- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Unanimous Juries- How ya votin and why?
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:22 pm to ThePTExperience1969
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:22 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:I’m sorry. Prayers sent.
Im about to be an attorney in less than a year
0
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:25 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
You’ve created quite the safe space in your own head.
It appears I occupy a lot of space in your head.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:29 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I'll take that over the opposite. Hell, I honestly can't believe there's ANY disagreement on that point.
BC people are retarded, for some absurd reason, they're still allowed to vote but the Constitution and US law are bigger than petty opinions like that so I can hang with that
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:29 pm to LSURussian
quote:
It appears I occupy a lot of space in your head.
Barely a lick, and only temporarily. You rent space when you say something particularly noteworthy on a thread I’m posting on, and you’re promptly evicted the moment we’re done
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:32 pm to Rock the Casbah
quote:
If I knew that all 12 jurors would have a basic understanding and appreciation of INDIVIDUAL freedoms, then sure, unanimous verdicts. But that’s fantasy world.
You don't like it change the Constitution, void dire procedure, state law, court rules etc everything connected to jury selection procedure why we're America, man
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:33 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
then you should be able to convince the whole jury.
Sometimes it's not that easy. The defense is looking for and picking jurors they think can be swayed to their side, the prosecution is doing the same utilizing preselection interviews. Once the challenges made by both sides are completed, you are seated with a mixed group of people that are unknown to you as well as their personal beliefs and knowledge of the criminal justice system.
I been on four juries and foreman on two, including the one I posted above. You don't know what to expect until you go into deliberations and then you find out. It can be quite a surprise once you start deliberating.
This post was edited on 10/26/18 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:39 pm to Traveler
quote:It's not supposed to be. That was my point.
Sometimes it's not that easy.
quote:OK. And?
The defense is looking for and picking jurors they think can be swayed to their side, the prosecution is doing the same utilizing preselection interviews
quote:Americans are funny. Hell. People are funny.
I been on four juries and foreman on two, including the one I posted above. You don't know what to expect until you go into deliberations and then you find out. It can be quite a surprise once you start deliberating.
They notice that human endeavors always have imperfections in them, and for some odd reason, think there's some way to eliminate those imperfections via human interference.
Yes. Juries are imperfect. THe state SHOULD have a high bar anyway.
This post was edited on 10/26/18 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:45 pm to ShortyRob
Just curious, how many juries have you sat on to include murder?
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:50 pm to Traveler
quote:
Just curious, how many juries have you sat on to include murder?
What difference does it make? He addressed everything you raised, be a man and attempt to rebut it
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:51 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
I'm voting no. It'll make it impossible to get convictions in certain parishes.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:53 pm to ynlvr
quote:This is why I'm voting no.
I've had the same experience. One stand out juror would simply not accept the facts. The one juror apparently had preconceived findings not based on fact when 11 others easily agreed the evidence was clearly enough to remove all doubt. A travesty averted with the non-unanimous jury system.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:55 pm to ThePTExperience1969
The point is if you have never been a part of it, you have no idea what it is all about. TV makes it look so easy and everything is wrapped up in an hour. To believe that every juror reacts the same is simply not true.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 8:56 pm to Joshjrn
quote:If that’s true then how do you remember what I’ve posted in previous similar threads? Nah, you’re pissed by my posts on this topic. It must really hit close to home for you. You’ve practically memorized my posts on the topic.
You rent space when you say something particularly noteworthy on a thread I’m posting on, and you’re promptly evicted the moment we’re done
And your long winded explanation why there’s no financial gain in it for lawyers is bullshite. The more trials, the more demand there is for defense (and prosecuting) attorneys. That goes for public defenders and court appointed attorneys.
Their workload increases so they can demand more pay and/or ask for more attorneys. Next comes the DA and the ACLU crying about needing more taxes to pay them. Soon a judge requires the hiring of more attorneys in order to provide criminals “proper” representation.
And that attorney who only gets paid once when there’s a hung jury and another trial is required?? He convinces his client he can’t get the job done or he asks the judge to let him resign and then off he goes looking for another defendant to pay him his up front free.
It’s quite a scam. You might even say the unanimous jury amendment should be called, “UEAFEA....the Under Employed Attorney Full Employment Act.”
Posted on 10/26/18 at 9:00 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
I’m voting no because The Advocate has been crusading for it for about 10 months. Can’t be good.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 9:06 pm to LSURussian
I’m sorry that my memory is better than yours at this point, old man. Doesn’t mean I give you a single thought between threads
And the rest of your post is drivel. Both public defense and district prosecution have been underfunded for decades, public defense in particular. Caseloads for both are several times above ABA mandates. The idea that a small uptick in retried cases is all of a sudden going to increase funding is laughable.
Further laughable is the proposition that judges are just going to let attorneys withdraw after a mistrial without extremely good reason.
Sounds like you watch far too much TV
And the rest of your post is drivel. Both public defense and district prosecution have been underfunded for decades, public defense in particular. Caseloads for both are several times above ABA mandates. The idea that a small uptick in retried cases is all of a sudden going to increase funding is laughable.
Further laughable is the proposition that judges are just going to let attorneys withdraw after a mistrial without extremely good reason.
Sounds like you watch far too much TV
This post was edited on 10/26/18 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 10/26/18 at 9:39 pm to Joshjrn
Your frequent use of in every reply to me confirms your discomfort being called out on your BS.
Keep telling yourself the legal “profession” is pure when in fact it’s only a hair’s width away from resembling the oldest profession with almost identical tactics & practices: screwing someone is a job requirement.
in every reply to me confirms your discomfort being called out on your BS. Keep telling yourself the legal “profession” is pure when in fact it’s only a hair’s width away from resembling the oldest profession with almost identical tactics & practices: screwing someone is a job requirement.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 9:51 pm to Eightballjacket
quote:
I'm voting no. It'll make it impossible to get convictions in certain parishes.
Get better prosecutors. Not trying to be stupid but in this day and age where people have become sheep, they vote for a party instead of a person (ON BOTH SIDES) and the net result is that the best person often isn't in that position. And if you're prosecutors aren't elected officials, take a hard look at who appointed them.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 9:55 pm to LSURussian
quote:
And that attorney who only gets paid once when there’s a hung jury and another trial is required?? He convinces his client he can’t get the job done or he asks the judge to let him resign and then off he goes looking for another defendant to pay him his up front free.
I don't know about there, but here it's not that easy. I know many attorneys that have tried to withdraw from criminal cases because they had not been paid and most judges here won't let them out of the case unless another attorney is entering their appearance at the same time, which isn't going to happen because the defendant hasn't paid them either.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 9:58 pm to LSURussian
quote:Same here. In a state at the bottom of the educational/critical thinking rung, it presents too many chances for Neanderthals to give a conviction-worthy perp an out. The 2 dissent mulligan is fair in this state, IMHO.
A jury voting 10-2 to convict on non-capital offense cases is okay with me.
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News