man bites dog.
Sure, it’s a game of chicken. Of course, I get that. But if there was a rule that said that if a plea bargain wasn’t reached by 24 hours before the scheduled start of a trial, the trial would be required to take place, it would still be a game of chicken. Do you not understand this?
Here’s a thought – instead of a two- to three-hour lunch break, cut the lunch time to one hour, and then shorten the time interval in which the trial occurs. So instead of going from 9am to noon, and then 2:30 to 5, go from 9:30 to noon and 1:00 to 3:00. Motion hearings and the rest of it take place before 9:30 and after 3:00.
In my court system, we started work at 8:00. We had 15 minutes to get everything ready for the morning session. Morning court calendars were run between 8:15 to 10:00 a.m. Sometimes those ran over scheduled time, too, due to circumstances completely beyond the court’s control. Juries were summoned at 10:00, the trial proceedings recessed at noon until 1:30 (we were back and working at 1:00 p.m. getting ready for the afternoon session). Trial resumed at 1:30 until 3:30 p.m. We then heard afternoon matters that frequently ran past 5:00 p.m.
Trial proceedings are happening non-stop during a jury trial. Lawyers want motions heard outside the jury’s hearing, exhibits must be marked, discussions held with the Jury Commissioner about further juror needs, jury instructions discussed between the judge and counsel and decided upon. All that is happening outside the jury’s presence. In addition, court files must be returned to the Clerk’s Office for updating, paperwork filed and mailed, interfaces made with the Sheriff (if needed) for instructions re the defendant’s remand, exhibits secured in between sessions, phone calls returned, etc., etc., etc.
It all takes time.
How does this help? Starting half-an-hour later isn’t going to make it more feasible for most people to go into work in the morning before court, nor is getting off at three and having to fight your way to the office after court going to make for productive work time later. Anything that takes six or seven hours in the middle of the day (and by the time you find parking at the courthouse, etc., your proposed schedule is at least six hours) kills the workday for most. You’d get home a little earlier, but other than that, I’m not seeing much advantage.
Meanwhile, a shortened lunch hour means it’s more likely that the start of the afternoon session gets delayed because one or more jurors tried to go out for lunch and is stuck in the security line or waiting for the elevators, AND the schedule is shot to hell if anything comes up in the morning session that requires a conference or motion hearing before court reconvenes. What do you do–send the jury home and make 'em come back for an additional day?
I think a smaller juror pool, and higher pay, would be the solution. Jurors really should be paid around $100/day at the least; being paid $28 per day or something is quite pitiful.
We get less than ⅓ of that.
Federal (& state) minimum wage $7.25/hour or not quite 1:15 of service. However, Living Wage is $11.43 or 47 minutes of service.
Can I leave after 1:15? Otherwise they are violating state & federal laws.
What law are they violating? Jury duty isn’t “employment.”
Beyond that, your state/county will pay as much as the voters in your locale want them to pay.
I understand your proposal; it’s ludicrous. The parties can settle or plead at any time- even when the jury is deliberating. It’s their right.
Your proposal wastes judicial resources and the parties’ time, and restricts their freedom, in the name of your convenience.
It’s not about you.
Ill comply with the Justice, but Happy Scrappy Hero Pup has been equally snarky and condescending on this thread, and would not have pulled the grammar card if said Poster agreed with my point. Its a cheap tactic. I rest my case.
[spoiler]Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:
Now that you have heard all of the evidence, and the arguments of counsel, it becomes my duty to give you the instructions of the court concerning the law which governs this case.
It is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you, and to apply that law to the facts as you find them from the evidence presented in court. You are not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but must consider the instructions as a whole. Neither are you to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by me. Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law is or ought to be, it would be a violation of your sworn duty to base a verdict upon any view of the law other than that given in the instructions of the court, just as it would also be a violation of your sworn duty, as judges of the facts, to base a verdict upon anything other than the evidence presented during the trial.
In deciding the facts of this case, you must not be swayed by bias or favor as to any party. All parties should be treated as equals, whether actual persons or corporations no longer in business. Our system of law does not permit jurors to be governed by prejudice or sympathy or public opinion. Both the parties and the public expect that you will carefully and impartially consider all of the evidence in the case, follow the law as stated by me in these instructions, and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences.
It is your duty to determine the facts, and in so doing you must consider only the evidence I have admitted in the case. The term “evidence” includes the sworn testimony of the witnesses, and the exhibits admitted by the court during the trial. Those exhibits will be provided to you for your review when you retire to deliberate. Remember that any statements, questions, objections or arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence in the case.
While you should consider only the evidence in the case, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions, which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case. But do not speculate about possibilities that were not fairly proved.
Now, I have said that you must consider all of the evidence. This does not mean, however, that you must accept all of the evidence as true or accurate. You are the sole judges of the credibility or “believability” of each witness, and the weight to be given to any testimony. In weighing the testimony of a witness you should consider
· relationship to the Plaintiff or to the Defendant;
· interest, if any, in the outcome of the case,
· manner of testifying;
· opportunity to observe or acquire knowledge concerning the facts about which the witness testified;
· candor, fairness and intelligence; and
· the extent to which testimony has been supported or contradicted by other credible evidence.
You may, in short, accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part.
Some witnesses are permitted to give opinions, because of specialized training, education or experience. For any such witness, you must also weigh the reliability of any testimony or opinions. Consider whether the witness has enough training or experience to form the opinion in question; whether the facts necessary to support the opinion have actually been proved; whether another opinion is better supported or better fits the facts which you conclude are proved.
A witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence, by a showing that he testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness’ present testimony in court. If you believe that any witness has been so impeached, then it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility or weight, if any, as you may think it deserves.
The party asserting a claim has the burden to prove that claim; to satisfy the legal requirements I will soon lay out. To satisfy this burden, he or she must persuade you that each of the legal requirements probably occurred. Probably means “more likely than not,” it means 51% likely to have occurred; it does not require proof to a certainty. It is not every fact which may have been discussed which must be proved to a probability, but the legal requirements which must be so proved.[/spoiler]
I would be *very *surprised if the guy made much more than minimum wage. It felt like an unkindness to seat this guy when there were several of us who were salaried and had no concerns with missing work (I know this because I had chatted with some of these folks while we were waiting for everything to start; two of us were professors with the summer off).
Yeah, voir dire and all . . .
The judge, it seemed, went out of his way to publically humiliate this guy as well as put him in a tough spot with his employer. Yes, everyone should fulfill his or her citizenly duty and, yes, by law employers must make allowances for jury duty. But really, who is going to investigate Greg’s Stop 'n Lube shop for jury violation? The employee who desperately needs the job sure isn’t going to report his employer.
I suspect that’s exactly what the judge was doing. I agree it’s a dick move. It’s not the employee’s fault his employer doesn’t accommodate jury duty. Some judges are like that, I’m sorry to say.
Our bench had an informal policy during voir dire to jot down the names of companies that didn’t pay their employees for even a single day of jury duty. In their rare down time, the judges would then contact those company owners and attempt to persuade them to pay their employees for at least 3 days of jury service. The approach was surprisingly effective.
I’m happy to say that no judge I worked for ever prohibited a prospective juror from being excused on the basis of a true financial hardship.
Judges soon learn that you seriously don’t want that angry, anxious guy on your jury. Can you say, “Remand for retrial?” I knew that you could. 
I’d be overjoyed to get $28. I think every time I’ve been chosen for jury duty, it’s been somewhere between $5 and $10. And in Houston, at least, the parking garage cost MORE than the pay, or at least it did in 1998.
Dallas at least gives free rail passes, which I take full advantage of.
When I was a juror, one of the other jurors was late coming back from a break because she had to feed the parking meter. The bailiff told us that it was important we be on time, so if any of us were parked at a metered spot, we shouldn’t worry about needing to feed the meter during the day and he would “take care” of any tickets we received. (Although most of us were parked in the free jury-only lot.)
Of course, it’s not about me. But it’s not all about the attorneys, either. Why are you so insistent on wasting the time of the jurors in order to not waste the time of the attorneys, judges and court staff? If jurors are “the most important part of the process” (which is what the movie prospective jurors were shown said), then jurors’ time ought to be considered more important than that of others, not less.
May I remind you that it was you who said that it’s a game of chicken? I was pointing out that setting an earlier deadline for that game doesn’t negate the game. And I suspect that judges aren’t pleased with attorneys who wait until the jury is seated before going, “Oops! We didn’t think the other side was serious, so NOW we want to negotiate for a settlement.”
Based on my vast experience of watching courtroom dramas on television, it’s not that the attorney underestimates how serious opposing counsel is, but rather that the attorney (and his client; remember that ultimately that’s where the decision lies) may change their opinion as to whether a favorable outcome is more or less likely once the’ve seen the case presented by opposing counsel.
I suspect you don’t live in an urban area. Starting a half hour later and concluding an hour or two earlier could easily save me another hour and a half of commuting time.
I’m self-employed, so I could spend the time saved working – and additional time available during normal office hours is for me more time available for phone calls to clients.
You are I suspect correct in situations where the plea bargaining or settlement takes place after the trial has already started. I was addressing the situation where a large number of prospective jurors are required to report, but only a small percentage are called in for voir dire because a lot of the trials are settled at the last moment before the trial starts. I was told this was “a game of chicken.”
I get that, but I also suspect that in some cases it’s poor time management on the part of the attorneys.
If the trial on a civil case starts and is settled before the jury turns in their verdict, are court costs assessed?
It’s about the parties, who work through the attorneys. The paramount concern of the court system is fairness to the parties, not convenience of the jurors. To the extent that the latter can be accommodated, it is- but never to the detriment of the former.
Part of your service is your existence as an incentive to settle. Part of your service is your presence. We are not wasting your time. Our use of your time, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves judicial resources and makes the process more efficient.