Perry Mason endings

[RivkahChaya]

@aldiboronti

It doesn’t affect the substantive point of your post but don’t forget the original Perry Mason movies with Warren William in the 1930s, and of course the Erle Stanley Gardner novels on which they were based.

Oh, I know. I’ve seen the movies, though I haven’t read the books. But I assumed the poster was referring to the show.

[RivkahChaya]

@Acsenray

“Prosecutor” can mean any of them. It’s a generic term.

I know this too, but I still didn’t want to give the impression my cousin had been elected, or was in charge of all of Chicago, or anything. I don’t even know how Cook county is subdivided, although I assume it is. I just used the first term that came to me that I knew people would “get.” Alex himself says he “Works for the prosecutors office,” not the he “is” a prosecutor, even though he does try cases.

[carnivorousplant]

@Killing_Time

The problem with juries is that they consist of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

Yes!

[Acsenray]

@RivkahChaya

I know this too, but I still didn’t want to give the impression my cousin had been elected, or was in charge of all of Chicago, or anything. I don’t even know how Cook county is subdivided, although I assume it is. I just used the first term that came to me that I knew people would “get.” Alex himself says he “Works for the prosecutors office,” not the he “is” a prosecutor, even though he does try cases.

You’re being needlessly finicky. “He is a prosecutor” does not imply “He is the elected county prosecutor for Cook County.” Everyone who prosecutes crimes is a prosecutor, whether elected, appointed, or working for someone who is and that’s true regardless of whether the person at the head of the agency has the official title of states attorney, district attorney, county prosecutor, prosecuting attorney, U.S. attorney or anything else. They’re all correctly described as prosecutors.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

I was a prosecutor for six years, and have been a magistrate for twice as long. I have never, ever seen a person break down and confess in open court a la Perry Mason. I won’t say it’s never happened, in all of the thousands of trials that take place every year in the U.S., but I’ve never heard of it.

@Killing_Time

The problem with juries is that they consist of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

@carnivorousplant

Yes!

No! Jury service is honorable, necessary and a public service. Many people are glad to serve on a jury, and consider it their civic duty.

[JerrySTL]

@Elendil_s_Heir

No! Jury service is honorable, necessary and a public service. Many people are glad to serve on a jury, and consider it their civic duty.

I’ve been called for jury duty twice and served on a jury once. I’d gladly do it again.

[bob_2]

I too did jury service twice and found it a fascinating experience to see the English legal system close up.

[jtur88]

@Elendil_s_Heir

No! Jury service is honorable, necessary and a public service. Many people are glad to serve on a jury, and consider it their civic duty.

I consider it my civic duty to serve on a jury and nullify. I believe incarceration is used so broadly in the USA as to constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” and I have a civic duty to obstruct any such miscarriage of justice.

[md2000]

@RivkahChaya

Well, not every episode ends with someone confessing under oath-- sometimes people confess from the gallery.

Also, people do recant confessions.

What would happen in real life, is that after the confession, the judge would have the jury immediately removed from the courtroom, and the prosecutor would move for a mistrial, which might be granted. Meanwhile, the person who confessed would be arrested for disrupting the proceedings. The prosecutor and the detectives on the case would go back and try to sort things out, while the person who confessed would get a lawyer.

In real life, the prosecutor might not believe the person who confessed, and try to get a mistrial, and schedule the original defendant for a new trial. If he did believe the confessor, he might try to sort out whether he and the original defendant acted together. They might end up both on trial. If the original defendant got dismissed, when the new defendant was being scheduled for trial, his lawyer would move to have the confession suppressed, and it probably would be granted. However, given that his client tends toward outbursts in court, and the confession was probably in the news, the lawyer will most likely suggest a plea bargain. There’s a built-in defense-- the prosecutor had a good case against someone else-- so the chances are that the prosecution will offer a good plea deal.

According to my cousin, this doesn’t happen, although what does happen, albeit rarely, is that someone with knowledge of another person’s guilt will follow the trial, and if it looks like there’s going to be a conviction, will be moved to come forward. The witness is OK with keeping the secret as long as no innocent person goes to prison, but he doesn’t want to see an innocent person convicted. I don’t think this has actually happened to Alex, it’s just something he’s heard about.

The thing about someone spontaneously confessing in court is that it requires the wrong person to be on trial in the first place, and the right person to be in the courtroom, as a witness or spectator. According to Alex, they don’t try innocent people. At most, they try lesser conspirators and accessories, because they are hoping to get to the core criminal, and it isn’t happening. But, even if they do have the wrong person, it further requires the real criminal to be at hand to confess. The real criminal is probably on his way to Mexico.

I would assume that any assertion made in open court, as an outburst from the gallery or under oath, would be admissible. IIRC, the Miranda warning applies only once you’ve been arrested. If the police come up to you on the street and “ask a few questions” your statement can be admitted, (I think) unless your lawyer can show you thought you were under arrest. If you’re sitting in the witness box or the gallery and were free to come and go up to that point, and the questions that elicit the outburst come from the defence attorney not the police or prosecutor - why would Miranda apply?

According to Alex, they don’t try innocent people. At most, they try lesser conspirators and accessories, because they are hoping to get to the core criminal, and it isn’t happening.

Seriously?

Actually, the thing with most murder mysteries are a group of family, friend or associates and figure out whodunit. In real life, 90%+ of cases are cut and dried, no question what happened - and the rest are mysteries because the person whodunit was a relative stranger, but left a ton of forensic evidence. But plenty of false convictions are based on circumstantial evidence followed by single-minded persecution of the wrong suspect.

BTW, I think if the person blurts out their guilt in open court, they would likely not be tried with the original suspect. If they did, wouldn’t it be the case that the statement could not be introduced? In a joint trial, one defendant’s statement would need to be confronted and cross-examined by the other, and the defendants both have option not to testify.

[Acsenray]

@jtur88

I consider it my civic duty to serve on a jury and nullify. I believe incarceration is used so broadly in the USA as to constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” and I have a civic duty to obstruct any such miscarriage of justice.

I hope you disclose this attitude, because a judge should have the opportunity to dismiss anyone like you for cause.

[Shodan]

I have no idea if the following is true or not -

The scene was San Diego Superior Court. Two men were on trial for armed robbery. An eyewitness took the stand, and the prosecutor moved carefully: “So, you say you were at the scene when the robbery took place?” “Yes.” “And you saw a vehicle leave at a high rate of speed?” “Yes.” “And did you observe the occupants?” “Yes, two men.” “And,” the prosecutor boomed, “are those two men present in court today?” At this point the two defendants sealed their fate. They raised their hands.

Cite. Would that "confession’ be admissible?

Also, I just finished a book last night called Psycho USA, about then-famous but now-forgetten crimes. In one, some murderer or other was being prepared to stand in a line up for possible ID by a witness. He was supposed to wear a hat of the sort, and in the manner, described by the witness. The guard told him to push the hat further forward on his head. “Don’t argue with me,” the suspect snapped. “I know how I was wearing my hat!”

Would that?

Regards,
Shodan

[The_Second_Stone]

I attended hundreds of depositions (maybe thousands) and been the lead questioner at many of those. I have seen a complete reversal of written sworn discovery statements only once during that time in a civil case where a witness confessed that he did indeed see my pedestrian client before hitting him and that the client did not “wave him on” as written during the discovery, which he claimed was not an accurate statement. His insurance defense attorneys had prepared the statement in response to discovery interrogatories. The case then settled quite nicely.

The presence of my client at this deposition was in my opinion the factor that made the gentleman tell the truth. My client had informed me he was a very nice man and we suspected he might reverse his testimony.

As for in open court? No, never seen a Perry Mason ending moment.

[jtur88]

@Acsenray

I hope you disclose this attitude, because a judge should have the opportunity to dismiss anyone like you for cause.

New Hampshire has passed a law that specifically allows defense asttorneys to inform juries of their right to nullify. In the District of Coloumbia, US v. Dougherty upheld the right of the jury to nullify, but did not grant the right to the defense to inform the jury of that right.

[The_Second_Stone]

@jtur88

New Hampshire has passed a law that specifically allows defense asttorneys to inform juries of their right to nullify. In the District of Coloumbia, US v. Dougherty upheld the right of the jury to nullify, but did not grant the right to the defense to inform the jury of that right.

Very interesting.

Sometimes you must inform people of their rights, sometimes you can inform people of their rights and sometimes you must not inform people of their rights. Sometimes you have rights you don’t know about, sometimes you must vocalize that you are asserting a right (such as the right to silence, irony) and sometimes you lose a right when you inadvertently don’t exercise it in the proper way. Good thing we all went to law school to figure these things out so that the Courts could keep changing them.

[hajario]

@Killing_Time

The problem with juries is that they consist of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I was on a jury and all of us were intelligent and thoughtful people who took our job very seriously and tried very hard to do the right thing. We weren’t weaselly little assholes who thought that it was ethical to lie to get out of our responsibilities.

[The_Second_Stone]

@hajario

I was on a jury and all of us were intelligent and thoughtful people who took our job very seriously and tried very hard to do the right thing. We weren’t weaselly little assholes who thought that it was ethical to lie to get out of our responsibilities.

Juries the vast majority of the time take their duties very seriously. I prefer juries because they do take their duty to be neutral and fair far more seriously than political appointee judges. There are judges who also work very hard to be fair, hard working and neutral and take things one at a time. Maybe as many as half. But there are a lot of judges who put their preconceived notions first and others who just want to clear their docket regardless of what injustice is done.

[GusNSpot]

The three times I was pulled from the pool of jurors to actually be seated on a case,

1. I was not selected because I told the judge I could not be impartial because one guy was a used car salesman & I would not give him any reasonable doubt.

2. I became the foreman.

3. I became the foreman and the judge knew my boss and so on the second day she let me come to the court in my biker clothes, leather and all. The lawyers from both sides had eyes as big as dinner plates. When we had a verdict and came back in, the judge asked the foreman to stand and read it. The look of horror on the lawyer’s faces as I stood up was hysterical. The judge could not keep a straight face & winked at me. Neither side liked the decision we came to. Bawahahaha

I really enjoy jury duty. he he he

[GusNSpot]

Oh, and sitting down in the pool waiting all day, we had some great bridge games…

[Enright3]

@Killing_Time

The problem with juries is that they consist of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

:rolleyes: Gee it’s nice to know there are people like you around. Most people don’t care for Jury Duty, but they’re mature (and intelligent) enough to know that it’s serving the greater good. If you’re ever in court you’re going to hope that everybody doesn’t have your mentality.

So If you’re so smart, how did YOU get out of jury duty? Or have you ever actually been called? Did you, or are you planning on using one of the FOOLPROOF ways to get out of jury duty? In my experience the judge has heard every excuse in the book and doesn’t let a lot of people get out of it.

[carnivorousplant]

@Enright3

:rolleyes: Gee it’s nice to know there are people like you around. Most people don’t care for Jury Duty, but they’re mature (and intelligent) enough to know that it’s serving the greater good. If you’re ever in court you’re going to hope that everybody doesn’t have your mentality.

Hey, the guy may be a genius who doesn’t like jury duty. It was certainly an unpleasant experience for me.