Has anyone here sat on on a jury before?
Comments
-
And? What’s your point. Thats a different thing all together.YellowSnow said:
I was the foreman on our jury as well. But our case was a civil suit and the applicable law was just and not controversial.MikeDamone said:
The last jury I was on I was foreman. 10 people said he’s guilty, let’s get this over with in 5 minutes and go home. Not so fast my friend. 2 days later we acquitted. Not quite as dramatic as 12 angry men, our guy actually did what he was accused of. The fact he was charged was bullshit.creepycoug said:MikeDamone said:
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons? -
creepycoug said:
So, do you believe in the adversary system or don't you? Do you not think it's important for everybody to be defended in court against the state by competent counsel? And my competent, i don't mean what you, as a Cop, would like to see in a lawyer. I mean someone who can put the state to their mandate of meeting their burden proof.Sledog said:
My view isn't narrow. I have lawyers in the family. 3 of them. I've known several. I normally deal with DA's and Fed's when I worked a major narcotics task force. Some good some bad. Local DA's were sometimes problematic as they never really wanted to have to take anything to trial. Creates certain problems on the LE end. Feds were generally ok. Some DA offices had strange practices in other counties. It was a problem with informants.creepycoug said:
As I've explained to you before, I don't litigate. I know that from your arm chair watching re-runs you think all lawyers are either prosecutors or defense attorneys, or more charitably, you think they all try cases in court.Sledog said:
How many cops have you let sit on juries in your trials?creepycoug said:
Gee I wonder why.Sledog said:
I was always legally excused. No one will take me as a juror. Ask the pretend attorneys if they want a retired cop on the jury. Prosecutors do! The rest not so much.YellowSnow said:I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
As if I needed moar evidence, your narrow view of the legal profession matches the narrow view you have of everything else. You've never been near the level of commerce necessary to understand the role of counsel, and so you don't know it exists.
Of course defense attorneys were the funest.
Criminals representing themselves hilarious!
You have me all wrong. I have no problem with anyone being a Cop. We need the police. My problem is with a Cop who thinks all we need is Cops and who don't understand or care about the larger system of which they are only a part.
You can be a Cop and have the mental agility necessary to understand why the system, flawed as it may be like everything else, needs to work the way it works, and why even guilty ass people should have competent counsel who zealously represents their interest. Cops who can't comprehend that are what I have a problem with.
The guy we acquired was charged with resisting and assault on a cop. -
I wasn't making a point in this post. Just sharing that I was a foreman as well, albeit in a very different type of case.MikeDamone said:
And? What’s your point. Thats a different thing all together.YellowSnow said:
I was the foreman on our jury as well. But our case was a civil suit and the applicable law was just and not controversial.MikeDamone said:
The last jury I was on I was foreman. 10 people said he’s guilty, let’s get this over with in 5 minutes and go home. Not so fast my friend. 2 days later we acquitted. Not quite as dramatic as 12 angry men, our guy actually did what he was accused of. The fact he was charged was bullshit.creepycoug said:MikeDamone said:
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons? -
OK!YellowSnow said:
I wasn't making a point in this post. Just sharing that I was a foreman as well, albeit in a very different type of case.MikeDamone said:
And? What’s your point. Thats a different thing all together.YellowSnow said:
I was the foreman on our jury as well. But our case was a civil suit and the applicable law was just and not controversial.MikeDamone said:
The last jury I was on I was foreman. 10 people said he’s guilty, let’s get this over with in 5 minutes and go home. Not so fast my friend. 2 days later we acquitted. Not quite as dramatic as 12 angry men, our guy actually did what he was accused of. The fact he was charged was bullshit.creepycoug said:MikeDamone said:
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons? -
Same as it ever was.MikeDamone said:
OK!YellowSnow said:
I wasn't making a point in this post. Just sharing that I was a foreman as well, albeit in a very different type of case.MikeDamone said:
And? What’s your point. Thats a different thing all together.YellowSnow said:
I was the foreman on our jury as well. But our case was a civil suit and the applicable law was just and not controversial.MikeDamone said:
The last jury I was on I was foreman. 10 people said he’s guilty, let’s get this over with in 5 minutes and go home. Not so fast my friend. 2 days later we acquitted. Not quite as dramatic as 12 angry men, our guy actually did what he was accused of. The fact he was charged was bullshit.creepycoug said:MikeDamone said:
Many laws still need to be challenged by good people. You’d vote to ruin someone’s life for having marijuana? Or “resisting”?YellowSnow said:
No - he freed slaves by military order in 1863 in parts of the Confederacy under Union control and ALL the slaves by getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1865 which many in the North were against.MikeDamone said:
He didn’t free anyone. The north was already free. He didn’t have jurisdiction over the south at the time.YellowSnow said:
Wow, Damone. Great fucking argument. And better yet coming from the guy who refers to the freer of the slaves as a “piece of shit”.MikeDamone said:
I won’t ever convict anyone of an unjust law or abuse of police power. Fuck that and fuck you.YellowSnow said:
Way to violate the separation of powers. Jurors shouldn't be making law any more than judges.MikeDamone said:Twice. I’m not the one who they would suspect of believing in jury nullification, but thats what I did both times.
I bet you would have convicted someone of harboring a runaway slave in 1850.
So would you convict someone for harboring a runaway slave or not? That was the law.
Would you convict a black man who married a white woman? That was against the law. Would you convict someone for resisting arrest when no charges were brought on them other than resisting? That’s the law. Would you have someone put in a cage for having some pot? That was the law.
Thankfully, we don’t live in an era of racist laws anymore. Maybe jury nullification might have made sense in some of those specific instances you mention - be it the Fugitive Slave Act or Loving vs Virginia - but it general it would create chaos and anarchy in the legal system have jurors deciding what laws to enforce or not. Remember, most of the general population are idiots.
Where did I say jury nullification should done “in general”?
I know.... you’re just following orders
Lincoln had not jurisdiction over the confederacy and “freeing” the slaves was a pure political play. “Under union control” ok!
Fucker pissed all over the constitution.
You sound like a good obedient statist.
Juries freak me out because the general intelligence level of "my peers" leaves much to be desired. 100% of the agreements I draft have a clause that stipulates that any dispute we have will be heard by a judge and waive jury.
Still, once we agree on what our institutions are, we have to honor them and give them a chance to work. I'm not going down the rabbit hole of the slave argument, because I'm not the historian in this group, it seems that this consistent rejection of social structures in the name of libertarian philosophy can lead us down a slippery slope toward political nihilism, which is fun to kick around in the classroom but shitty to live with.
If you find yourself in a fundamentally unjust society, then all bets are off and you join some revolt to overthrow it. But until then, while you're in it, I am skeptical of the individual who goes around playing king, largely for the same reasons I am skeptical of juries to begin with. For every thoughtful dissenter, there are 1,000 dipshits, and worse, 10,000 Sledogs - biased simpletons who quixotically think they know what's best for society ... the purveyors of what's "normal". We're better off when we're all trying to do our best than giving everyone a reject button. That cuts all over the place and you have chaos, which is worse than an imperfect or even flawed system.
Curious. Why didn't Lincoln have jurisdiction over the southern states? Jurisdiction for what?
Beyond jurisdiction, I thought the Confederacy declared war on the Union. If that's the case, wasn't it Lincoln's jerb to prosecute that fight against the traitorous goons?
-
Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
-
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
-
Anyone on jury duty is either retired or very very poor.YellowSnow said:I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
-
False. Most decent paying companies pay for jury duty. Pours can’t due jury duty because work won’t pick up the tab.longduckdong said:
Anyone on jury duty is either retired or very very poor.YellowSnow said:I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
-
This is an absurd statementlongduckdong said:
Anyone on jury duty is either retired or very very poor.YellowSnow said:I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
-
What are you talking about moron. I was self employed and didn’t’ want to serve on a jury.CirrhosisDawg said:
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
We were so poor we paid 4 kids Catholic school tuition from Kindergarten through High School.
If you want I could give you the approximate figure of the cost involved.
-
Yes, why don’t you calculate the amount of Catholic school tuition you paid to illustrate that you are not poor. Please include your wife’s Beaverton school district pension while you are at it. Just how poor are you? To be honest, you sound really poor.DJDuck said:
What are you talking about moron. I was self employed and didn’t’ want to serve on a jury.CirrhosisDawg said:
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
We were so poor we paid 4 kids Catholic school tuition from Kindergarten through High School.
If you want I could give you the approximate figure of the cost involved.
-
Maybe you can loan him a few bucks on his '73 Pinto title?CirrhosisDawg said:
Yes, why don’t you calculate the amount of Catholic school tuition you paid to illustrate that you are not poor. Please include your wife’s Beaverton school district pension while you are at it. Just how poor are you? To be honest, you sound really poor.DJDuck said:
What are you talking about moron. I was self employed and didn’t’ want to serve on a jury.CirrhosisDawg said:
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
We were so poor we paid 4 kids Catholic school tuition from Kindergarten through High School.
If you want I could give you the approximate figure of the cost involved. -
Just hit the Fuck Off button you'll be home free.YellowSnow said:I recently wrapped up a nearly 2 week stint on a civil trial. During the juror selection process I kept thinking to myself what would @Sledog say so that I could get excused, but alas my real life persona of an objective, cuckold always seems to shine through. Throughout the proceedings I was able to keep myself entertained with and endless stream of Hardcore Husky inside jokes. At every corner the judge and counsel would Thank Us For Our Service. There was plentiful wheel chair (powered and manual) hawt talk and in depth economis discussions about present value and discount rates. The Aurora Bridge even got its free pub as a location in the series of events. @Swaye would surely have been proud when during deliberations I pointed out to my fellow jurors the exact model of two tone, "Date Just" Rolex watch worn by one of the plaintiff's sleazy "expert" witnesses and its approximate value.
-
Approximately $450;000CirrhosisDawg said:
Yes, why don’t you calculate the amount of Catholic school tuition you paid to illustrate that you are not poor. Please include your wife’s Beaverton school district pension while you are at it. Just how poor are you? To be honest, you sound really poor.DJDuck said:
What are you talking about moron. I was self employed and didn’t’ want to serve on a jury.CirrhosisDawg said:
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
We were so poor we paid 4 kids Catholic school tuition from Kindergarten through High School.
If you want I could give you the approximate figure of the cost involved.
-
Private schools are for fags
-
K
Pitchfork51’s FagsPitchfork51 said:Private schools are for fags
Fag
https://247sports.com/Player/JT-Tuimoloau-46048440/
Fag
https://247sports.com/Player/Savell-Smalls-46037523/
Fag.
https://247sports.com/Player/Sam-Adams-II-46043149/
Fag
https://247sports.com/Player/Ayden-Hector-46042835/ -
More of Pitchforks Fags that are already Huskies:
Here are two Oregon fags
Jaxon Kirkland
Trey Lowe
Some more fags
Fag
Hunter Bryant
Fag
Terrell Bynum
Fag
Myles Bryant
Fag
Sean McGrew
Fag
Brandon Wellington -
Even more of Pitchforks Washington Husky fags:
Alex Cook.....Fag
Kyler Gordon.....Fag
Trent Mcduffie.....Fag
Keith Taylor.....Fag
David Pritchard.....Fag
AJ Carly.....Fag
Nick Harris.....Fag
Cole Norgaard.....Fag
Luke Wattenburg.....Fag
Tuli Letuligasenoa.....Fag
Fauteuils Tuitele....Fag
Matteo Mele.....Fag
Laiatu Latu.....Fag
Ben Hines.....Fag
-
I've practiced law for about 25 years. 10 years as a prosecutor and 15 on the defense side. Prosecuted everything from speeding tickets to murder and defended everything from speeding tickets to murder. I don't even bother showing up for jury duty because there's no way I'm getting selected.
A couple of jury stories:
About 10 years ago I defended a guy who had an Assault 4 - DV charge for allegedly slapping around his wife in the middle of a bar. Client refused to take any deals ... he wanted a trial. 5 eye witnesses testify consistently that my guy slapped his wife around in the middle of the bar. My guy is clearly gonna' get convicted. We do closing argument and they jury takes the case to the jury room.
About 10 minutes into deliberations, uproarious laughter starts eminating from the jury room. It can be heard all through the small courthouse. The laughter continues ... loudly ... for at least 20 minutes. Finally, the judge calls the jury back into the box and inquires if they are deliberating the case. Forman says, "yes". Judge excuses them back to the jury room. Almost immediately, the laughter begins again. Continues for about 10 minutes.
Judge brings the jury back and asks the foreman if they have a verdict. Foreman says, "no". Judge asks foreman if he believes deliberations are being taken seriously. (We're cruising down mistrial road at this point, so I'm not objecting to anything, but doing my best to make a good record). Foreman says, "yes". Judge, thoroughly pissed off, says, "it doesn't sound like it". Foreman says that they've been spending their time coming up with "creative" ways to punish my client and that some of the ideas were "really funny". (There are about 40 different ways that this is inappropriate conduct by the jurors).
After some inquiry by the judge, who is obviously about to blow a gasket, I move for a mistrial ... granted. Client ended up pleading to the original offer rather than re-try the case.
Second story: Client is alleged to have slapped his wife around in the parking lot of the local Grange Hall. State identifies neighbor who claims to have watched it all go down from his living room window. I check out the scene and realize there is no way this guy could see it from his living room window as the view is blocked by shrubs, bushes, and other shit. (Think "My Cousin Vinnie".)
State calls neighbor who testifies that he saw it all. I spend about 15 minutes on cross examination laying the groundwork for the Perry Mason moment when I'm planning on holding up a picture of all of the shit that obstructed this guys view, thereby making it impossible for this guy to have seen anything. The whole "you were here and they were there" questions, just like you've all seen on TV. All that stuff.
As I'm doing this, I'm moving directly in front of the jury box so when I force this guy to say, "hey, I guess I couldn't really see anything", he has to say it while looking at the jury.
I pick up my 3 foot x 4 foot poster sized picture of the jungle outside this guy's window ... ready to let the hammer drop ... and as I do, I hear a crash at counsel table behind me and look to see my client furiously trying to sop up the pitcher of water that he's spilled all over my notes, books and ... himself.
Then, I hear a juror, right behind me, mutter ... "fucking dipshit" ... as he watched my client use his shirt to soak up the water.
I still got the witness to admit he didn't see a thing, but the dramatic effect was completely lost. It didn't seem to matter though, since the aquittal came back after about 10 minutes of deliberation. -
DisagreeDHD said:I've practiced law for about 25 years. 10 years as a prosecutor and 15 on the defense side. Prosecuted everything from speeding tickets to murder and defended everything from speeding tickets to murder. I don't even bother showing up for jury duty because there's no way I'm getting selected.
A couple of jury stories:
About 10 years ago I defended a guy who had an Assault 4 - DV charge for allegedly slapping around his wife in the middle of a bar. Client refused to take any deals ... he wanted a trial. 5 eye witnesses testify consistently that my guy slapped his wife around in the middle of the bar. My guy is clearly gonna' get convicted. We do closing argument and they jury takes the case to the jury room.
About 10 minutes into deliberations, uproarious laughter starts eminating from the jury room. It can be heard all through the small courthouse. The laughter continues ... loudly ... for at least 20 minutes. Finally, the judge calls the jury back into the box and inquires if they are deliberating the case. Forman says, "yes". Judge excuses them back to the jury room. Almost immediately, the laughter begins again. Continues for about 10 minutes.
Judge brings the jury back and asks the foreman if they have a verdict. Foreman says, "no". Judge asks foreman if he believes deliberations are being taken seriously. (We're cruising down mistrial road at this point, so I'm not objecting to anything, but doing my best to make a good record). Foreman says, "yes". Judge, thoroughly pissed off, says, "it doesn't sound like it". Foreman says that they've been spending their time coming up with "creative" ways to punish my client and that some of the ideas were "really funny". (There are about 40 different ways that this is inappropriate conduct by the jurors).
After some inquiry by the judge, who is obviously about to blow a gasket, I move for a mistrial ... granted. Client ended up pleading to the original offer rather than re-try the case.
Second story: Client is alleged to have slapped his wife around in the parking lot of the local Grange Hall. State identifies neighbor who claims to have watched it all go down from his living room window. I check out the scene and realize there is no way this guy could see it from his living room window as the view is blocked by shrubs, bushes, and other shit. (Think "My Cousin Vinnie".)
State calls neighbor who testifies that he saw it all. I spend about 15 minutes on cross examination laying the groundwork for the Perry Mason moment when I'm planning on holding up a picture of all of the shit that obstructed this guys view, thereby making it impossible for this guy to have seen anything. The whole "you were here and they were there" questions, just like you've all seen on TV. All that stuff.
As I'm doing this, I'm moving directly in front of the jury box so when I force this guy to say, "hey, I guess I couldn't really see anything", he has to say it while looking at the jury.
I pick up my 3 foot x 4 foot poster sized picture of the jungle outside this guy's window ... ready to let the hammer drop ... and as I do, I hear a crash at counsel table behind me and look to see my client furiously trying to sop up the pitcher of water that he's spilled all over my notes, books and ... himself.
Then, I hear a juror, right behind me, mutter ... "fucking dipshit" ... as he watched my client use his shirt to soak up the water.
I still got the witness to admit he didn't see a thing, but the dramatic effect was completely lost. It didn't seem to matter though, since the aquittal came back after about 10 minutes of deliberation. -
Jesus fuck. I'm not talking about sports.DJDuck said:More of Pitchforks Fags that are already Huskies:
Here are two Oregon fags
Jaxon Kirkland
Trey Lowe
Some more fags
Fag
Hunter Bryant
Fag
Terrell Bynum
Fag
Myles Bryant
Fag
Sean McGrew
Fag
Brandon Wellington -
I sent two through K thru 8 and it was 100k and that was 10 years ago.DJDuck said:
Approximately $450;000CirrhosisDawg said:
Yes, why don’t you calculate the amount of Catholic school tuition you paid to illustrate that you are not poor. Please include your wife’s Beaverton school district pension while you are at it. Just how poor are you? To be honest, you sound really poor.DJDuck said:
What are you talking about moron. I was self employed and didn’t’ want to serve on a jury.CirrhosisDawg said:
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
We were so poor we paid 4 kids Catholic school tuition from Kindergarten through High School.
If you want I could give you the approximate figure of the cost involved. -
I had a 2 week trial on some real assholes I hooked. They went pro per and said lots of things they shouldn't. Judge almost held them for contempt. Jury went out for to deliberate for 10 minutes, just long enough to use the bathroom, and came back with a guilty verdict. Judge was really pissed at these two and the sentence was harsh.DHD said:I've practiced law for about 25 years. 10 years as a prosecutor and 15 on the defense side. Prosecuted everything from speeding tickets to murder and defended everything from speeding tickets to murder. I don't even bother showing up for jury duty because there's no way I'm getting selected.
A couple of jury stories:
About 10 years ago I defended a guy who had an Assault 4 - DV charge for allegedly slapping around his wife in the middle of a bar. Client refused to take any deals ... he wanted a trial. 5 eye witnesses testify consistently that my guy slapped his wife around in the middle of the bar. My guy is clearly gonna' get convicted. We do closing argument and they jury takes the case to the jury room.
About 10 minutes into deliberations, uproarious laughter starts eminating from the jury room. It can be heard all through the small courthouse. The laughter continues ... loudly ... for at least 20 minutes. Finally, the judge calls the jury back into the box and inquires if they are deliberating the case. Forman says, "yes". Judge excuses them back to the jury room. Almost immediately, the laughter begins again. Continues for about 10 minutes.
Judge brings the jury back and asks the foreman if they have a verdict. Foreman says, "no". Judge asks foreman if he believes deliberations are being taken seriously. (We're cruising down mistrial road at this point, so I'm not objecting to anything, but doing my best to make a good record). Foreman says, "yes". Judge, thoroughly pissed off, says, "it doesn't sound like it". Foreman says that they've been spending their time coming up with "creative" ways to punish my client and that some of the ideas were "really funny". (There are about 40 different ways that this is inappropriate conduct by the jurors).
After some inquiry by the judge, who is obviously about to blow a gasket, I move for a mistrial ... granted. Client ended up pleading to the original offer rather than re-try the case.
Second story: Client is alleged to have slapped his wife around in the parking lot of the local Grange Hall. State identifies neighbor who claims to have watched it all go down from his living room window. I check out the scene and realize there is no way this guy could see it from his living room window as the view is blocked by shrubs, bushes, and other shit. (Think "My Cousin Vinnie".)
State calls neighbor who testifies that he saw it all. I spend about 15 minutes on cross examination laying the groundwork for the Perry Mason moment when I'm planning on holding up a picture of all of the shit that obstructed this guys view, thereby making it impossible for this guy to have seen anything. The whole "you were here and they were there" questions, just like you've all seen on TV. All that stuff.
As I'm doing this, I'm moving directly in front of the jury box so when I force this guy to say, "hey, I guess I couldn't really see anything", he has to say it while looking at the jury.
I pick up my 3 foot x 4 foot poster sized picture of the jungle outside this guy's window ... ready to let the hammer drop ... and as I do, I hear a crash at counsel table behind me and look to see my client furiously trying to sop up the pitcher of water that he's spilled all over my notes, books and ... himself.
Then, I hear a juror, right behind me, mutter ... "fucking dipshit" ... as he watched my client use his shirt to soak up the water.
I still got the witness to admit he didn't see a thing, but the dramatic effect was completely lost. It didn't seem to matter though, since the aquittal came back after about 10 minutes of deliberation.
I've also appeared as an expert witness which is kind of fun. It's a specialty pleasing when the defense attorney has zero knowledge of the subject. -
If you two pours could afford to live in a good school district you could have saved all that money.Sledog said:
I sent two through K thru 8 and it was 100k and that was 10 years ago.DJDuck said:
Approximately $450;000CirrhosisDawg said:
Yes, why don’t you calculate the amount of Catholic school tuition you paid to illustrate that you are not poor. Please include your wife’s Beaverton school district pension while you are at it. Just how poor are you? To be honest, you sound really poor.DJDuck said:
What are you talking about moron. I was self employed and didn’t’ want to serve on a jury.CirrhosisDawg said:
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
We were so poor we paid 4 kids Catholic school tuition from Kindergarten through High School.
If you want I could give you the approximate figure of the cost involved. -
I did. We decided K thru 8 would be in a private religious school. Money welll spent.USMChawk said:
If you two pours could afford to live in a good school district you could have saved all that money.Sledog said:
I sent two through K thru 8 and it was 100k and that was 10 years ago.DJDuck said:
Approximately $450;000CirrhosisDawg said:
Yes, why don’t you calculate the amount of Catholic school tuition you paid to illustrate that you are not poor. Please include your wife’s Beaverton school district pension while you are at it. Just how poor are you? To be honest, you sound really poor.DJDuck said:
What are you talking about moron. I was self employed and didn’t’ want to serve on a jury.CirrhosisDawg said:
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
We were so poor we paid 4 kids Catholic school tuition from Kindergarten through High School.
If you want I could give you the approximate figure of the cost involved. -
is there such a thing as a good school district? maybe a good district with crappy admin and teachers exists...
whatever that means -
Mine growing up was pretty solid. Very few people I knew went to private schoolLebamDawg said:is there such a thing as a good school district? maybe a good district with crappy admin and teachers exists...
whatever that means
And it was usually for sports
My school was like half asian -
He was a cabbie who bragged about bilking government agencies for huge fares...CirrhosisDawg said:
Yes, why don’t you calculate the amount of Catholic school tuition you paid to illustrate that you are not poor. Please include your wife’s Beaverton school district pension while you are at it. Just how poor are you? To be honest, you sound really poor.DJDuck said:
What are you talking about moron. I was self employed and didn’t’ want to serve on a jury.CirrhosisDawg said:
Confirmed. You are poor.DJDuck said:Been called twice. I used the ‘just didn’t show up’ gambit. I was self employed and couldn’t afford it.
We were so poor we paid 4 kids Catholic school tuition from Kindergarten through High School.
If you want I could give you the approximate figure of the cost involved. -
My daughter’s middle school band had more than 40 violinists, almost all Asian. That’s how you know you’re in a good school district.Pitchfork51 said:
Mine growing up was pretty solid. Very few people I knew went to private schoolLebamDawg said:is there such a thing as a good school district? maybe a good district with crappy admin and teachers exists...
whatever that means
And it was usually for sports
My school was like half asian
