, so the admissability of other crimes, wrongs or acts he may have done is greatly limited. In the punishment stage, the flight would likely be admissable.

[Valgard]

ascenray pretty much got it. Here in the states we generally have a bifurcated trial system, meaning first we determine whether the person is guilty or innocent, then if he's found guilty we determine what the appropriate punishment should be. In the guilt/innocence stage, the focus is on whether this particular defendant committed this particular crime. We don't want the defendant convicted for being a criminal in general or having a bad character in general, so the admissability of other crimes, wrongs or acts he may have done is greatly limited. In the punishment stage, the flight would likely be admissable.

The DEA didn't tell us specifically why they could not introduce this into evidence but I believe that Pravnik and Ascenray are right. During voi dire and before our deliberations we were instructed that our job is only to determine guilt or innocence, we are not deciding punishment - that's up to the judge, I imagine that he took the defendant's subsequent behavior into account. If someone knows how to look these things up I can give you the name of the case and you can see what sentence the defendant received.

Groo, we got paid $40 per day plus travel. Not a fortune but certainly better than $5/day...unless you mean $5/hr?

[SkeptiJess]

I'd be happy to hear it.

I would also like to hear it. I've never been on jury duty, but my dad has and, like Valgard, he came away from the experience with positive feelings about the jury system. He felt that, at least at that trail, justice was served promptly and fairly.

[SkeptiJess]

Shoot -- never mind me. When I responded, I could only see the first 8 posts. Maybe my scroller was stuck or something... Anyway, I saw the rest of the thread (including Valgard's response) after I posted.

[Lemur866]

I've been on three juries. On all of them the trail went pretty quickly, we reached a decision after a few hours of discussion, we gave the verdict, and went home. So I feel that every jury trial I've been a part of has worked.

[Weirddave]

O.J. thinks so.Robert Blake thinks so.The best legal system that money can buy .How many poor people have been executed for murders they did not commit.
None that I know of. Not that I doubt that it has occured, but I've seen evidence of only one case where a key witness recanted his testimony years after an execution, and even then his recant wasn't such that exonerated the defendent (who was subsiquently executed) but rather something that might have caused the DA not to go for the death penalty in the first place because his evidence would no longer be as strong. I've seen websites that list all of the supposed "wrongful" executions in the U.S., and what they call "evidence of innocence" is in most cases a joke. Again, I don't doubt that it has happened before, but that exact phrase you used- "How many poor people have been executed for murders they did not commit" is thrown around almost as much as "Won't someone please think of the children" and with about as little basis in fact. What evidence do you have that ANY person has been executed for a murder they didn't commit, let alone "many poor prople"?

Lissa, do you mind if I quote your post in the future? A more striking example of white person's guilt I don't think I've ever seen. It's fascinating, in a revolting sort of way.

[beowulf573]

Groo, we got paid $40 per day plus travel. Not a fortune but certainly better than $5/day...unless you mean $5/hr?

Federal juror's are generally paid more than county or city juror's, at least that's my experience in Texas.

I servered on my first jury just last week and was happy with the how seriously folks took the job. It's easy to judge things based on news reports, but when you're in the jury, you have to make your decision based only on the evidence presented to you and according to the law as explained to you.

[Valgard]

None that I know of. Not that I doubt that it has occured, but I've seen evidence of only one case where a key witness recanted his testimony years after an execution, and even then his recant wasn't such that exonerated the defendent (who was subsiquently executed) but rather something that might have caused the DA not to go for the death penalty in the first place because his evidence would no longer be as strong. I've seen websites that list all of the supposed "wrongful" executions in the U.S., and what they call "evidence of innocence" is in most cases a joke. Again, I don't doubt that it has happened before, but that exact phrase you used- "How many poor people have been executed for murders they did not commit" is thrown around almost as much as "Won't someone please think of the children" and with about as little basis in fact. What evidence do you have that ANY person has been executed for a murder they didn't commit, let alone "many poor prople"?

Lissa, do you mind if I quote your post in the future? A more striking example of white person's guilt I don't think I've ever seen. It's fascinating, in a revolting sort of way.

This veers more into the pros and cons of the death penalty which has a number of fine threads devoted to it. FWIW the only mention of "black" in this entire thread is by me and there is exactly one mention of the word "minority" which is used in a general sense by Lissa, one time. I'm not sure what the "white person's guilt" is about but it looks to me like this is a tangential issue to the OP.

I'm up to 4 cents now :-)

[Weirddave]

This veers more into the pros and cons of the death penalty which has a number of fine threads devoted to it. FWIW the only mention of "black" in this entire thread is by me and there is exactly one mention of the word "minority" which is used in a general sense by Lissa, one time. I'm not sure what the "white person's guilt" is about but it looks to me like this is a tangential issue to the OP.

I'm up to 4 cents now :-)
Well, granted that this could be cast in the light of a DP debate, but the statement I quoted was a direct response to the OP. I'm assuming from the tone that gonzomax does not think the system works, and the reason he doesn't think so is that "many poor people have been executed for murders they did not commit". I was challenging that statement.


Oh, and I used the phrase 'white person's guilt" as a riff off of the phrase from the poem by Kippling (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html).

[Fir na tine]

In an earlier post it was suggested that the jurors would have trouble assessing the credibility of video presented testimony and arguments. Perhaps and if so that would be a negative. I have trouble with the idea that jurors are able to assess credibility. I know that is what they are supposed to do, but I see the suggestion that they do so more of an apology for the system than as a a statement of fact. Second, many persons now have had more experience with video than with interpersonal relations.

I remember seeing a short article 10 or even 20 years ago about "the future of court rooms" and it proposed using edited videotapes. The article used several large show trial as examples where the attorneys were clearly playing to the jury - asking irrelevant or inadmissibale questions and then the judge would instruct the jury to disregard them. Whcih of course just brings more attention to them.

The idea struck me at the time as a great idea. Eliminate court room theatrics and yet still have the case decided by a jury. I hope someday to see it happen.

I've served on the county trial jury once about 30 years ago. Interesting and somber experience.

[teresatoivola]

You say, "you're wrong" yet you didn't elaborate. Why do you think that the U.S. system is working? Is it because there are so many cold cases, or is it because the wealthy get awa with murder?

[Monty]

So, really how common is it taht "the ealthy get awa[y] with muder?" I think you might find that there's more than a little plea bargaining to a lesser charge (accused pleads to the crime originally charged but is sentenced commensurate with a lesser crime) going on. Oh, and let's not forget that there's more than one category of illegally doing away with someone.

[DragonAsh]

Before people complain about the 'lack of speedy trials' here in the US, I suggest they took a look at some examples abroad. Japan's court system makes the US system seem downright speed-of-light fast.

Just to give you an idea, the worst domestic attack in Japan since WWII was the sarin subway attack in March 1995. The leader of the cult group that carried out the attacks was found about two months later.

The first verdict handed down in his trial eas...2004. That's nine years to reach an initial verdict. He was found guilty and sentenced to death, but of course his lawyers have appealed. He will likely die in prison before the sentence is ever carried out.

A class action suit by people suffering from mercury poisoning in a small fishing village in Japan is still ongoing - in its 35th year now.

Closer to home, my gf's mother is suing her ex-husband for alimony and child support. The ex-husband beat her and his four daughters on a daily basis for years. The case is in its 9th year; the mother won an initial victory just last year, but the husband has appealed.

People are freaking out that the Duke Lax rape case might not get to trial intil spring 2007. Granted, that seems like an awfully long time to me as well - but cases that get in the public spotlight take longer, I would hope because both sides want to be extra extra sure to not make any mistakes. But the fact that people are upset with the delay tells me that it is the exception, not the norm. This was not the case in Japan, where everybody assumed from the day Asahara was arrested that he would never be put to death by the system, and instead would die awaiting for his trial to finish.

[KidScruffy]

You say, "you're wrong" yet you didn't elaborate. Why do you think that the U.S. system is working? Is it because there are so many cold cases, or is it because the wealthy get awa with murder?

How bad does a legal system have to get before it's better to have no legal system at all? How close is the US to that?

I'm not saying the system couldn't stand improvement, but to argue whether or not it's "working" or "not working" is a bit misleading (or at least imprecise).

[Lissa]

Lissa, do you mind if I quote your post in the future? A more striking example of white person's guilt I don't think I've ever seen. It's fascinating, in a revolting sort of way.

How nice of you to say.

[sctrojan]

I did not want the Lay and Skillings verdicts to pass without a comment here that those verdicts were huge victories for the legal system. Everything that makes the system go wrong was present in the trial of these two men. Still, it did not go wrong.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I did not want the Lay and Skillings verdicts to pass without a comment here that those verdicts were huge victories for the legal system. Everything that makes the system go wrong was present in the trial of these two men. Still, it did not go wrong.

Unfortunately, they're there until Bush comes out of office. I smell....pardon.