The general decline in standards today

[LoveMyHats2]

I wouldn't wear them with a tux, I have with a suit, though.



Yessir, I like my shoes to match my music!

I was going to ask about the BBQ thing with james, but he is off line......hahahahahaha

 

[LoveMyHats2]

They don't even make good slippers like they used to!

 

[Effingham]

They don't even make good slippers like they used to!

I must find out where to get these. >

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I must find out where to get these. >

 

[Tomasso]

lol lol lol

 

[Edward]

My family is big on the family unit. My parents and I are close, I get along well with my brother, and my sister and I are best friends. Our plan is to eventually purchase a parcel of land, good sized, and everyone will build their homes on the property. Everyone has their own space/freedom, but we're all right there.
.

Yeesh. I love my folks...... a whole lot more now we live in different countries! It's not that we're not close, we're just very different people. Sounds like this would be a great arrangement for you and your folks, though, Tom. I imagine too it would be nice for your folks as they get older to have the security of having y'all nearby, but having the independence of their own place. There's quite a pride to be had in a house you built yourself, too. My dad designed and project-managed the building of my folks' current house. The siting on a hill is getting a bit much for them now they're in their mid Sixties, so they plan to move over the next few years, but I know they house suited them great because it was built around what they really wanted, and it was a real sense of achievement to move in.

I was the first juror the defending lawyer excused. I'm convinced it was because of how I was dressed--chances were I was not going to be sympathetic towards his drug-dealing client. I was disappointed. It wasn't as if I had a lot else to do for a while as I was unemployed at the time.

Was the charge drug-dealing? Or did you know this guy had a prior record? Certainly if they got the impression that you considered the guy guilty before the case began, they'd definitely want you off the jury. It'd be interesting to know whether they picked that up from anything you said (were you questioned?) or if they did in fact just drop you from the case based on making the presumption you thought the guy already guilty based on your clothes. Interestingly, I find a lot of people outside the vintage community do jump to the assumption that we're all terribly conservative (both socially and politically), when more often than not, at least here in London, that's about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. I know, though, that in the US system, much like over here, you have a certain number of 'free strikes' before you have to give a reason for excluding someone. Back in Belfast they used to use those pretty quick on people with sectarian tattoos on clear display if the defendant was of the "other sort" (not in cases involving terrorism, as they were always heard by Diplock courts (judges, no juries), for obvious reasons).

I'd quite like to be called for jury duty. For years I was excluded (as a law student and then law graduate, as well as working in the field), but they changed the law on that in England and Wales at some point. Never been called, though. In all probability, given the moves over many years to limit jury trials across the UK (the only element of civil law in which they are still use is defamation, which they are making moves to change, and the Blair government brought in new rules to restrict availability of jury trials in many criminal cases), if I did get called it would be for a fairly hardcore criminal case. I know someone who has been through that recently, and it isn't necessarily an experience you want.

I am reminded of an episode of Dallas where JR was wearing black cowboy boots with his tuxedo.

Mr Blonde wore cowboy boots with his suit in Reservoir Dogs. If I thought them ridiculous, that's certainly a view I'd keep to myself, as he infamously produced a straight razor from one of those boots.....

 

[C-dot]

Well I can tell you, the court systems are not all what many people would think. There are many things that happen between the DA and defense attorneys that is far from legal but done all the time. More or less a "trade off", I will give you this one for those (convictions vs. non convictions). It happens more when you do not have a paid attorney, but happens non the less.

I'm not sure how American criminal courts function, but plea bargaining here is very common and is perfectly legitimate. The bigger problem is the Crown Attorney crusading to "win" a case, which is not in their job description. They are merely supposed to present evidence with no slant, and let defense counsel do the hashing out. Not many people know that.

I'd quite like to be called for jury duty. For years I was excluded (as a law student and then law graduate, as well as working in the field), but they changed the law on that in England and Wales at some point. Never been called, though. In all probability, given the moves over many years to limit jury trials across the UK (the only element of civil law in which they are still use is defamation, which they are making moves to change, and the Blair government brought in new rules to restrict availability of jury trials in many criminal cases), if I did get called it would be for a fairly hardcore criminal case. I know someone who has been through that recently, and it isn't necessarily an experience you want.

That's interesting. I'm not allowed to be called for jury duty since I'm licensed by the Law Society - It's highly unlikely anybody with any legal background would be selected for a jury here, aswell. Sometimes they make a mistake, though: One of my cousins, who is a lawyer, was called once and had to miss a day's work to go down to the selection and try to tell them.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Well I can tell you, the court systems are not all what many people would think. There are many things that happen between the DA and defense attorneys that is far from legal but done all the time. More or less a "trade off", I will give you this one for those (convictions vs. non convictions). It happens more when you do not have a paid attorney, but happens non the less.

I've been reading and enjoying these recent posts concerning the judicial system. I've found it instructive seeing what people have to say about their experiences as jurors or witnesses...or just court observers. But I would like for everyone to know that plea bargaining is not illegal in any state...nor is it in the Federal system. It never has been. And yes, it happens all the time.

In my jurisdiction, we dispose of about 55,000 criminal cases per year. That includes every kind of charge from stop sign violations to capital murder. In Craven and Carteret Counties, we have ten, one-week trial terms per year. There are another four trial terms in Pamlico County. So we have twenty four trial terms per year in this district. The shortest jury trial that I’ve ever tried still lasted an entire day, but I would say that even run-of-the-mill jury trials average three or four days. With this in mind, one needn’t be a math major to see that there is no way to try every case charged by Law Enforcement. In order to dispose of cases, they have to be plead. Generally, only the worst cases, with the most deserving defendants, go before juries.

AF

 

[C-dot]

I've been reading and enjoying these recent posts concerning the judicial system. I've found it instructive seeing what people have to say about their experiences as jurors or witnesses...or just court observers. But I would like for everyone to know that plea bargaining is not illegal in any state...nor is it in the Federal system. It never has been. And yes, it happens all the time.

Exactly. People harbour many misconceptions about the justice system, which is why I believe they are so critical of it.

 

[fortworthgal]

I am reminded of an episode of Dallas where JR was wearing black cowboy boots with his tuxedo.

Boots with nice slacks and tuxedos are very popular here.

Also a popular prom costume here is the upper body portion of a tuxedo with tails, worn with "cowboy starched" black Wrangler jeans, and black boots. Oh, and naturally a black cowboy hat to top off the look.

These would not be the "work" type boots, like Redwings, more the "dress" style boot Tom referred to, in a plain roper style. The pointy-toed variety with heel aren't worn much around here.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Was the charge drug-dealing? Or did you know this guy had a prior record? Certainly if they got the impression that you considered the guy guilty before the case began, they'd definitely want you off the jury. It'd be interesting to know whether they picked that up from anything you said (were you questioned?) or if they did in fact just drop you from the case based on making the presumption you thought the guy already guilty based on your clothes.

As I recall he was found guilty. He was arrested in an undercover operation. Met with undercover officers to sell them drugs, they busted him, he was claiming the drugs weren't his even though he was alone in the car. I wasn't questioned other than by the judge asking each of us if we knew anyone involved in the case or were related to anyone in law enforcement; it was the defense attorney's first free strike.

The same thing happened to my brother-in-law. He was dressed appropriately, and while waiting was using the time to get some work done on his Blackberry (this was before they were also telephones.) I believe he was asked what he did for a living and his level of education before he was dismissed. He's an engineer for a mining company.

From what I've been told this is common. I've heard similar stories from others. The defense attorneys want members of the jury to be as like their client as possible in the assumption that this would have the juror sympathetic towards the defendant. They do not want educated, responsible jurors if they can help it as those are seen to be sympathetic towards the prosecutor. The general lesson seems to be that if you wish to avoid jury duty (at least, in this and surrounding areas) go in dressed appropriately and act with respect. You'll be booted in a hurry!

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Atticus Finch]

From what I've been told this is common. I've heard similar stories from others. The defense attorneys want members of the jury to be as like their client as possible in the assumption that this would have the juror sympathetic towards the defendant. They do not want educated, responsible jurors if they can help it as those are seen to be sympathetic towards the prosecutor. The general lesson seems to be that if you wish to avoid jury duty (at least, in this and surrounding areas) go in dressed appropriately and act with respect. You'll be booted in a hurry!

Cheers,
Tom

In my opinion, jury selection is the toughest part of trial practice. Most often, you win or lose your case in jury selection. And jury selection is an art, not a science. The more you do it, the better you get at it...but you never really master it.

Without getting too deeply into the subject, here are a few of my general rules:

1. I don't much care for young jurors. Sorry...but young people generally don't have the life experiences that allow them to separate the wheat from the chafe in a complex trial. Again, this is only a general rule to which there are exceptions.

2. I'm generally hesitant to leave clergy on my juries. They're in the business of forgiveness. I'm in the business of accountability.

3. I like for my jury to be very homogenous. I want them to agree on some verdict...either guilty or not guilty. For me, the only thing worse than a not guilty verdict is a mistrial because of a hung jury. I don't like trying cases twice.

4. I don't like for my jurors to be like the defendant. I don't want them to identify with the defendant.

5. I like educated jurors. I always set my most important trials in June and July. This is because teachers throughout the year are deferred to the June and July terms.

6. I don't like lawyers on my juries...even former prosecutors. They always attempt to retry the case in the jury room.

7. I don't like people who appear to have an agenda on my juries. I don't want my trial to become someone's forum by which to advance their cause.

....there are many other personal guidelines to jury selection that I've developed over the years, but I'll stop with these few.

AF

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I've been reading and enjoying these recent posts concerning the judicial system. I've found it instructive seeing what people have to say about their experiences as jurors or witnesses...or just court observers. But I would like for everyone to know that plea bargaining is not illegal in any state...nor is it in the Federal system. It never has been. And yes, it happens all the time.

In my jurisdiction, we dispose of about 55,000 criminal cases per year. That includes every kind of charge from stop sign violations to capital murder. In Craven and Carteret Counties, we have ten, one-week trial terms per year. There are another four trial terms in Pamlico County. So we have twenty four trial terms per year in this district. The shortest jury trial that I’ve ever tried still lasted an entire day, but I would say that even run-of-the-mill jury trials average three or four days. With this in mind, one needn’t be a math major to see that there is no way to try every case charged by Law Enforcement. In order to dispose of cases, they have to be plead. Generally, only the worst cases, with the most deserving defendants, go before juries.

AF

This is all very true, however, the ordeal that I make mention was far beyond a plea, it was the "final" outcome of what would happen to one's case, plea or no plea, it was more or less, the manipulation that would take place in the courtroom with an agreed controlling factor. The DA and Defense Attorney discussing a case with a Judge, in the Judge's office, off the record, deciding who would be found guilty (again plea or no plea) and who would slide.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I refuse to serve on any Jury. When I have been sent notice to be selected, I always send it back stating that I hate the Court, hate the Judge, hate the DA's office, and if forced to make it there, I would walk into the Court Room with a firearm. They never select me.

 

[C-dot]

The DA and Defense Attorney discussing a case with a Judge, in the Judge's office, off the record, deciding who would be found guilty (again plea or no plea) and who would slide.

Counsel discussing the case with the Judge in Chambers is very common too - It's called a voir dire. This happens when the nature of the ensuing discussion may prejudice the jury.

In any event, it's highly unlikely that the Judge, the District Attorney, and counsel for the defense would all have the same agenda.

 

[Edward]

Also a popular prom costume here is the upper body portion of a tuxedo with tails, worn with "cowboy starched" black Wrangler jeans, and black boots. Oh, and naturally a black cowboy hat to top off the look.

...and this is tolerated is a civilised society??? Why don't they just go the whole hog and wear short trousers with tails??

Jinkies, I'm all for personal expression, but there is such a thing as too far. Surely this is the very sort of situation the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment to avoid???

Joking. Kinda.

Exactly. People harbour many misconceptions about the justice system, which is why I believe they are so critical of it.

And much, much more beyond the judicial system. Jinkies, most of them are too muddled to even make me feel comfortable that they're trusted with a vote.

In my opinion, jury selection is the toughest part of trial practice. Most often, you win or lose your case in jury selection. And jury selection is an art, not a science. The more you do it, the better you get at it...but you never really master it.

Without getting too deeply into the subject, here are a few of my general rules:

1. I don't much care for young jurors. Sorry...but young people generally don't have the life experiences that allow them to separate the wheat from the chafe in a complex trial. Again, this is only a general rule to which there are exceptions.

2. I'm generally hesitant to leave clergy on my juries. They're in the business of forgiveness. I'm in the business of accountability.

3. I like for my jury to be very homogenous. I want them to agree on some verdict...either guilty or not guilty. For me, the only thing worse than a not guilty verdict is a mistrial because of a hung jury. I don't like trying cases twice.

4. I don't like for my jurors to be like the defendant. I don't want them to identify with the defendant.

5. I like educated jurors. I always set my most important trials in June and July. This is because teachers throughout the year are deferred to the June and July terms.

6. I don't like lawyers on my juries...even former prosecutors. They always attempt to retry the case in the jury room.

7. I don't like people who appear to have an agenda on my juries. I don't want my trial to become someone's forum by which to advance their cause.

....there are many other personal guidelines to jury selection that I've developed over the years, but I'll stop with these few.

AF

Atticus, don't know how you and other practitioners over there feel, but I know I as an academic lawyer am fast coming to the conclusion that I'd rather replace all juries with judges - providing, of course, that we could revamp the judicial system so that more of them are actually vaguely in touch with "normal" people. (Thinking here of the English judge who, around 1964, famously said "So, who are these Beatles, then?")

 

[C-dot]

Atticus, don't know how you and other practitioners over there feel, but I know I as an academic lawyer am fast coming to the conclusion that I'd rather replace all juries with judges - providing, of course, that we could revamp the judicial system so that more of them are actually vaguely in touch with "normal" people. (Thinking here of the English judge who, around 1964, famously said "So, who are these Beatles, then?")

[Not Atticus, but I'm gonna jump in to say] I picked that up in school, too. Juries are regular people, and regular people do not make judgments based entirely on the information presented to them in the courtroom as those with legal background are trained to do. They put it together with their impressions of the accused: "He looks like a drug dealer/murderer/pedophile." Also, a Judge will disregard a piece of irrelevant information, such as that the accused beat his first wife, but a jury member will stow that away to form his/her impression which will lead them to their ultimate conclusion (unless a mistrial is called, and so continues the battle.)

 

[Tomasso]

I've always gone with a bench trial as it is easier and often cheaper to pay off one judge rather than 12 jurors.......just a numbers thing.

 

[Atticus Finch]

I've always gone with a bench trial as it is easier and often cheaper to pay off one judge rather than 12 jurors.......just a numbers thing.

Oh Lord! I hope my judges can't read your post. They'll be queued up outside my door.

AF

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Counsel discussing the case with the Judge in Chambers is very common too - It's called a voir dire. This happens when the nature of the ensuing discussion may prejudice the jury.

In any event, it's highly unlikely that the Judge, the District Attorney, and counsel for the defense would all have the same agenda.

I am well aware of the terminology of that sort of a procedure. However, to clear up my statement, this was observed at such a time, way before a case would even be close to trial. This takes place when the DA, Defense Attorney, and Judge are simply reviewing what is upcoming on the court docket.


This conduct is one factor as to why, I do not practice law, among a few thousand others.