Jury Duty with a Liberal

Exactly, it's not that I (we) wish to excuse or forgive the criminal for their behavior, but the due process of law is something that must be considered as well. Trying to get off on a technicality certainly makes him worthy of contempt, even beyond the contempt he deserves for the DUI in the first place, but we have to appreciate the greater good that due process exists for.

I'm sorry that your jury member was an idiot and couldn't even grant and apparently obvious and fair execution of due process. Hopefully the defendant will get his soon enough.

 

Yeah, we heard lectures about the '4th Amendment' from both sides before the trial ever started. The main message from the prosecutors was 'don't check your common sense at the door.' IOW, it wasn't as clear-cut as the defense attorney's scenario he used to prepare us for the evidence...

"Say a guy drives thru an intersection and the police stop him for running a red light, only to find he's falling down drunk. He's arrested and taken to jail, but at his court hearing, 10 people show up as witnesses to swear the light was green. No matter how you feel about drunk drivers, you'd have to find him not guilty because the officer had no legal reason to pull him over."

Nobody wants to live in a world where the police can knock down your door without reasonable cause. Unfortunately, unless you were on the scene, there's no way to be 100% sure this cop didn't overstep his boundaries. The lawyer's example was a little extreme... this case didn't even have one witness outside the defendant and the cop.

 

"Not having enough proof to convict" is not a technicality. It is the entire basis of our criminal justice system. That is what is not getting through to you.

 

"Reasonable person" is also another hallmark of the system, which when lacking, can hold the system back. Of course, this is meant to be mitigated through the jury selection process, but the system is not perfect.

 

But they had enough proof to convict. Having one hard headed jury who refused to see reason besides the point.

 

He was driving drunk... that's what is not getting through to you.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. You're talking about the other case I mentioned where the guy refused to talk or do a breath test... and we had to let him off.

He was savvy enough to beat the system... nothing to crow about as far as I'm concerned.

 

Meaning he was not guilty. All that matters. Laypeople like yourself often have difficulty with these distinctions - in reality, there is no such distinct thing as a "technicality" in our court system.

 

there is no distinction, only a lawyer who bends words to their whim. How many lawyers bend words to make the case go away, if the glove does not fit you must acquit b.s.! A lawyers job is not to get their client found not guilty, its to make sure that the law is followed, when lawyers bring b.s. evidence into the courtroom, or challenge stupid inconsistency they are not practicing law they are endangering the public.

 

Hardly all that matters.... To the court, with regard to the criminal that's all that matters... but when evaluating the court itself, the proceedings of the court are not judge in and of themselves. If a court system is failing to fulfill its purpose, reformation may need be considered. As for the person acquitted, the laypeople are free to scorn hm all they like, due process only applies to the government.

 

Nothing to crow about certainly, and it raises the question of whether there is a flaw or loophole in the system that allows someone to effectively get off on the grounds that they just refused to be tested. I don't know if it was as simple as that under US (or state) law, but it does seem like a bit of an easy way out for drunk drivers to avoid any kind of criminal conviction (only, as I understand it, having an automatic driving ban from the state, which can be appealed, andobviously isn't a conviction anyway), so maybe the law actually needs tightening in that area. In the UK, refusing to provide a breath test is a criminal offense in itself, and can carry similar penalties to drunk driving anyway, which seems reasonable enough to me - the only reason I can think of for not doing it is if you are pretty sure you are over the limit and would therefore incriminate yourself by doing so - if there is any other mitigating reason (medical, perhaps), obviously the court would take that into account, but simply refusing to give a sample wouldn't actually gain you anything much at all.

 

Lawyers make big money off "technicalities". They like to believe that the drunk driver that killed the three people is innocent until proven guilty and if they can introduce an element of doubt then he is innocent in reality and those three people are alive again. Hallelujah, praise the lawyer, the dead are alive again.

The entire process of law is a series of technicalities, some important and some totally irrelevant. Lawyers are proud of guilty people they get free on technicalities. Freeing an innocent person doesn't give the bragging rights of clearing a guilty person.

For drunken driving specifically, the laws are written to include a plethora of loopholes. There is no shortage of either lawyers or drunks in legislatures.

And, I have to wonder when I read that a man convicted of drunken driving dozens of times has been arrested driving drunk again.

 

In that case, we were reasonably sure (although not told) that the guy was an atty. His $500 suit coupled with the fact he was driving a Lexus and admitted he was on the way home from hosting clients at a Dallas Mavericks game made it pretty easy to deduce he wasn't just an avg joe on his way home from work.

A person 'can' lose their license for 180 days for refusing to take the breath test... but it's not always enforced. I agree... the laws need to be tightened. It's become quite the game to 'beat the system'.

 

Of course, you are ignorant of the law and legal ethics.

It is, in fact, the job of the lawyer to act in the best interests of their client. In criminal defense, that means attempting to get the least punishment possible. A lawyer's ethics require this, and in fact, a lawyer would be disbarred for placing "the public" above their client.

I don't disagree with any of that. I was speaking in terms of this one case, the example of this thread. The OP doesn't discuss or propose any "reformation" of the system.

There isn't. The police can force you to be tested if they have probable cause to believe the person is drunk.

In the U.S., under state law, refusing to be tested is an administrative offense, under which you can have your license to drive suspended.

But being tested is a "search", and under the 4th Amendment, all searches must be reasonable, and must be supported by probable cause.

More of your typical disdain for the fundamental concepts of our justice system. To hell with "innocent until proven guilty," says you. Just another lawyer-hater who forgets that an unchecked government is far more dangerous than all the criminals in the world. Why have a trial at all, right? The police are always right, right?

Nonsense. This is just your personal bias, fueled by your immature and irrational hatred of lawyers. You have no clue what gives lawyers "bragging rights."

Do tell us these loopholes, "professor".

Get the legislature to implement tougher penalties, then.

How does that add up to being an attorney? There's no other job in Texas that pays well? I think you have a rather unrealistic concept of how much (or little) money attorneys actually make. If he was hosting clients at a Mavericks game, he almost certainly was NOT an attorney, and he ABSOLUTELY was not a litigator or criminal defense attorney.

Forcing the police to respect your Constitutional rights is a game to you?

 

I love lawyers who want to pretend that innocent until proven guilty is something other than a legal construct. Does it have any bearing on reality? None. If Bull's neighbor got in an argument with him, went in the house and got a gun, came out and shot Bull in the head but Bull survived, I somehow don't think he'd be treating his neigbhbor as an innocent man. But, if the neighbor shoots you, hell yes he's innocent until proven guilty. An 18-year old woman was raped by her 58-year old neighbor. He was arrested. Plenty of evidence was collected. Three days later he was back home, making faces and obscene gestures at the young woman as she came and went from her house. When she complained the police sided with her and the attorneys suggested she move. That's your "innocent until proven guilty" in the real world.

And, tell me, Bulls, how much mud and muck would you drag this woman through in an attempt to get your client off? Is there any limit? Other than a weak law, none.

"Do tell us these loopholes, "professor"."
I'm sorry, Bull. I thought you were a lawyer. I'm sure you know the loopholes since they're put in place by drunks and lawyers to benefit drunks and lawyers. The Trial Lawyers Association will lobby for stiffer penalties because that means higher fees.

Bull, your self-serving crap wouldn't be so irritating if you didn't continue this "holier than thou" nonsense. And, you're right. I don't respect or trust lawyers. I spent thirty years watching them lie, cheat, suborn perjury, destroy evidence, and pervert justice to listen to your crap dispassionately. And if you mention filing an ethics complaint against a lawyer I'll seek to have you committed.

A man in Chicago was convicted of murdering a woman and her three-year old daughter. He was arrested, he confessed repeatedly, his apartment was searched and bloody clothing and the murder weapon were found. Attorneys decided he could appeal and a judge declared the original arrest flawed and, therefore, all evidence coming from the arrest was inadmissible. He was released. Now, Bull, in your alternate universe, would you say this man was innocent? Then when he got out and murdered another woman. Was he equally innocent of that murder? And when his attorneys were asked if they felt any responsibility for the man's last murder they said, "Of course not. None." In fact, lawyers were responsible for the last murder. The police officers may have erred but the lawyers did what they did with full knowledge of the man's guilt. But, they did get to brag...for awhile.

 

I think Bulls is a fine example of the type of attitude that causes juries to become hopelessly deadlocked. It's a classic case of 'my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts.'

 

As they must be in the UK - there has to be a justifiable reason for the police to stop you, and for the police to test you for alcohol if you are driving (although it is done automatically at the scene of an accident, and smelling alcohol on your breath is enough reasson for an officer to test you if you have been stopped). The police can't just stop and search anyone at will for no reason at all, though. The difference is that refusing to be tested is itself a criminal offence, with similar penalties for testing positive for alcohol. the assumption is effectively that if you are refusing to be tested, you are attempting to simply dodge the law and hide the fact that you are over the limit, and that is an obvious and simple legal loophole that could be exploited if it were allowed to exist.

No country has perfect laws, and every country could learn from others in certain areas. That is true of the USA and of the UK - there are, no doubt, areas of law where the US has some detailed measures that the UK could learn from to improve its laws, and the same is true in reverse. I would suggest that closing this particular loophole, which only serves to allow drunk drivers who get caught to get away without a criminal conviction for their wilfully dangerous and irresponsible action that endangers the lives of others, could possibly be one of them!

 

As long as people have the right to plead their case in front of a jury, there's no way to close 'loopholes'. Folks who are gonna fight it will still fight it. And juries will still know they're guilty as hell, but have to let 'em off on a 'technicality.'

The good news is... the system works the majority of the time. It's gotta be hard to sit in a courtroom and watch a jury see your big fat drunk face on a widescreen TV while you're asking them to find you innocent. In fact, I think it'd be downright humiliating. Fortunately, most people just pay their fine and hopefully vow to take a cab next time. These are the oddballs we're talking about.

More good news! I got a very nice letter from the judge, thanking me for my service and enclosing her business card if I ever needed to contact her. LOL, I wondered if it's a 'get out of jail free' card!! Very nice gesture... loved the fact it wasn't an email.

 

There will always be some 'loopholes' and 'technicalities', and so there should be, in as much as they are often things put in place for the protection of the innocent members of the public anyway (even if they can sometimes be exploited by the guilty), such as the police needing to have reasonable cause to stop and search, or needing to read people their rights on arrest, or whatever. There are some loopholes that can be closed, though, because they don't actually serve any useful purpose in protecting the innocent. Personally I think just being able to refuse a breath test to avoid the risk of testing positive and avoiding a criminal conviction for drunk driving is one of those - I can't see how it protects an innocent member of the public (but I can see how it endangers other members of the public when an unconvicted and vitually unpunished drunk gets back behind the wheel). It's easy enough to close that one by simply making it a criminal offence to refuse to be tested (as it is over here), and I don't see that it violates civil liberties at all to have that.

I can't see how anyone could argue that, after being pulled over on suspicion of driving while drunk (which is obviously illegal), it is an infringement of their rights to be asked to 'blow into the bag' and being expected by law to comply (whether or not they are actually drunk) to show if they have been drinking or not. It's a bit like having a law to protect perfectly innocent people holding blood-covered knives over bleeding stab victims by allowing them to simply refuse to hand over their knife and walk away with it, just in case it wasn't the weapon used and they were innocent, and then when there's no independant witnesses or forensics allowing guilty people to get away with just spending a year using plastic cutlery instead of being convicted of a criminal offense for their actions (just to protect those who may have happened on the stab victim while walking home after a day of work as a butcher, forgetting to clean or put away their big knife - heaven forbid that those poor people might be asked to hand over the knife for testing just in case it was the stab weapon, or might be asked to answer a few police questions about what they were doing there in that situation!)!

 

Me?

I would rather live in a country where under the law I am presumed innocent until proven guilty than a country where I am presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The presumption of innocence protects us against the excesses of government, and against mob rule.

Does this mean that bad people sometimes get off? Unfortunately yes.

Does this mean also that innocent people are prevented from being convicted- yes.

I recently listened to a judge instruct a jury as to the presumption of innocence, and the requirement for our government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendents had committed the crime.

If I am the one falsely accused of a crime, I want this system...not the one where I am forced to prove I did not commit the crime.

 

People like that should not be chosen for jury duty because they do not have the maturity to do what they are being required to do; look at the evidence objectively and deliver an impartial verdict.

 

Thanks for agreeing with me SF Jeff. "I would rather live in a country where under the law I am presumed innocent until proven guilty than a country where I am presumed guilty until proven innocent." Ah, yes, under the law, certainly, but not in reality. The

 

With you on this.

Juries are very powerful bodies. It can find guilt or not. It can also decide, even if all the elements of the crime are there, if the law is just in its application. For example there were some juries that would not convict people charged with helping or providing care to escaping slaves. Juries wield great power.

 

As opposed to some here, who don't have the evidence to consider objectively but still made a partial verdict.

 

Oh righto. I didn't ask if you were charged with deciding he was drunk. I asked if there was evidence he was speeding and drunk and did they breathalyse him.

It seems you misread that although it was right in front of your face in writing.

What if you misread the evidence (although there doesn't seem to have been any

.

You are saying the woman mentioned Obama's name and on that basis you labelled her a lefty and altered your perception according to your own political bias, although many voters crossed the rubicon to vote for Obama who are not traditionally liberal voters. It is clearly inappropriate to bring your personal political bias into a legal setting.

You then tried to browbeat the woman into changing her opinion to suit yours, which would very definitely have caused me to approach the Official and ask for you to be removed, btw. Then having allowed YOUR POLITICAL BIAS against a woman you don't even know to come into legal proceedings which are affecting another person's liberty and potentially cause a mistrial...you have the to say the other woman is crazy and wrong?

I suggest to you the possibility that the other people in the room publicly said anything you wanted, just to avoid being picked on.

Except the one who did her job as asked by the Court and showed admirable restraint, she might have been expected to drag you into the John with her and flush your head down the toilet.

No offence, I am just giving an opinion and although you didn't appreciate that woman giving hers, I know you will take mine in the spirit of freedom of speech. Or maybe...I'm just crazy.

SMV stands superior to the truth.