U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:43 PM
 
12,870 posts, read 13,122,563 times
Reputation: 4453

Advertisements

i have a feeling that the jurors will make themselves available for paid interviews.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:47 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,758,908 times
Reputation: 18042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe View Post
You can challenge a juror based upon their answers to written and oral questioning before the trial. Jurors should not be removed just because an attorney doesn't like their sex, race, what they do or where they live or, as happened in a case here some years back, because the juror has an NRA sticker on his car. Just because a person has an NRA card- or an ACLU card for that matter- does not mean they are going to vote a certain way in a given case. Each lawyer should be allowed to submit to each juror a written questionnaire and then conduct an oral examination with the juror sitting behind a one way glass so as not to be seen. A skilled lawyer can ferret out a bad juror fairly quickly.
But as we often have seen people lie. The thing your talking about is strikes which both sides have. Challenging a juror for cause is very different.You don;t challange a juror for casued just based on questiong alone. Ypou seem to have a high opinio of layws investiagtibve skills. That ois what they jire investoiagtors for they just present the findings legally. Perry mason was a fictional character. Lwyer do their part by eliminating evidence on both side thru legal object on points of law. Its the same with jurors ;but its needs a basis of law. But its really pointless ebcaue you would enver get it thru the courts any more than secret judges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 05:49 PM
Sco
 
4,259 posts, read 4,230,312 times
Reputation: 3358
If I was a juror and knew that my name and address was going to be released after a trial it would change the way I would vote. Who in their right mind would vote quilty in a criminal trial if you knew that the court was going to make it easy for the defendant's family and friends to be able to track you down afterwards? This should not even be open for debate, the identities of the jurors should be confidential or the court should be forced to provide 24/7 lifetime security for all jurors and also assume civil liability for any harm that may be done to them later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 06:06 PM
 
Location: MI
1,881 posts, read 1,580,538 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco View Post
If I was a juror and knew that my name and address was going to be released after a trial it would change the way I would vote. Who in their right mind would vote quilty in a criminal trial if you knew that the court was going to make it easy for the defendant's family and friends to be able to track you down afterwards? This should not even be open for debate, the identities of the jurors should be confidential or the court should be forced to provide 24/7 lifetime security for all jurors and also assume civil liability for any harm that may be done to them later.
I love this post. How many people would serve on a jury knowing their lives might be interrupted by some hateful person later.
None would serve I say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 06:49 PM
 
19,122 posts, read 22,180,500 times
Reputation: 7326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
So........I guess that means that only men capable of defending themselves should be required to serve jury duty.
You did want to be equal to men right?

I was called, but engaged in my own divorce. When the courts who had treated me poorly, violating my civil rights, found out I had been called they turned me down. (offically excused with no concern for any say I had)

I wanted to go for the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 06:53 PM
 
19,122 posts, read 22,180,500 times
Reputation: 7326
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDC View Post
How about people who live in liberal strongholds like DC where guns are either banned or so restricted that they might as well be banned? I'm not the Karate Kid, the only way I could reasonably defend myself from an angry mob of idiots would be a gun and ammo.
If you wish to be armed, check into the newer laws. You shouldn't have all that much problem now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 06:56 PM
 
19,122 posts, read 22,180,500 times
Reputation: 7326
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
I understand that people might have a desire to have some kinds of information not made public, but people's impression or belief about privacy rights are very different from the reality.

In general, court records are public. If you're being sued, even if the case hasn't gone to trial yet, your next-door neighbor or your worst enemy could stroll down to the court and ask to review the file, and the clerk would be required to provide it. Same thing if you're charged with a crime. Where do you think the newspapers get their information from?

I was involved in a somewhat related question the other day about taking and publishing photos of famous people and their families. Again, if you think there is a law that says the press can't photograph children or publish their pictures without their parents' permission you'd be wrong. Same with rape victims: most newspapers choose not to publish their names, but there's nothing they says they can't.

The point to this extended discussion is that we live in a free society with freedom of the press. Almost every part of government comes up with reasons that some of what they do should be secret, but every additional secret is one more obstacle to the people's right to know what their government is doing.

I can go along with the idea that it's unfortunate that people may have their privacy invaded because they became involved in a case that garnered a lot of publicity, and all due to circumstances beyond their control. I would probably say the same thing about that couple who were photographed kissing on the street in the middle of the riot in Vancouver (?), but I wouldn't impose disclosure or reporting restrictions on either the government or the press to remedy that problem.
Almost, not quite you need the docket number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,288 posts, read 11,186,633 times
Reputation: 14122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz View Post
Almost, not quite you need the docket number.
In many courts you can either get the information by the party's name online, or get the docket number from the clerk if you have the name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,456 posts, read 12,707,441 times
Reputation: 4759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
This is something I never thought about before the Anthony trial, in fact, it never dawned on me that your name and address would be put out there if you served on a jury. I assumed your right to privacy was protected. For years, I paid to keep my name, and ESPECIALLY my address, out of the phone book.....and then, just because I serve on a jury, too bad for you?

I think it is terrible that they are even thinking about releasing these juror's names and addresses.

After you have done your civic duty by serving on a jury......you shouldn't have your personal information made public.....in the case of the Anthony trial......it is like being thrown to the wolves.

What do YOU think?


{I tried several searches to see if there is already a thread on this topic, couldn't find one.....if I missed it.....sorry. }
Absolutely not. In the long run who would want to participate in our judicial process if they must later fear threats from losers and other crazies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 11:11 PM
 
32,323 posts, read 26,200,084 times
Reputation: 18953
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
I understand that people might have a desire to have some kinds of information not made public, but people's impression or belief about privacy rights are very different from the reality.

In general, court records are public. If you're being sued, even if the case hasn't gone to trial yet, your next-door neighbor or your worst enemy could stroll down to the court and ask to review the file, and the clerk would be required to provide it. Same thing if you're charged with a crime. Where do you think the newspapers get their information from?

I was involved in a somewhat related question the other day about taking and publishing photos of famous people and their families. Again, if you think there is a law that says the press can't photograph children or publish their pictures without their parents' permission you'd be wrong. Same with rape victims: most newspapers choose not to publish their names, but there's nothing they says they can't.

The point to this extended discussion is that we live in a free society with freedom of the press. Almost every part of government comes up with reasons that some of what they do should be secret, but every additional secret is one more obstacle to the people's right to know what their government is doing.

I can go along with the idea that it's unfortunate that people may have their privacy invaded because they became involved in a case that garnered a lot of publicity, and all due to circumstances beyond their control. I would probably say the same thing about that couple who were photographed kissing on the street in the middle of the riot in Vancouver (?), but I wouldn't impose disclosure or reporting restrictions on either the government or the press to remedy that problem.
you beat me to it. understand that a trial record, unless sealed by the judge, is in fact public record. personally i wouldnt have it any other way because secret juries are rife with corruption.

in the end however i think the point is moot because i have never heard of people who worked on a jury being hassled after a trial, even one as emotionally charged as the oj simpson or casey anthony trial. in fact i havent even heard of jurors that sat on mob trials being hassled, though i am sure that there might have been a few now and then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Joe View Post
You can challenge a juror based upon their answers to written and oral questioning before the trial. Jurors should not be removed just because an attorney doesn't like their sex, race, what they do or where they live or, as happened in a case here some years back, because the juror has an NRA sticker on his car. Just because a person has an NRA card- or an ACLU card for that matter- does not mean they are going to vote a certain way in a given case. Each lawyer should be allowed to submit to each juror a written questionnaire and then conduct an oral examination with the juror sitting behind a one way glass so as not to be seen. A skilled lawyer can ferret out a bad juror fairly quickly.
yep, jurors can be dismissed without cause by either side, though they are limited in the number of jurors they can dismiss without cause. this number varies by the size of the jury pool, and the type of case being tried. if a juror is challenged, the judge in the case will usually ask the juror some questions, and based on the jurors response, body language, etc. the judge can either uphold the challenge, or dismiss it. if the judge upholds a challenge, then the juror is dismissed from the panel. and if the judg dismisses the challenge, the juror is then considered empaneled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:17 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top