You think I’m being a troll? Then get off your lazy ass and email a mod or admin and warm them about me.
How far along with this charade should we go? I’m quite sure that, even if the judge doesn’t rebuke the Prosecutor, the Defense attorney would surely object to the Prosecutor telling the ENTIRE FREAKING PANEL of prospective jurors what the answers to the questions must be.
DPWhite
Check the thread. Lurkernomore is not the liar. Throatshot started the thread with the unbelievable story. And he’s not been vindicated because his “cite” was “Well, here’s where it happend, but I can’t tell you who was involved and when it happened, nor even in what case it happened.”
Monty- How will throatshot be able to appease you? Get and scan court documents? Find the transcripts online? Bring the trial lawyer to your doorstep to testify, under oath, that he was indeed telling the truth?
I am interested in what throatshot would have to gain from lying about that. Giving you an irrational fear of Hispanic jurists?
Jesus. Your response to “as a trial lawyer, this is reasonable” is “you typed in the wrong name”? Congratulations on making an ass of yourself, if that’s the best you can do.
For fuck’s sake, it seems to me that not distributing the name and case number of an accused child molester over the internet is just human decency, not weaseling. But maybe you think that’s a good idea…
Thank you Myrr21, red_dragon60, shrew and DPWhite for understanding.
I admit to being somewhat blown away by Monty’s attitude and the idea that I would have something to gain by making the story up. I’m still trying to fathom that one.
Well, that’s the thing. About all you would have to gain from this is proving that people are assholes, and our judicial system is sometimes pretty whack. And because that can be easily proved with a link to…say…a widely available online newspaper there’s no reason to make up a story.
And congratulations to you for demonstrating your complete lack of reading comprehension. I merely pointed out that 'twasn’t lurkernomore who had started the thread.
I wasn’t casting any aspersions about either lurkernomore or DPWhite.
No, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Nor do I think it’s a good idea to falsely accuse someone (assuming “Mr. Martinez” is really a person as opposed to just being made up) of Perjury and/or Obstruction of Justice.
But, then, not accusing someone falsely of that would be just human decency. Apparently, you “think” not.
Boy, does this DPWhite have this one right. Not only is the scenario described “plausible,” I have witnessed virtually identical exchanges occur on several occasions.
Nor is there anything wrong (or particularly unusual) about one attorney or the other (but more commonly, the judge) emphatically informing a prospective juror that his (assertedly) preconceived understanding of the law is flat-out wrong. Monty, please say you’re sorry. I can easily see how you might have intuitively suspected that Throatshot made up the story; that suspicion, however, really is unwarranted.
Well, Rmat, I’d like to believe the story. I really would. There’s just too much in it that doesn’t make sense. And when I point that out (remember, this is the Pit so a bit of leeway is permitted in my pointing that out; you know, emphatically) I get a freaked out response and a vague description of where to find the event.
And shrew: Why don’t you prove you’re not a stupid bitch? That’s also a qualitative assessment.
What “makes sense” probably has a great deal to do with one’s experience. I don’t know yours, Monty, but unless it includes some significant exposure to criminal jury trials, I’d be a little wary about where your intuition leads you. DPWhite evidently has some familiarity with the dynamics of criminal trial practice, and I’d describe my own as more than considerable, and neither of us has the slightest difficulty believing Throat’s account of events. I’m not trying to play the “I-know-more-than-you” card here, but straightdope.com is, after all, a place to learn something. You seem like a reasonable person, by which I mean, reasonable enough to admit that, upon consideration of the views of others and further reflection of your own, your accusations might have been just a bit unfair.
There is NOTHING implausible about throatshot’s story, Monty. This was clearly during voir dire, when the prosecution and defense quiz the potential jurors about such things as their backgrounds, their willingness to listen to the evidence before making up their minds, and their familiarity with the parties. The prosecutor probably got pissed off at the answer because he knew it was grounds for Mr. Martinez to be bounced for cause, which you never want to happen to a juror who’s on your side. If he could get Mr. Martinez to retract his statement, the dismissal for cause might suddenly disappear, forcing the defense to use a peremptory challenge on Mr. Martinez instead of someone else.
NOBODY gets summarily bounced off a panel in the middle of voir dire, no matter how outrageous their statements or answers may be. Voir dire can also take a hell of a long time, especially with a pool of 50 people and a touchy case. It’s perfectly conceivable that it could drag into a second day in a child molestation case, especially since voir dire hardly ever starts until late morning or early afternoon anyway, what with all the pretrial motions that have to be resolved before the jury pool ever hits the courtroom. No matter how biased, idiotic, or offensive Mr. Martinez’s comments were, he would NOT be removed from the panel until the end of voir dire.
In short, this Texas lawyer thinks you owe throatshot an apology, Monty.
[/quote]
originally posted by Monty
This part is bullshit. It’s also the part where the defense attorney gets to have the prospective juror dismissed. Said dismissal, by the way, counting as the prospective juror performing his service and thus he’s free from the dreaded jury pool for whatever the legal time is in y’all’s jurisdiction.
[/quote]
Can only speak for NY. Not only would this not count as juror service, but in all of the times I was excused from a panel,it never happened while I was being questioned. Perhaps fifty people would be called to the court room. Some would be directed to sit in the jurors’ seats. Only after all of those people were questioned by both sides (and perhaps gave equally bad answers such as saying that they would always believe the police over the defendant or vice-versa ), and some conversation between the lawyers and the judge, would they start calling the numbers of those excused, giving no reason why, and direct them to return to the pool, where they might be called for another panel.
Why do people hate jury duty? Some of them probably hate it for the same reason I do. Every two years, like clockwork I get called. I get bounced off every single panel I’m on, civil or criminal . I assume it’s because of my job ( I work in law enforcement ),but I don’t really know because l’m never told why.I have to lose three days from work,because after I get bounced, I return to the pool until I’ve finished my third day. Losing the three days wouldn’t bother me if I felt that I actually might serve on a jury.
[/quote]
originally posted by Monty
This part is bullshit. It’s also the part where the defense attorney gets to have the prospective juror dismissed. Said dismissal, by the way, counting as the prospective juror performing his service and thus he’s free from the dreaded jury pool for whatever the legal time is in y’all’s jurisdiction.
[/quote]
Can only speak for NY. Not only would this not count as juror service, but in all of the times I was excused from a panel,it never happened while I was being questioned. Perhaps fifty people would be called to the court room. Some would be directed to sit in the jurors’ seats. Only after all of those people were questioned by both sides (and perhaps gave equally bad answers such as saying that they would always believe the police over the defendant or vice-versa ), and some conversation between the lawyers and the judge, would they start calling the numbers of those excused, giving no reason why, and direct them to return to the pool, where they might be called for another panel.
Why do people hate jury duty? Some of them probably hate it for the same reason I do. Every two years, like clockwork I get called. I get bounced off every single panel I’m on, civil or criminal . I assume it’s because of my job ( I work in law enforcement ),but I don’t really know because l’m never told why.I have to lose three days from work,because after I get bounced, I return to the pool until I’ve finished my third day. Losing the three days wouldn’t bother me if I felt that I actually might serve on a jury.
And you still manage to avoid responding to the statement “It is perfectly plausible to me as a trial lawyer for that exchange to have happened.”
So you deny earlier posting
when throatshot pointed out that it would be irresponsible to distribute the name of a possibly innocent man?
Right now, it’s his word against yours. So far, his is backed up by lawyers who say that it’s reasonable or that they’ve witnessed nearly the same thing, whereas you have neither proof that he’s lying, nor proof that you aren’t a trained monkey with a keyboard.