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

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?

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

You’re wrong, but I’d love to see a cite for your statements.

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.

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.

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 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.

I’d be happy to hear 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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 :slight_smile:

It’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.

Sorry, jsgoddess’s hijack.

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

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.