SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JDN who wrote (220001)9/17/2007 10:26:46 AM
From: mph  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793794
 
I tried to get selected the last time I was called for jury duty. It was a 2 or 3 day criminal case, which involved some sort of drunk driving offense. I thought I would benefit from an inside look at the way juries operate, though I suspected it was like going to the sausage factory<g>

I explained that my practice as a lawyer was confined to civil litigation and that I had only represented 2 individuals (family friends) on minor alcohol related offenses over the years...yadda yadda yadda.

The prosecutor accepted me. I was the first person dinged by the young defense lawyer.

This told me something. He was going with the conventional wisdom of keeping lawyers off juries, or he knew his side of the case was all smoke and mirrors and therefore wanted to kick off jurors who might analyze his presentation too closely. (I figured he had a loser...<g>)



To: JDN who wrote (220001)9/17/2007 10:34:15 AM
From: ManyMoose  Respond to of 793794
 
You lose. I am more like you. I just talk like the crusty old NYC cop on SI.

One of the questions we were asked by the attorneys selecting the jury was "Do you think the testimony of a police officer holds more weight that anyone else?"

I had to answer "No."

But in fact, I believe the EVIDENCE presented by police officers is more compelling that a lot of speculation by a defense attorney.