Well, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard so far today. But it’s still early. :rolleyes:
How can a “system” operate in anything resembling a human condition? Need I remind you we’re talking about people here?
Okay, pick that nit: If you believe that the participants in the legal system, including the officers of the court, are not operating in good faith …"
If everyone inside the courthouse is a scoundrel, what good would you be doing by facilitating their nefarious schemes, anyway? You should be standing on the courthouse steps with a sign declaring the perfidy of all within.
You are acting awful defensively and jumping way far off into a paranoid interpretation of what’s being said. Nobody ever even suggested that. What was suggested is that even good people make mistakes and don’t always get everything right. And there are of course rare bad apples in all walks of society, no doubt.
Does the sanctity of the legal system give them a pass?
I asked someone earlier beating around this bush, but anyone wanting to know a real life example of the issue, watch the movie American Violet. Were it not for outsiders bringing evidence and information to a case things go very differently. The system is made of people and people are imperfect.
Yeah, I know hollywood, whatever - save it. It is based on a true story.
I can’t exempt myself from unjust laws.
Because I am a forced participant of what I consider sometimes unjust laws, I will use that power to skew the rules towards a more fair outcome. Not obeying what I consider archaic rules about juror ignorance is my way of doing that.
Yeah, good luck with that. That sort of approach inevitably leads to determining truth in compliance with the official pravda and kangaroo courts. When you have The Truth on your side, why ask any misleading questions that just divert from the desired solution?
The fundamental problem with allowing jurors to perform their own independent research is that not only may that research not fit within the prosecution’s theories or defense’s arguments for reasonable doubt, but neither the prosecution nor defense has the opportunity to address outside evidence or claims. Although it may be that a juror does research to understand the basis behind a claim put forth by the defense that was not well explained, it may equally be that their source for information is wrong but unvetted by the participants. Jurors are instructed to limit their speculations and deliberations to the facts and theories presented by the participants as specifically restricted by the judge’s instructions. While their particular background and experiences obviously enter any deliberations, the voir dire process is intended to allow both sides to assess that background and provide balance. Allowing jurors to be influenced by information outside of their previous experience and the evidence and testimony presented in court removes the sense of impartiality that the jury brings to the process.
In reality, of course, juries are often biased and easily swayed by non-factual testimony. Most people who are professionally familiar with the trial system will elect for a bench trial if they feel that their case is reasonably favorable, because even though judges themselves may be biased they also have a professional understanding of what testimony is allowable in making a judgment and what is not.
Stranger
I was talking about factual, non-prejudicial information that never gets into testimony or evidence due to being either suppressed (officially or otherwise) or overlooked, for whatever reason.
It could be given that either side could be given a bias towards their version of the fact, but still work in conjunction. As it stands now, prosecutor and defense seem to act like two sides in a divorce case. We even tell them their jobs are adversarial. Small changes like teaching law school with an eye towards justice, not winning your case, could be a stepping stone in changing the system from the way it currently is. People can’t even say they’re going for the truth.
When asked, my lawyer friend says that the defense should and would always say they will do whatever’s legal to get the client off, and its up to the state to prove their case. I’m simply asking for a small change to that. Both sides should serve the truth, and if one side believes its one thing but the other believes it’s the opposite, then that’s fine. But neither side should be pulling out all the tricks and trying to win. They should investigate all sides and not just the charges thrown on them by the opposing counsel
Small steps can be had by merely changing some of the questions asked by a lawyer of his client. I’ve heard that lawyers sometimes don’t even want to know if their client’s guilty, they simply will tell him to shut up. That’s wrong. If a client confesses, and the lawyer believes it, then the case should end right there.
Similarly, and I don’t know how much of this is TV and how much is reality, lawyers shouldn’t go barging into interrogation rooms demanding whatever confessions their client made be stricken due to a technicality. If your client confesses, investigate if that’s true or not. If so, turn him in, don’t try to get the confession stricken from the records or anything like that
All defense lawyers should always start with the basic question: Did you do it?
Because we believe that the best way of understanding the truth is to give two parties with opposing interests the opportunity to do their best to bring forth evidence that supports their positions. It is not foolproof, but no system is foolproof, and this gives each side the freedom to exercise their best judgment and effort.
What the hell do you know about what is taught in law school?
What about the right not to incriminate oneself? What about the right to seek the advice of and be represented by counsel? What about the right to consult counsel in confidence? These are all rights that protect the accused.
God forbid you should ever be accused of a crime when you believe yourself innocent.
Nothing you see on television is real when it comes to the practice of law.
Knowledge of what is taught isn’t necessary in my proposal. Whatever is being taught should be changed to the goal of justice, because it certainly isn’t that way now
If you really did the crime, then those things should take a back seat to justice. It is better to have the guilty serve their time than to draw out their legal defense because some things were done out of order
The ultimate goal of all officers of the court should be to find out the truth. Only with more knowledge, not less, can we have sufficient case for judging guilt and innocence
Another thing they can change is the whole Guilty/Not Guilty verbiage. It should be Guilty or Innocent. If the presumption is that Not Guilty means the state haven’t proved their case, then they can assume that Innocence means the same thing
But if a juror brings in information that it not presented to the judge, prosecution, and defense, who assesses whether the information is factual and non-prejudicial? And any external information and theories aren’t present in the court records (jury deliberations are not recorded) and as such would not be available to support or refute appeal.
You need to stop getting your information about the legal system from Law & Order reruns and John Gresham novels.
Stranger
Pretty much. It was a case about him clobbering his wife, not exactly Perry Mason territory. He claimed that before he hit his wife (and then stomped her) she kicked him in the balls - but neither he nor anyone else testified that he had screamed. What was said and heard was part of the testimony. His buddy also testified to some stuff - and then a DA was called to say that the buddy had told the prosecution something totally different.
But the real reason I knew he was guilty after was that I spoke to the lawyers after the case was over, and it turned out that the woman trying the case was an intern (not exactly, more or less.) I figured they wouldn’t give anything but the simplest most obvious case to such a person.
BTW, California law prevents jurors from profiting from a case by selling their experiences to the press or something until a certain period had passed. The judge barely restrained himself from cracking up at the concept that anyone would pay for our experiences in this case.
I’m the father-in-law of a guy in the third year of law school. It is tough - I wish he had chosen some honest career like forger, Wall Street executive or Republican politician. 
Excellent question! I am saying maybe we need a method or procedure for something like this to happen. Presently this does not appear to be the case. Yes, the appeals process, but the guy’s in jail, more time, cost, yada, yada.
Oh, wait. The lawyers make more money that way. Sorry, I forgot. 
I was up for a death penalty case, and any prospective juror without a bias tried to pretend he or she had one. I think the attorneys are looking for biases which can either be played to or kept under control.
Did you fill out a profile? That might have been enough - I’ve seen people dismissed for what was in their profile, since they got dismissed before the attorneys even spoke to them. What was your secret? I never get dismissed.
What do you think of my scenario where witness information available on-line is misleading?
never been in a jury room, have you?
If your extra information simply confirms what was said in court, it might not do much good. But what if the jury is ready to convict and you think you have information which cases major doubt on the evidence presented. Do you vote to acquit with no reason given? Or do you provide your evidence. If you do, some juror might and should tell the judge that you went out on your own.
So you either open yourself to penalties or have the other 11 jurors think you are an idiot who is keeping them away from home and work for apparently no reason.
Yeah, it’s amazing the number of f’d up scenarios this system enables you to dream up from just the lack one small piece of information.
I haven’t been to law school, but I did hear a big dollop of the ethics book, and this exact situation was covered in the part I heard. First, an attorney who believes a client is guilty need not represent that client. Once he does, he owes it to the client to do the best job he can to get him off.
Second, the attorney must not consider himself smarter than the legal system. Confessions are made for all sorts of reasons. There are plenty of instances of false confessions, either from police pressure or from unbalanced people who want to confess. Police who are being pressured to clear cases might believe in a confession more than they should. In some cases the facts are not in dispute (like the Arizona shooting) but the defense might revolve around the state of mind of the suspect.
Third, and not as a matter of ethics, I suspect most or all attorneys investigate both sides. When I did debate our team who was working on one side of an issue prepared the best case possible for both sides. How else can you effectively address the arguments for the opposition?
So, out of curiosity, how do you feel about evidence illegally obtained, say by an invalid search warrant, an illegal wire tap, or other misuse of police power?
What odd scenario is that?
I was foreman of the jury I was on. The judge recommended that we do not begin with a ballot, but rather go around the jury room and let each juror give his or her opinion. Voting cements an opinion. We had one guy who was mildly for acquittal, but he got convinced fairly easily, partially due to the pressure of the other 11, and we convicted on the first ballot. I think some of the other jurors would really press this guy if he kept voting to acquit for no reason he’d tell us.
It was not at all like 12 Angry Men.