Violation of an NDA isn’t a criminal act.
Well, maybe they should. It theoretically cuts down on our having juries made up entirely of people who have already made up their minds. Just because we do something differently here in the colonies does not mean we do it wrong.
He’d be tried for violating the Espionage Act regarding giving classified information to a third party. Given that he’s been on TV admitting to giving classified documents I don’t think he has much of a defence, and would end up taking a plea bargain, making the make-up of his putative jury irrelevant (assuming he’s unlucky enough to end up in a US courtroom).
Sure, that’s just the reason he got fired.
Well, I suspect his attendance at meetings hasn’t been great lately either.
The original point of the thread is that you have to get a jury to convict.
Perhaps the public in the US is more deferential to power but certainly in the UK there is a long history of juries reaching so-called ‘perverse verdicts’ in prosecutions bought be the state against politically motivated defendents i.e. finding a ‘not guilty’ against a clear weight of evidence. After all, it only takes 1 or 2 of the 12 jury members.
To have a mistrial declared, at which point he could be tried again. You have said this twice, it is almost like you’re implying that one juror could acquit. That isn’t the case.
I guess this is where you say potato …
It would help if you said what you’re intending to say rather than linking to Wikipedia. A mistrial can lead to another trial. I recall reading about a case recently - I think it was a corruption case - where someone was convicted after something like five earlier trials that all ended with hung juries.
the link you give shows precisely that common usage under the legal one. As do many other dictionaries.
Again, that detailed questioning (or “cross-examination” in non-legal speak) doesn’t happen to UK juries. It really isn’t worth getting hung up on exact terms when we both know exactly what I mean.
OK… who said you were doing it wrong?
Actually when talking specifically about legal issues terms of art are important, and not only insisting you do not have to use them but insisting you should just be allowed to use them incorrectly without being corrected on them because of “common usage” contributes to ignorance.
It would be less of a problem if you weren’t using the term of art at all, and just used some “plain English” term to describe what you were talking about. For example if you had said, “in the UK our jurors are not questioned prior to being seated as jurors.” No one would probably quibble with you about the use of the word “questioned.” But when you use the term cross-examination it has a specific legal meaning, and when you use it incorrectly you’re not helping anyone.
Also, as for the NDA issue that’s probably not even why Snowden was fired from Booz. All they’ve announced is he was fired for “violating company policies.” Typically for a defense contractor releasing classified information would probably run afoul of a specific piece of company policy that says something like, “Any action violating the law on proper dissemination of classified information you have access to as part of a security clearance and in connection with your work here makes your employment subject to immediate termination.”
He also was accessing stuff he actually wasn’t supposed to have access to within Booz, so most IT policies will technically include penalties for accessing restricted areas of the corporate IT system (in testimony before Congress one of the recent witnesses said some of the stuff Snowden leaked he had no valid access to even as a SysAdmin which means he bypassed a probably weak or faulty security regime at some point.) Plus, he also disappeared without telling his employer where he was going. He requested a leave of absence which was granted and then extended, but after it expired he never reported in and that persisted for days. That’s basically “no showing” which is also going to be something you can be fired for.
An NDA while certainly concerned with your actions while employed is primarily notable in that it’s a signed contractual agreement between you and the company regardless of your employment status. They typically prohibit dissemination of corporate non-public information even after your term of employment ends (and while rarely enforced, you can be sued for violating the NDA after you leave your employer.) While still employed there are usually a host of ordinary corporate policies for which they can dismiss you (under internal rules–legally most employers can fire you at any time because of employment-at-will, but large corporations adhere to their internal policies.)
But Booz definitely has a cause for civil action against Snowden, he’s probably certainly violated an NDA but he’s also done illegal things while working for Booz that have arguably irreparably harmed Booz’s reputation and its future business prospects. They could definitely sue him, but it’s less likely anything he did to *Booz[/] is enough to constitute a crime. (Although taking IT information has been prosecuted as a crime on Wall Street recently as a type of theft / corporate espionage.)
Where the real criminal concerns come into play is the old school espionage laws which clearly apply here.
You.
Your use of the very loaded word, “grilled,” brings to mind thoughts of rubber hoses and the hot glare of a single light bulb. You also don’t approve of how both the prosecution and defense can ask potential jurors questions beyond, “Do you know that bloke?” to try to get a fair trial.
And then there’s ticker’s “The whole selection process takes less than an hour, including swearing in, rather than the whole circus that can occur in the US system,” which compares the British (and US) norm with the exceptions of high-profile, well-publicized cases wherein it is genuinely hard to find twelve people who have not already made up their minds and who are not blithering idiots. Sometimes that part of the system fails (see OJ Simpson), but the system failed in multiple ways in that case.
Correct all you like. I’ll continue to use language any which way I choose thanks very much. Making myself understood has never been a problem so far. The reason for choosing the phrase “cross examination” is so that the 99% of people who neither know nor care about the niceties of legal terminology are left with the correct impression regarding the detail of the questioning.
I have offered no opinion on which system is better. The word “grilled” to me means detailed and intense questioning. It may bring other thoughts to your mind but then hey, language is flexible isn’t it? You get “grilled” in a job interview without that being necessarily a negative thing.
As for your last assumption, I object. Not literally as I probably can’t use that word but certainly you have no idea as to what I think on the matter. You could ask me to clarify of course.
Actually, if necessary, they do do just that. If a U.K. court doesn’t have enough people for a jury, they do pull people off the street. (A mate was an auditor for the courts.)
Now we have your definition of a word versus its common usage. Sure, “grilled” commonly means detailed and intense questioning, but the intensity of the questioning of prospective jurors does not approach that of the grilling of a recalcitrant criminal suspect. And a job interview one describes as being grilled is rarely a positive experience.
As for the latter, all I can do is point to your own words, “‘cross-examination’ to me just means being questioned by both prosecution and defence. (and that doesn’t happen in the UK)…that was my whole point. They don’t get grilled.” Because, in the interest of effective communication, words must have generally-understood meanings I understand that to mean that you don’t approve.
Good Lord, it’s like it’s 1500 over there! 
Well I think we’ve derailed enough. My words as you’ve read them back to me seem neutral to me but to put this to bed I should disclose that I do think the UK would benefit from more rigorous jury selection. I don’t think the USA is wrong to allow in-depth questioning of potential jurors.
Does that mean you don’t want to argue anymore? 
