The general decline in standards today

[LoveMyHats2]

And the guy from the Fugitive movies.

I heard the guys other arm was found at a store where they overcharged for everything...the prices were so high, they wanted an "arm...or a leg"....

 

[Tomasso]

the prices were so high, they wanted an "arm...or a leg"....

A friend calls his favorite French restaurant Chez Armandaleg.

 

[sheeplady]

Having sat on a jury (civil case), I thought our courts worked reasonably well from my perspective (in that case). However, I was not pleased with my fellow juror's attitudes towards their duty. Everyday it was "how soon can I get out of here." "I hate this, this is so stupid." "This is a waste of my time." "Why do I have to do this?"

Because one of your rights is a trial by a jury of your peers? :eusa_doh:

It's not like I jumped up every morning saying "Yay! Another day of jury duty!" but I didn't mouth off about how awful it was (and I wasn't excused from my work so I was really stretched thin). It made me slightly nervous about having a loved one or myself in court, given the jurors' attitudes.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Having sat on a jury (civil case), I thought our courts worked reasonably well from my perspective (in that case). However, I was not pleased with my fellow juror's attitudes towards their duty. Everyday it was "how soon can I get out of here." "I hate this, this is so stupid." "This is a waste of my time." "Why do I have to do this?"

Because one of your rights is a trial by a jury of your peers? :eusa_doh:

It's not like I jumped up every morning saying "Yay! Another day of jury duty!" but I didn't mouth off about how awful it was (and I wasn't excused from my work so I was really stretched thin). It made me slightly nervous about having a loved one or myself in court, given the jurors' attitudes.

I can simply understand how uncomfortable that ordeal was for you.

I know I am fairly negative about courts, but they are a "necessary evil". I just elect to not take part in them from any position of exposure, possible.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

A friend calls his favorite French restaurant Chez Armandaleg.

Good one, yes indeed. Perhaps, "finger foods" made the menu list?

 

[C-dot]

Having sat on a jury (civil case), I thought our courts worked reasonably well from my perspective (in that case). However, I was not pleased with my fellow juror's attitudes towards their duty. Everyday it was "how soon can I get out of here." "I hate this, this is so stupid." "This is a waste of my time." "Why do I have to do this?"

If one of those plebs had made their statement out loud, I'm sure a new trial would have been arranged. Jury trials for civil cases aren't all that common, and having worked in civil lit myself, I can tell you it is so much better to go to mediation (or if that fails, arbitration) and the courts actively encourage it. The same goes for criminal cases - Should anyone have the terrible misfortune to be charged with a criminal offense, elect for a Judge-only trial.

 

[Tomasso]

Should anyone have the terrible misfortune to be charged with a criminal offense, elect for a Judge-only trial.

Yep.

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.

 

[C-dot]

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.

I know you might be joking, but I am serious. In the course of my study and work experiences, I know that an accused is more likely to get an impartial decision from one trained adjudicator than 12 impressionable average-joe's (not through their own fault, but because they are human.)

 

[Atticus Finch]

Do American courts accept polygraph tests as evidence? They don't here or in the UK.

C-Dot, I know of no jurisdiction in the United States that allows Polygraph results into evidence in a criminal case. I can tell you that North Carolina does not.

AF

 

[LoveMyHats2]

C-Dot, I know of no jurisdiction in the United States that allows Polygraph results into evidence in a criminal case. I can tell you that North Carolina does not.

AF

A simple google search will explain the recent, (or not too recent) rulings regarding this issue by the courts. It is noted, they are not allowed per se, in most court jurisdictions, however, they are not always barred.

The results being admissible,or not, none the less, do not deter the affect of taking one and passing it, may do for you, before the legal process creates a nightmare for you.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Having sat on a jury (civil case), I thought our courts worked reasonably well from my perspective (in that case). However, I was not pleased with my fellow juror's attitudes towards their duty. Everyday it was "how soon can I get out of here." "I hate this, this is so stupid." "This is a waste of my time." "Why do I have to do this?"

Because one of your rights is a trial by a jury of your peers? :eusa_doh:

It's not like I jumped up every morning saying "Yay! Another day of jury duty!" but I didn't mouth off about how awful it was (and I wasn't excused from my work so I was really stretched thin). It made me slightly nervous about having a loved one or myself in court, given the jurors' attitudes.

It was just the opposite concerning the jurors in the murder trial I sat on. Perhaps because it very possibily could lock a man away for much of his life. All my fellow jurors seemed to take it very seriously..and were so involved that they came in everyday eager to hear and analize more evidence. They took ownership of the duty they were faced with..and wouldn't have passed it off on anyone else. At times I do think that they may have over analized what they were hearing...but only in order to absolutely get it right. In the end..many were also so emotionally invested..that all that feeling had to be released before they could get down to actually pinpointing just what facts were proven...and what simply needed to be seriously considered. However..in the end..with a little encouragement..they did. I must say that I was impressed. Twelve people from different walks of life that got down to the nitty gritty while all showing a deep caring..and dread of what they were obligated to do. The experience kinda restored my faith in people. I don't think that I sat on an exceptional jury...but,perhaps,just a common one..especially when the circumstances are so serious.
HD

 

[LoveMyHats2]

C-Dot, I know of no jurisdiction in the United States that allows Polygraph results into evidence in a criminal case. I can tell you that North Carolina does not.

AF

I do know that each State has a different set of rules for the court, evidence, and what is called civil rules of procedure that a Judge is to abide by when the Court is in session. They vary State to State. From what I do observe in a difference say from Michigan Courts and California Courts, in Michigan, an Attorney may on the record, do more than just voice and "objection" to what is ongoing during a proceedings and may actually make the statement, " I challenge the court", to a bad ruling and right then and there have the Judge back things up and re do something he was doing wrong. Now in California, geez, most Attorneys are afraid of the Judges so badly, like sheep, they may raise their hands and seek permission to even address the Court.

I am sure in North Carolina, the decorum in Court is much more respectful and dignified. Thus also, if one has been in Practice in North Carolina, I am certain the affairs common to have to deal with are much more "sane" and above board. If as only a Court Room observer, anyone would after one week in the majority of Court Proceedings in California, would see the average Justice there, actually have this belief they are God, and may do anything, say anything, and toss things around in the Court Room and have temper tantrums at anyone they wish in that Court Room. It is a zoo.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

It was just the opposite concerning the jurors in the murder trial I sat on. Perhaps because it very possibily could lock a man away for much of his life. All my fellow jurors seemed to take it very seriously..and were so involved that they came in everyday eager to hear and analize more evidence. They took ownership of the duty they were faced with..and wouldn't have passed it off on anyone else. At times I do think that they may have over analized what they were hearing...but only in order to absolutely get it right. In the end..many were also so emotionally invested..that all that feeling had to be released before they could get down to actually pinpointing just what facts were proven...and what simply needed to be seriously considered. However..in the end..with a little encouragement..they did. I must say that I was impressed. Twelve people from different walks of life that got down to the nitty gritty while all showing a deep caring..and dread of what they were obligated to do. The experience kinda restored my faith in people. I don't think that I sat on an exceptional jury...but,perhaps,just a common one..especially when the circumstances are so serious.
HD

I can already know that if anything you would have had to do, your own personal ethics would come into play as from what you display within your standings (demonstrated to me from what you post here on the Lounge). It is good that some in life are willing to compel what is right and good to surface.
During the course of a trial, normally, what needs to be presented is allowed to be presented, and then by order, allows a jury to do what is lawful.

Now imagine that trial, (not knowing the facts or history or laws involved) was taking place and without you knowing it, some very key elements of the case, evidence, was kept from you that would have really given you a different view and very likely a different vote on your selection of guilt or innocence of that defendant, and now add to that, in California, they do that...and you as a Jury member would have no idea it has taken place....see my complaint? How could you know what you did was right? It is a sickness there in that State, and due to it taking place, even a few times, let along the number of times I have seen it take place, that I just cannot take being involved in any court. No one deserves to be abused by power. No one deserves to be treated unfairly, even someone that IS guilty of a crime.

So yes, I do sir, give you so much respect. I am also sure if you sat and observed what I have, you would desire to stand up and say right then and there," what is going on with you crooked S.O.B's"...I did and was told to mind my own business, with some rather more severe warnings that the Judge damn well could have carried out!

 

[Atticus Finch]

Well, again, I have enjoyed reading the posts in this thread. It is always eye opening to listen to the opinions of people who have been touched by the judicial system, but haven't spent their lives working in it.

It isn't a perfect system, to be sure. Innocent people are sometimes convicted. Guilty people go free. There are a few people in the system who have succumb to corruption, but the vast majority are fair and honest. We plead cases because the states and the United States could never afford to try every criminal case that police charge. It would cost far too much in terms of financial costs and societal costs. Too many people would have to miss too much work to serve on juries. Too many people would have to devote weeks of their lives being witnesses. Too much of government budgets would have to be devoted to building court rooms and paying court personnel. Though some people may recoil at the the thought lawyers hammering out plea deals in the courthouse back rooms, those same people would recoil even more violently were they presented with the tax bill necessary to pay for a jury trial of each of the millions of criminal cases filed annually. And truthfully, knowing what I know about the frailty of jury trials, I doubt that we would reach a better result for society were we to try each and every case.

Ours is still the best legal system ever devised...I firmly believe that. Though I have heard people complain about it throughout my entire career, the complainers are most often the people who have been held accountable by it. And in all the grumbling, I have never heard someone come forth with a better alternative.

AF

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Well, again, I have enjoyed reading the posts in this thread. It is always eye opening to listen to the opinions of people who have been touched by the judicial system, but haven't spent their lives working in it.

It isn't a perfect system, to be sure. Innocent people are sometimes convicted. Guilty people go free. There are a few people in the system who have succumb to corruption, but the vast majority are fair and honest. We plead cases because the states and the United States could never afford to try every criminal case that police charge. It would cost far too much in terms of financial costs and societal costs. Too many people would have to miss too much work to serve on juries. Too many people would have to devote weeks of their lives being witnesses. Too much of government budgets would have to be devoted to building court rooms and paying court personnel. Though some people may recoil at the the thought lawyers hammering out plea deals in the courthouse back rooms, those same people would recoil even more violently were they presented with the tax bill necessary to pay for a jury trial of each of the millions of criminal cases filed annually. And truthfully, knowing what I know about the frailty of jury trials, I doubt that we would reach a better result for society were we to try each and every case.

Ours is still the best legal system ever devised...I firmly believe that. Though I have heard people complain about it throughout my entire career, the complainers are most often the people who have been held accountable by it. And in all the grumbling, I have never heard someone come forth with a better alternative.

AF

In the bigger picture you are right in all the viewpoints you express. However, until you do decide to sit in any major courtroom in California and see it for yourself, you cannot make an assumption that what you have ventured as a career makes it the same where you are at, compared to any other State, and without a doubt the crazy State of California. I went to law school in California, had the dream and desire of being another F. Lee Bailey. Not gonna happen. I would have to do some digging in my own personal records, to account for how many thousands of hours I have in the Court room, but for the five years I was in the Court systems, the hours of being present and for what work I did, far exceeded 90 hours per week. Staying in that would not have altered my observations nor my opinions.

Also, I would hope you do not take anything I would have to say as an attack on you, your career, or your ethics. As I have stated, there is NO doubt that in your State, there is a far better level of sanity by those in the Judicial system than in California.

 

[Edward]

That reminds me of a statement my evidence law professor made in college that instantly changed how I thought about it: "It's not the truth that matters, its the truth you can prove."

(It requires some explanation - He wasn't inferring that an advocate should push his or her fabricated version of the events, he was saying that only the truth makes sense, and any part of that truth that cannot be proved doesn't mean anything to the Court. If you watch Judge Judy, you've heard her say "If it isn't here, it doesn't exist." This is the same principle.)

I emphasise thiws to my classes, especially when we study libel law. It's what I refer to as the Liberace Position.

C-Dot, I know of no jurisdiction in the United States that allows Polygraph results into evidence in a criminal case. I can tell you that North Carolina does not.

AF

Nor should they, or any sensible system. Lie detectors are completely smoke and mirrors, and anyone who realises that can best them every time.

 

[Atticus Finch]

I went to law school in California, had the dream and desire of being another F. Lee Bailey. Not gonna happen.

I'm glad it didn't happen. Lee Bailey was disbarred and actually served time in Federal prision for contempt of court. He was ordered to turn over some client assets that had been "Ricoed" in a drug case, but was unable or unwilling to do so. Of course, Federal Judges are the last people one should cross, so 'ol Lee went to prison.

I actually have a tiny connection to Lee Bailey. He was a USMC F-86 pilot stationed at Cherry Point, back in the 'fifties. He loved to fly and owned a Taylor Craft that he kept at Beaufort Airport. My father had moved back to Beaufort after serving as a fighter pilot in WWII and was active in local civil aviation. Dad told me that he's pretty sure he met Bailey several times when they were both hanging around the airport. In fact, Dad later purchased the hanger where Bailey kept his plane...and I just sold it to the State of North Carolina as part of a road project.

AF

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I'm glad it didn't happen. Lee Bailey was disbarred and actually served time in Federal prision for contempt of court. He was ordered to turn over some client assets that had been "Ricoed" in a drug case, but was unable or unwilling to do so. Of course, Federal Judges are the last people one should cross, so 'ol Lee went to prison.

I actually have a tiny connection to Lee Bailey. He was a USMC F-86 pilot stationed at Cherry Point, back in the 'fifties. He loved to fly and owned a Taylor Craft that he kept at Beaufort Airport. My father had moved back to Beaufort after serving as a fighter pilot in WWII and was active in local civil aviation. Dad told me that he's pretty sure he met Bailey several times when they were both hanging around the airport. In fact, Dad later purchased the hanger where Bailey kept his plane...and I just sold it to the State of North Carolina as part of a road project.

AF

The time period of my Law School, was far before the day he fell apart and from my statements, use it as a example merely to state, as many people do that attend law school, the belief you can really do things merely by one's zeal. I do not "identify" my career nor my choices or habits in life, per what did or did not happen to him.

Further, I always have to say, I do not know the totality of what has happened to F.Lee Bailey, nor his motives of his choices. It may well be, he had a right to what he was attempting to hold onto, and the court did not see it that way. Key issues you surface I would look into is the very statement of factor's I personally raise. "Federal Judges are the last person you should cross..."....

I have had the pleasure of knowing a few key Federal Judges in California. Stanley Weigel (If I am spelling his last name right), I am sure he may not even be alive at this time. Very honest, very much into being fair, and had a great love for mankind. On weekends or holidays, he and his Wife would cook and hand out food and clothing on a street corner to help the less fortunate. Many laws in California are from his bench, that at the time, made a good difference for people in that State.

I am glad I did not stay in the legal field. I have had much more fun, more financial success, have had a great life, have a great daily life, and appreciate where I am at daily. My background in law, affords me to know what someone that still hangs a shingle on their door, that may be representing me in a business issue, from making mistakes being my advocate, and should be doing. I am sure I am far from being an easy to get along with client, but I am willing to pay well for good representation.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I emphasise thiws to my classes, especially when we study libel law. It's what I refer to as the Liberace Position.



Nor should they, or any sensible system. Lie detectors are completely smoke and mirrors, and anyone who realises that can best them every time.

I do give you some very deep respect and value a difference of opinion about the lie detector issue.

In my own life, I have had many, mostly due to military service, and as such, started having exposure to the what and hows surrounding lie detectors.

NIS (when called that back in the late 1960's till perhaps the late 80"s) depended upon the use of lie detectors for many issues regarding security and debriefing of military and CIA personnel. The FBI and many law enforcement agencies have use it also for a very long time period. It may be debated till the cows come home, but there is more recent than at any other time, information via research that a polygraph had more accuracy then what was originally thought. I have never met anyone along the course of my life, that has attempted to beat one, and had a success in doing so. That factor includes several individuals that actually paid for a course on "how to cheat and beat" a polygraph. Can it be done, yes.

I tend to support the polygraph test to show the favorable possibility of a person's guilt or innocence. It does make a good evaluation tool that a person has told the truth or a lie. My point in the statement BEG for one if you are having an issue legally, is that as in my own view points about them, the majority of law enforcement view the results as I do, and if you pass the test, they will more than not, leave a person alone from that point on.

And yes, there are Court Proceedings that have allowed the Poly Graph results to be entered into the "fact findings" presented to the court. Those are a breeze to google and find.

 

[sheeplady]

I know you might be joking, but I am serious. In the course of my study and work experiences, I know that an accused is more likely to get an impartial decision from one trained adjudicator than 12 impressionable average-joe's (not through their own fault, but because they are human.)

That is something good to know.

It was just the opposite concerning the jurors in the murder trial I sat on. Perhaps because it very possibily could lock a man away for much of his life. All my fellow jurors seemed to take it very seriously..and were so involved that they came in everyday eager to hear and analize more evidence.

That makes me feel better. Perhaps if the circumstances had been different the people would have been different. At the time, I thought, "I couldn't mentally handle a criminal case if this is how people are going to act." The stress of putting someone in jail on top of people with such flippant attitudes would have meant absolutely no sleep for me for weeks on end while I worried about if the person would get a fair discussion by the jurors. But I am glad to hear that my experience isn't the norm.