Slashdot Mirror
Charles Nesson Ruled Jointly Liable To Pay RIAA
eldavojohn writes "The highly anticipated Joel Tenenbaum trial ended in a disaster for Tenenbaum. But worse for his highly publicized lawyer, Charles Nesson, they are both liable for payment of the court's decision to the RIAA. Nesson's pro bono agreement with Tenenbaum may turn out to be a seriously expensive experiment for the Harvard Law Professor." As the Ars story points out, though, it's "some fees incurred by the RIAA during the trial" for which he'd be liable, not the whole judgment amount.
Should that be in the curriculum as well? Law 101 - Monday, 11.00-13.00 - Room A1 - Electrocution exercise.
Nesson's conduct isn't justifiable. But that's not really my point.
I can't see how his behavior helps Mr. Tennenbaum. The lawyer is supposed to help his client, not grab attention for himself with patently improper tactics. Nesson looks like he's putting his own interests ahead of his client's interests.
Nesson hasn't demonstrated any technical legal tactics in this case. Nor has he provided any insightful new ways to approach the copyright law.
He's just dancing around on the stage like a really old Ziggy Stardust.
He'd garner more respect if he spent more time working for Mr. Tenenbaum.
Wow! wonderful strategy there. According to the article Neeson not only repeated the same offense that Tenenbaum was accused of but then linked to it on his blog. Then after the RIAA files a motion to compel, Nesson doesnt even file a response? What in the heck was he trying to do here, did he just suddenly loose his sanity? I realize the guy was working pro-bono but in this case it seems worse than representing yourself.
Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder.
And how does the one who is falsely accused of murder secure council in your hypothetical reality?
He isn't jointly liable for anything, he got sanctioned by the court. Maybe read the actual article before choosing how to word the headline?
good grief, duplicating the very act that originally got his client in legal hot water is supposed to be some sort of winning legal strategy??? I don't think so!
Uh, everyone is entitled to defense. Even if the person is guilty of the crime, maybe the circumstances dictate it was an accident with no intent. Sometimes that's still a criminal offense but the punishment would be less severe.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
That would be a good idea if the legal system was infallible. How could you possible get a defense lawyer on your side if you had hard evidence lined up against you?
You are now manually breathing.
I can't figure if you're a troll or not, but if you are serious, this is one of the most stupid comment I've ever read on slashdot. The consequences of such a system are immediatly obvious: nobody would ever want to risk their own lives to defend anyone accused of a serious crime, even for cases where the accused is almost certainly innocent (why risk it at all?).
Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
Then you would end up with only prosecution/plaintiff lawyers and never any defense lawyers. Not to mention that public defenders don't choose who they are defending, innocent people sometimes get convicted, and sometimes the lawyer doesn't even know if their client is guilty or not. Heck lawyers aren't really supposed to care if their client is guilty or not, because it is their professional duty to represent someone in a place with convoluted and illogical rules.
Nesson must have been paid handsomely by the RIAA to throw the case and set a precedent favorable to the RIAA. One thing is for sure... nobody is going to retain him as a lawyer for a case like this again, even if it is pro bono!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It doesn't matter, once nobody will represent them, no murderer will ever be prosecuted in the US again because it's impossible to have a fair trial.
That's stupid because it presumes that the prosecuted party is guilty and might prevent them from finding the means to defend themselves. Ya there's a lot of scum out there, but it's not impossible for the innocent to get accused as well, which is why we have trials in the first place: to determine guilt. Another way in which this is stupid is that large companies can easily leverage more capital to go after the guy with less money. So in addition to already having the odds stacked against them financially, your suggestion would prevent any defence attorney from taking on a risky case.
A trial lawyer gets unfairly executed.....
I'm thinking, I'm thinking!
Defense lawyers don't defend their clients' crimes. They defend their clients' rights.
This is a ridiculously bad idea.
First, not all lawyers know their clients are guilty. They only know what their clients tell them, which may or may not be true.
Second, according to law, everyone is entitled to legal counsel and representation in a trial. That's why we have public defenders. Are you proposing that public defenders be given the same sentences as their clients, even though public defenders don't actually have a choice in who they represent?
The whole court system in Common Law countries is based on the idea of the adversarial system. It's just like debating, where one debater (or team) may be assigned to argue for something they completely disagree with personally.
Of course, this does bring up the question of whether the adversarial system is really the best one or not. Back to my comment with debating, the practice of debating shows that a talented person skilled at debating could convince a group of people to accept something totally wrong if his opponent is not as skilled as him. For instance, in a debate about slavery, a talented debater could conceivably convince a group of laymen that slavery is actually a good idea and should be brought back, if his opponent is not very skilled. This is similar to courtroom trials: the truth of the case is secondary to the skills of the lawyers, so guilt or innocence is highly dependent on how good (and thus expensive) your lawyer is. People who can't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail, even if they're innocent. The fact that juries are typically composed of the dumbest people from any particular population doesn't help; they're even more easily swayed by good-sounding arguments because they lack the critical thinking skills that better educated people have.
This is why I think the French/German Civil Code is a better way to design justice systems. In those, the Judges are not former lawyers, they actually go to school to become judges, and their role is not merely to oversee a debate between two lawyers, but they're inquisitors: their role is to seek the truth. Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they're simply not useful in determining guilt.
Mea culpa: Should say "counsel".
Would it be fairer if he were representing a rapist?
Ehhh... the diddy of a lawyer uploaded the songs personally during the trial and posted a link to his blog, THEN he dragged his heels responding to their motion to compel discovery over why the heck he was doing something so batshit crazy.
The lawyer's conduct brought this upon him and nothing else, and he's only liable for some related fees over the motion he dragged his heels on.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach gym.
First, not all lawyers know their clients are guilty. They only know what their clients tell them, which may or may not be true.
Also a lot of lawyers legitimately believe even if their clients committed a crime, they did not commit what they're being charged with.
You're working under the assumption that prosecutors can't (or won't) make legally compelling arguments that those trials can nevertheless be considered fair, and such suspects should be forced to stand trial anyway, with or without a lawyer.
I don't know if you've met many prosecutors, but that's a very optimistic view you have.
And a fool of a lawyer.
This seems to be such a poorly handled case from the beginning and I find it hard to to sympathize with the RIAA or the damage amount, but this kid went from hoisting himself on his own petard to letting some Harvard prof do the same for some information wants to be free precedent. Any real advocate would start defending the kid and run from this martyr crap, because the courts will gladly give him his wish.
What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck. That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.".
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
His exact words were this:
I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client. Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder. Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole? Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.
I've heard lots of ideas for improving the legal system... some of them have been really good, and some of them have been really bad. Of all those, this is the worst idea I've ever.
Even if all it does is prevent a lawyer from simply defending people who are "clearly" guilty (which it doesn't - and which in and of itself is a ridiculous idea - it is impossible by the laws of physics for there to be no doubt whatsoever that someone is guilty), it would still be an extremely bad idea.
The purpose of a lawyer varies depending on legal jurisdiction, but in general, a defense lawyer exists to ensure that someone who is accused of a crime doesn't get screwed over. A lawyer is there to help innocent people convince courts of their innocence, and to make sure a guilty person doesn't get a worse punishment than they deserve. Your proposal undermines both of these.
(This is why the US Constitution guarantees a lawyer wherever necessary, and why public defenders will be provided to people who can't afford their own lawyers.)
Consider the case of someone who is obviously innocent, but accused of a murder. Why should we force someone to risk their life to represent him?
Or even in a hypothetical dreamworld where the legal system is never wrong and no one innocent ever gets convicted: Consider someone who is obviously guilty of a lesser crime, let's say shoplifting, but has been accused of murder. Why should a lawyer have to take jailtime to help make sure that person doesn't get executed?
Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
... seek out a practicing attorney, rather than a full-time law professor.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It doesn't matter what is said in court, the law is on the RIAA's side. Morally we all know the RIAA are a bunch of bottom feeders but that doesn't change the options the judge has to rule with. How about instead we make up our own proposals and decide our own "legal" rights? Build a matter of community law and when we nod at each other we know where we stand, occasionally someone will take a fall: but we know where we stand.
Lawyers should defend all people to their best ability, it's not their job to determine the clients guilt. They are lawyers, not Judge and Jury. I think you are confused as to the nature of our legal system.
How can a lawyer be liable because he took on a client?
are people that are not likely to win in court just not going to be able to get lawyers anymore, or will the lawyers they get just be expected to play nice and not put up a struggle if they do not want to be fined?
I know little about lawyers or if similar things like this have happened before, but it seems to me this ruling could destroy any justice that is left in the court system.
It seems to me that Nesson posting download links is a completely separate crime that should of been handled separately.
If a lawyer representing a vehicle homicide client happens to also kill someone with his car while defending his client, this should not effect the outcome of the first trial.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
...a pro bono lawyer they come with an agenda.
He's trying to HELP the RIAA; that way kids will stop downloading that BOOM BOOM music with all those FILTHY lyrics and he'll finally get SOME SLEEP!
NOW GET OFF HIS LAWN!
Actually if you are charged with anything that could potentially result in jail time, you get free counsel; doesn't really matter what the prosecutor says.
Those with the funds make the rules.
Yeah, unless you read what actually happened, which is that Nesson uploaded the same songs Tennenbaum was accused of uploading and then boasted about it (and linked to it) on his blog. And then when the RIAA served discovery requests asking why he did that, he just responded that it wasn't relevant to the case. Whatever his agenda was, he got no more than he deserved here. I don't care what you think of the RIAA, this was just stupid.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Maybe you should try reading the thread.
He isn't liable to pay the amount of the court's decision -- just the costs of discovery for one motion to compel.
Really, given all the grandstanding, and improper behavior, if I were Tenenbaum, I'd look into appealing on the basis that Nesson did not provide a proper defense...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
My point is that you'd have to completely overhaul the US justice system to allow attorneys to be punished for representing guilty clients. The requirement of a fair trial is a barrier to any sort of arrangement since no judge in their right mind would consider railroading a defendant without legal counsel as fair. We throw out trials because defendants WITH legal counsel didn't get a proper defense afterall. This means the requirement for a fair trial would have to be done away with completely in order to allow any such arrangement that punishes a defendant's legal counsel due to the inevitable situation of defendants without a defense.
Thank you.
I now truly have heard the worst idea that will be thought of in my lifetime. Earlier than I expected, but oh well.
But the lawyer himself is not infallible.
The legal system is not based on, "oh he is obviously guilty so he does not require a fair trial".
The trial itself is the indicator of guilt, not the lawyer.
One way to take that idea to it logical extension (IMHO) is just to give police the ability to execute/punish anyone they judge obviously guilty, it would save the courts a lot of money.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
My point is that you'd have to completely overhaul the US justice system to allow attorneys to be punished for representing guilty clients.
And how do you know if someone is guilty without an actual fair trial? Who also gets to be the arbiter of who is truly guilty and not? Considering how many people have been wrongly accused you propose a system that hardly would ever dispense justice.
We throw out trials because defendants WITH legal counsel didn't get a proper defense afterall.
For a lucky few, maybe, but certainly not all.
Also a lot of lawyers legitimately believe even if their clients committed a crime, they did not commit what they're being charged with.
To be fair, the act of properly charging someone with the proper crime can be very arbitrary. Prosecuters look at what they think a defendant is guilty of, based on police reports, and charges them with whatever they feel they can get a conviction with. A good defense lawyer will make sure that the accused doesn't get screwed when the police write an inaccurate report and the DA decides to make an example of someone.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
You mean like a number of easily found examples where people thought someone was clearly guilty but those same defendants were later exonerated? Everyone deserves legal defense otherwise we might as well have no legal system at all and just throw anyone accused of a crime straight in jail.
Maybe it should work both ways. If a prosecutor charges someone with a crime without getting a conviction (either because the jury found them not guilty or the charges were dropped), the prosecutor is subject to the jail time or fines that would result from a guilty verdict. Might stop prosecutors from trumping up charges (like calling a couple joints intent to distribute) or charging people without doing their due diligence.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck. That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.".
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.
Under US law anyone accused of a crime is entitled to an attorney. Attorneys are bound by an ethical code that they must do everything possible within the law to represent their clients to the best of their abilities. So what is an attorney supposed to do when the judge asks how the defendant pleas? "Not guilty your honor, even though you and I both know the sooner we strap him to the electric chair, the better off we'll be."
And another interesting part of US law...people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, "knowing his client is clearly guilty" is an impossibility in itself.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
A principle like that would lead to people who are accused of serious crimes being forced to represent themselves, which would mean that cases that would previously have been argued out by a defense lawyer being pushed through the courts. Unfair, and corrupting to the whole legal system.
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
Meaning you want to essentially get rid of due process, is that correct? Stand accused of a crime, but nobody is willing to defend you because they don't want to share the same fate you get handed. That would be the wet dream of the MPAA/RIAA and any criminal/organization with an axe to grind: Commit a crime and make sure there's enough evidence to pin it on someone else. Nobody will argue against it because they don't want to share a cell with the accused.
As others have said, defense lawyers are there to protect their clients RIGHTS, not their crimes. Without them, there would be nobody to refute biased evidence or testimony, no one to object to the prosecution leading/badgering the witness, and no one to ensure their client gets a fair trial no matter what they're guilty of. That's the spirit of why we conduct legal proceedings the way we do. If you say a person is guilty of a crime, you have to PROVE they did it. Otherwise we go back to the days of those in power screwing over the little guy on their say-so alone (more than they already do). Why bother with evidence if the accusing party is seen as infallible?
It doesn't matter what you're accused of, or even if you're guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt before ever going to trial. If you wish to fight the charges, you have the RIGHT to have your side of the story heard in court. There was a great quote on NCIS the other night, where a defense attorney was asked why she keeps representing criminals. Her reply was something along the lines of, "You make your case, I make mine, and as long as either side wins, I've done my job."
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
How much trouble can he get in being dead n' all?
If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
Guilt is never absolute.
As for you, bitZtream: you come into every Slashdot discussion carrying the most ignorant, vitriolic, hateful chip on your shoulder that man has ever conceived. In every conceivable circumstance, you come down in favor of money, power, influence, and the elite instead of social justice and basic fairness. You would rather live in the world of medieval crusades than in the one of Locke and Rousseau.
You're either an excellent troll or a miserable human being. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
Unfortunately, remove juries and you remove jury nullification. The purpose of a jury (ostensibly) is to ensure that punishments are not imposed arbitrarily by the state; they always have authority of the the peers of the one being judged.
"I consider...[trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Nesson did a lot of stupid, antagonistic things that were more in line with amateur hour or self-promoting than with representing the true interests of his client:
Nesson didn't oppose the motion because there were no grounds to oppose it - except maybe the Peyote defense ("Heyheyhey, I waz stoned, Judge") or maybe insanity ("Would a sane person do the things I did - in a COURTROOM?" The facts speak for themselves - I'm nuts, judge").
That would stop everyone from ever being charged for anything.
You might as well just mail every citizen a loaded gun with a postcard saying "tomorrow is a free for all!".
Regardless of whether or not he deserved this, it is not a correct application of US laws (to the best of my understanding; IANAL). If he has committed a particular act which caused harm, then he should be sued separately. You don't get to just randomly include extra people after the fact as defendants in a lawsuit.
Yes, what he did was really arrogant and stupid, and he probably deserves even more punishment than Joel Tenenbaum deserves (which is probably not actually very much), but this is not the right way to go about punishing him. Hence the comment that the rich make the rules, which does seem to be applicable here.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
I disagree. The people who are "known" to be guilty are most in need of a good lawyer. Not because I relish the thought of murderers getting off on technicalities, but because murderers getting off on technicalities is the only way to motivate police officers and prosecutors to do their jobs properly and respect peoples' rights.
If somebody is "known" to be guilty then the only reason they should get off is police or prosecutorial misconduct, or it obviously wasn't as known as it sounded. If they get off based on that, then they should have. Sometimes guilty men have to go free to serve the greater concept of justice. That's frankly a much more important goal than punishing an individual defender, no matter how dangerous he is.
Ok, time for you to go back to your Judge Dredd comics and leave the sensible talking for the adults here.......
Burn the land and boil the sea........
Nesson claimed that the songs he uploaded and linked to on his blog were irrelevant to the Tennenbaum case that he was the lawyer for. Is it possible that Nesson is right? Suppose that Tennenbaum had been accused of bank robbery and then suppose that Nesson goes out and robs a different bank on his own time. Is that new crime relevant to his client's case? The judge granted the RIAA Motion to Compel and now the same judge has ordered Nesson to pay the RIAA expenses but...maybe...Nesson's got a better case on appeal...and maybe the judgments and punishments will be used to support his central argument that the punishment is out of proportion to the damages for a civil case.
Who modded this idiot up?
You should be ashamed of yourself and the parent for even having such a stupid idea.
individual OFFENDER, that is.
is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone
Citation? How does a lawyer know they're guilty - do they have access to evidence that the prosecution and jury do not?
Intentionally withholding evidence would be worrying. I suspect what you really mean is that lawyers defend people that they think are guilty. But so what? It means they are able to put making a rational argument above whatever their personal prejudices maybe - the latter often turn out to be wrong.
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
And how exactly do we judge this? After having the trial to see if someone's guilty, we now have to have a trial to see if the lawyer knew this person was guilty, even before the person's trial was over? And who represents the lawyer in this case...?
Like O.J.!!
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Yeah, that is a small problem, but jury nullification is extremely rare these days, and judges actually instruct juries that it's illegal.
"And another interesting part of US law...people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, "knowing his client is clearly guilty" is an impossibility in itself."
It is not, as it is not the same "knowing somebody to be guilty" to "knowing somebody to be declared guilty". Presumed means exactly that: pre-assumed. It's perfectly possible to know enough about the facts and about the legal system to know somebody is guilty before the trial outcome because then you are not pre-assuming anything: you know.
Justice is blind (for a very good reason), the same is not to be applied to those around her.
great speech ! that needed its own theme music
Which I believe to be a situation which needs to be reversed, rather than accepted as the status quo. I consider the increasing movement away from jury nullification to be indicative of the movement towards autocracy. If a government is truly by and for the people, it doesn't need to fear its laws being trumped by jury nullification.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Just have a Cardassian legal system, where your guilt is determined before the trial, you're obviously guilty or there wouldn't be a trial, and have the sentence ready to be carried, all before hand. Would make the whole thing much more efficient. :)
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
that would be a hell of a prank. I would not take advantage of the free for all unless i really knew the specific date. I'd hate to find out the mail arrived early, and I wasnt allowed to go berserk until saturday .
And that juries are filled with 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. True story-
My mom has always tried to lead by example, and has always been very civic minded, so when called for jury duty she took her vacation time and went. At the end of the trial she came in white faced and said "NEVER have a jury trial! Always demand a judge!" and when I asked her what had her spooked here is what she said. It was an arson case, the fire inspector couldn't even tell if the building had been set on fire or if it was a short, the guy didn't even have enough insurance to cover his losses and had to file for bankruptcy, so there wasn't even a motive. She hung the jury 11-1 in favor of conviction. Why were they gonna give this guy 10 years? "Because he is Italian and all of those people are in the mob and do things like that. Haven't you ever seen Goddfellas?"
That's right, that man's freedom was about to be taken away, not by the evidence, but by a Joe Pesci scene in a mob movie. There wasn't any arguing the evidence, they saw Goodfellas and Italians burn buildings, the end. So I would say we have a lot bigger problems than jury nullification, like juries that make idiocracy look like a fucking documentary.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you RTFA, he's not a "defendant in a lawsuit". He made an action that prompted the other party into additional unnecessary legal action; and furthermore, judge has ruled that the action was clearly related to the case. So now he gets to reimburse the expenses for that legal action - court fees and such. But he isn't being "co-sued".
I wish I had mod points left. This is a good point you make.
I wonder if NewYorkCountryLawyer will finally stop harping on the question that no one proved distribution... at the very least, the lawyer obviously distributed the copyrighted material in violation of the law...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
He wasn't made a co-defendant. He was sanctioned by the court, which is exactly how courts punish misconduct in our legal system. If you refuse to answer discovery, and the other side has to win a motion to compel to get you to respond to what you should have already responded to, then the court has the power to make you pay their fees. This discourages people from gaming the discovery system. You'll note that he isn't jointly and severally liable for all of Tennenbaum's judgment---just the part that pertains to this bone-headed maneuver.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
There's a large, large difference between free counsel, and court appointed counsel. If you're charged with a crime you're entitled to a court appointed lawyer, and at the end of the case you get to make payments on the bill regardless the outcome or validity of the charges most of the time. If you fail to repay the debt, you get spend time in jail. Some jurisdictions credit you as little as $20 day for time served(maybe less in some areas for all I know), so that $2000 bill your court appointed attorney turned in can easily turn into quite a sit in lockup. So the lesson is don't do crime, especially if you're poor cause then they are really going to stick it you.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
sounds like it'd be a good example to use the Chewbacca defence
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
I don't think so..
[url=http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26158133/Hemorrhoids-Treatments-and-What-I-Recommend-To-All]Hemorrhoid Treatment[/url]
Now, next time perhaps lawyers will think twice before defending those nasty pirates against the might of the RIAA.
This is like freezing the funds or or prosecuting mob lawyers; yeah, it's really tempting to do, but it's not so much a slippery slope as a sheer drop into injustice. It effectively makes it far more difficult for future defendants for similar actions to obtain legal counsel.
It is not, as it is not the same "knowing somebody to be guilty" to "knowing somebody to be declared guilty". Presumed means exactly that: pre-assumed. It's perfectly possible to know enough about the facts and about the legal system to know somebody is guilty before the trial outcome because then you are not pre-assuming anything: you know.
It doesn't make any difference. You're still tap dancing. Guilt by personal knowledge is not a transitive function, so even if the lawyer determines pre-trial guilt in the inner court of his mind, telling anyone else is completely useless. If the lawyer ultimately testifies to such, he's no better than any other witness, and not believed until cross examined.
I suspect conflict of interest guidelines prevent a lawyer from representing and testifying against his client in the same trial.
The fact of the matter is that "knowing somebody guilty" is a worthless state of mind unless the person expects to testify. Prior to the trial, you shouldn't be sharing such an opinion with the guy on the next bar stool if you really care about justice.
The only thing the lawyer can legitimately do with this conclusion is to decide that the prospective client is either too guilty/not guilty enough to take on the case, whichever his preference. This is a private decision, which again does not involve sharing.
Just try to imagine a world where snap judgement was transitive, without also conjuring genocide or the tyranny of the playground.
Perhaps if we had a legal system that wasn't so convoluted with bylaws that the layman could be considered "competent" when defending himself in the eyes of a judge without spending 4 years in lawschool, then representation wouldn't be the requirement it is today. We have a system of laws written and practiced by lawyers to a point where it's not whether you did right or wrong, it's whether your lawyer can prove you did right or wrong. It's a flaw inhereted from the British system, and thoroughly perverted with each generation.
I understand that the bylaws cut down drastically on the amount of time and headaches it takes for a judge to review a case, but the fact that 299,990,000 Americans have to suffer for the sake of 10,000 judges -- and the fact that judges were created for the cases, not cases for the judges, the process has reversed itself from serving the people to treating a judge as royalty.
There are no easy answers, and we're at the point, or quickly getting there, where we've exhausted the pros of the path we've chosen with our legal system. If we destructured the legal system to its bare bones, the same people who manipulate it now will probably have an easier time manipulating it then. However, those who do not manipulate it now will find more ground on which to stand by themselves.
How do we do that? It would take a smarter man than I to know even where to begin. However, there are some symptoms that must be cleared up before we can call any revision as approaching successful: Prisons in the US need to be cleared out. Take non-dangerous, non-violent crimes and cut down on their prison time, but increase their community service time, or increase their fines. The theory of medical malpractice needs to be completely revamped. Too many people are going to the hospital to get their bank accounts fixed more than their health. Too many people have forgotten that death comes to us all, especially in hospitals. If the doctor did his best or performed reasonably competently (according to a jury of his randomly-sampled peers -- other doctors in the same field) then there is no malpractice case. A family can grieve without punishing the man who tried to save a life and failed. Medical malpractice is the new life insurance -- that everyone else ends up paying through healthcare costs.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Regardless of whether or not he deserved this, it is not a correct application of US laws (to the best of my understanding; IANAL). If he has committed a particular act which caused harm, then he should be sued separately. You don't get to just randomly include extra people after the fact as defendants in a lawsuit.
Yes, what he did was really arrogant and stupid, and he probably deserves even more punishment than Joel Tenenbaum deserves (which is probably not actually very much), but this is not the right way to go about punishing him. Hence the comment that the rich make the rules, which does seem to be applicable here.
U ANAL?
People who can't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail, even if they're innocent.
Solution: give everyone publicly-funded lawyers, randomly selected from a pool. Don't permit privately-hired lawyers.
Presumably, the prosecution would be electrocuted if they failed to convict said one. It's got to be fair, y'know
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Or the Duke Lacrosse team.
This argument assumes people are all chomping at the bit to break the laws. If this is the case, perhaps we should review the law. Most laws to me seem reasonable and I have no urge to break them. Most people are moral and if there were no law for a day I think life would go on surprisingly normal. Now if it were extended for a week or a month, you might have trouble.
Currently hooked on AMP
Let me put it that way.
I'm sure that you have a list of people who you'd rather see dead than alive. Don't be shy... everyone has that.
Now, it may well be true that, even given the circumstances that absolutely guarantee you perfect immunity, you would still not act on that list. However, keep in mind that other people on that list (and maybe even not on it) have lists of their own, and some of them probably include you, as well. Would you trust them to also refrain from action?
It isn't clear from the blurb describing the news (sigh), but Nesson is not being held responsible for part of his client's illegal P2P distribution verdict. Nesson is responsible for part of the court costs incurred by the RIAA resulting from their motion to compel him. Please read what actually happened from another site that paid attention (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/charles-nesson-scourge-of-the-record-labels-will-soon-be-paying-them.ars). Then return to more normal Slashdot discussions (tin foil hats vs. faraday cages). Too many of you are arguing against things that did not happen. You sound like Palin arguing against Death Panels.
I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client. Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder. Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole? Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.
I've heard lots of ideas for improving the legal system... some of them have been really good, and some of them have been really bad. Of all those, this is the worst idea I've ever.
I've heard a few worse ones, but I hold out hope that they were mostly jokes. I mean, ethical issues aside, I think we'd increase the deficit by buying enough chain to secure all our lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.
While our legal system is indeed complex enough to be measured in units of LoC, one does not need to master its entirety in order effectively defend oneself in the court of law.
Emprical evidence actually shows that self-representation is just as good, if not better, than counsel representation in criminal cases.
NYCL was saying that no one proved that the distribution right was violated by Tennenbaum, unless I misunderstood him. I think he admitted to uploading & downloading songs and whether his lawyer was crazy was never part of that issue (indeed, NYCL said many times that he did not agree with Nelson's handling of the case). I'm not sure how the lawyer linking to some files would prove that the client did anything. In any case, it rests upon an understanding of terms of art ("distribution right") and what was actually proven technically vs. what was admitted to (just for one example, I can "admit" to doing something I never did). The process can be wrong even if the result is correct. FWIW, I do believe that Tennenbaum "uploaded and downloaded" music. He admitted to such and I have little reason to doubt that admission (though I wish I could find an actual transcript... I don't exactly trust some of the coverage I've seen).
Thus, I'm not sure why you would think that NYCL would agree to something that is quite unrelated to what has been shown here, but I can't exactly speak for the guy. NYCL had nothing to do with the handling of this case and the court was clearly frustrated with counsel on BOTH sides based on what I saw in the transcripts.
Speaking of which, I refer you to the transcripts rather than media coverage. Some of it has been very bad. In particular, I've seen quotes that appeared to have been invented. They were nice enough to cite a source for them. I checked their source. The quotes were nowhere to be found. They claimed something contained an "admission" even though it clearly said "is alleged to have" right before the part they quoted. That's very worrying, particularly given that it was on a lawyer's blog (and a lawyer somehow connected to the entertainment industry, no less).
Wow, you live in a scary world. No, I don't have a list of people I wish to kill. Perhaps you should get some help with that.
Currently hooked on AMP
It must be anecdotal evidence time! NYROOON~
I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client. Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder. Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole? Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.
This might actually be a good idea, as long as it goes both ways. If a prosecutor fails to prove guilt in a death penalty homicide case, the prosecutor gets the chair. If a malpractice lawyer loses a case where his client is suing for half a million bucks, he gets to pay the doctor half a million bucks. Etc. I'll bet you'd see a lot fewer frivolous prosecutions and lawsuits that way.
Unfortunately, idiots like you who have no understanding of the basic principles of the justice system would mostly be unaffected.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Perhaps you should consider that there is a reason for having 12 people on a jury, and why a single person can hang it. What seems to have appalled you, in practice, worked exactly like it should have. It takes a single person to keep things balanced.
It's also interesting, that knowing this, you advocate demanding a judge to determine your fate over that of a jury -- essentially, putting all your eggs one one, biased basket. And yes, we're all biased, like it or not. To not be biased would require a special mental handicap that I have yet to encounter.
I don't consider myself stupid by any means, and, like your mother, I too decided to serve on jury duty. I recommend it for everyone; it's completely different than portrayed on television. Sure, you're supposed to make decisions on the facts -- which is what you believe to be true, not evidence, which is something else. You're constrained by the laws, the wording, definitions, etc. Then the last thing the judge tells you is that what happens in that room is no one's business except yours, and that ultimately you're going to make decisions that you feel are truthful, and you can sleep with.
The judge who talked to our group discussed a priest with a drinking problem who had gotten off drunk driving convictions three times by various juries. Each time, the jury saw what a great man he was and gave him "one more chance." Eventually he wrapped his car around a tree and died, but the point the judge was making is that you're not necessarily doing someone a favor by letting them off. While he didn't kill anyone else, he could have.
I took something else away from it too: the jury has the ultimate control over deciding whether a crime was committed. It can be illegal for you to chew gum, but it'll take a full jury to be willing to convict you. For example, in Michigan, it's a felony to commit adultery (750.30). I suppose adultery is about as common here as anywhere else, but guess how many people are tried for it... Juries are the reason draconian laws aren't enforced.
If our fate lay solely with a judge, who is completely unbiased (if there were such a thing), and who held us accountable to the letter of the law in all cases, we'd be much worse off.
Many of us following this case and others would not be surprised if it turns out Nancy Gertner has received some benefits from the RIAA. There is some growing suspicion but I am not going into that on here.
A better way to handle this is to equalize the monetary interests. For example, plantif puts $x into the put, and defendent puts $y dollars into the put, then the pot is split, and each side can go and buy the best lawyer they can find with the resulting funds. There - money now does not play as an important role in a court case.
Prior to the trial, you shouldn't be sharing such an opinion with the guy on the next bar stool if you really care about justice.
He came to town to see a hangin' and by golly, a hangin' he's gonna see!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
So is there any reason we can't have "Judge nullification" on the same principle??
I seem to recall that there have been a few cases in civil court, where a Judge threw out a big judgment as being patently unfair or even outright insane.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Prof. Nesson can claim that the song he 'uploaded' is for academic purpose, i.e. for other people to study the case. And now the court is sanctioning him ( 'found guilty' ) of his 'copyright infringement' behavior. Not only that the fair use clause is ignored, now he is being sanctioned without a fair trial.
I smell a trick behind. Don't underestimate him. Especially he is a professor.
New Economic Perspectives
My long-ago lawyer once told me that, especially when the trial is about something most people know nothing about, generally a judge trial is preferable, because "then you only have to convince one ignorant idiot, instead of having to convince 12 ignorant idiots".
I haven't sat on a jury but I've been rejected for jury duty a few times, and all too often the old saw reflects reality. I did notice that there is active selection toward people who DON'T think too long, too hard, or too much. :(
BTW good for your mom, an honest woman of her convictions.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Hey, don't be so pessimistic. According to the bureau of Labor statistics there were 759,200 lawyers practicing in the US in 2008. Let's call it 800,000 for nice number. Then lets assume it takes 100 ft of chain per lawyer. Chain costs about $5.87 per foot from mcmaster carr, but lets call it $6.00 per foot including hardware. So $600 per lawyer gives us $480,000,000 in costs, assuming volunteer labor. The US is currently spending about 65 billion per year on the war in Afganistan, or about 170 million per day. So if the US moves the pull out date up by 3 days we save enough money to chain all of the lawyers to the bottom of the sea floor. NB: I may be significantly underestimating the costs, but even if I'm of by an order of magnitude, that's still less than a month of war-fighting.
Judges already have similar powers - they can throw cases if they believe the prosecution doesn't have a reasonably strong argument.
AFAIK, juries are there to decide innocence or guilt - a relatively simple boolean value. Judges are there to (among other things) decide amounts, which are based on more complex legal problems. It's appropriate for them to adjust damages. In any case, I have no problems with judges reducing penalties, or even declaring innocence after a jury has returned guilty, as long as it's not the other way around (increasing penalties, or declaring guilt).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I took something else away from it too: the jury has the ultimate control over deciding whether a crime was committed. It can be illegal for you to chew gum, but it'll take a full jury to be willing to convict you. For example, in Michigan, it's a felony to commit adultery (750.30). I suppose adultery is about as common here as anywhere else, but guess how many people are tried for it... Juries are the reason draconian laws aren't enforced.
Unfortunately, that's no longer the case. US judges now instruct juries that nullification is illegal (i.e. that they can only judge the facts, not the law), and remove jurists who indicate that they are aware of their rights to nullify, or intend to exercise them.
The last barrier to abusive government is being dismantled. Which is why we now have an explosion in laws that many (most?) consider to be unjust - marijuana possession, non-commercial copyright infringement, etc.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Then there's no incentive for lawyers to bother doing a good job, and everyone will have crappy lawyers to defend them. Meanwhile, DAs will have a field day because they DO have an incentive to do a good job: they get paid a lot more, as they're publicly-elected officials, and their big selling point is how many convictions they can score.
The problem with your story isn't the notions of juries - the problem is the environment that has fostered the idea that "juries are filled with 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty".
The government compels people to fill juries, but provides inadequate compensation for their time, and allows numerous loopholes. It's obvious to anyone with sense what the ultimate situation will be. It's also true that the judicial system has deliberately erroded the powers of juries, and withheld from them information about those powers they do hold. It's become such that people view the jury as an impotent relic from judicial history, rather than the last bulwark against injustice that it should be.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
What I like about Civil Law (and even Roman Catholic Canon Law) systems is that in some ways they are like mathematics books. Put in mathematical parlance, a judge looks at the facts of the case to see if according to the various definitions to see if any provisions in the law were triggered. Academics write books full of corollaries and hypothetical theorems, with accompanying explanations (i.e. proofs). After all of that you arrive at a conclusion.
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
No, more like this man.
Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they're simply not useful in determining guilt.
But they're excellent in terms of deterring tyranny. Both of the countries you mention could have used some lessons in this area, recently even.
Way to write a misleading headline. Nesson is only liable for the fees related to the motion to compel, which will be going to their lawyers, not the RIAA themselves, right? As explained in the article is normal practice. Nothing to see here, move along.
but...maybe...Nesson's got a better case on appeal...and maybe the judgments and punishments will be used to support his central argument that the punishment is out of proportion to the damages for a civil case.
and maybe the appellate court judges will be thinking about the miseries inflicted on one of their own. the cavalier attitude the defendant displayed in court.
statutory damages exist precisely because some folks think they are above the law. it wouldn't be the first time the geek has been tripped up by his own arrogance.
Want to get laid? Become a divorce lawyer.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The only thing the lawyer can legitimately do with this conclusion is to decide that the prospective client is either too guilty/not guilty enough to take on the case, whichever his preference. This is a private decision, which again does not involve sharing.
If the lawyer determines that the evidence against his client is sufficient for the prosecution to get a conviction, the logical thing would be to suggest a plea bargain to the client, no?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
That's not actually what he said. He mentioned a list of people you'd rather were dead than alive. That is not the same as people you would like to personally transition from life to death.
I still don't agree with his assertion but I bet a lot of people have such a list. Just about everybody* who is not opposed to the death penalty must have such a list (not necessarily specific people), so that's about half the people in the US right there.
*I suppose you could make some economic argument that you'd rather they be alive but aren't willing to spend the money to keep them alive an everybody else safe, despite that right now executions cost more than life imprisonment. But I really don't think that's the typical argument.
So the lesson is don't do crime, especially if you're poor cause then they are really going to stick it you.
Unless your completely innocent in which case, get fucked.
So the lesson is don't get accused with crime, especially if you're poor cause then they are really going to stick it you.
Of course, the fact that lawyers are needed at all for anything but basic consultations, indicates a completely broken justice system, a system where no one is interested in truth or fairness, but only in their side winning.
And yes, that applies not only to the US, but most of the modern world.
So don't tell them before hand. When asked for a verdict, just say "Not guilty."
What is the judge going to do? Say "Sorry, that's the wrong answer." Last time I checked, that wasn't his job.
To quote the GP, "Juries are the reason draconian laws aren't enforced."
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Because nobody tells you that you have that power. In fact, they can explicitly tell you that you don't, or that you aren't allowed to use it. It requires someone confident and knowledgeable to stand up to that - and they try and stack the deck that way too by paying such a pittance for jurors that any competent person will try and get out of jury duty.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Um... the grandparent was using a reductio ad absurdum, i.e, he was trying to show how absurd an idea is by taking it to its logical conclusion.
"And if that's wrong, I don't want to be right!"
Perhaps you should consider that there is a reason for having 12 people on a jury, and why a single person can hang it. What seems to have appalled you, in practice, worked exactly like it should have. It takes a single person to keep things balanced.
But having that last person on the jury was pure luck. If there can be 11 idiots on the jury, there can almost as easily be 12.
I live in a country (Sweden) where criminal cases are decided by a board of experts, lead by the judge. There are plenty of cases where their personal bias have affected a case, or where the competence of the lower courts have come into question, but at least they have some competence in judging the evidence and following the law. I'd take that over a jury of my peers.
P.S. Maybe I should add that our system works well with our laws and culture, but it doesn't necessarily mean it would work well for the USA.
The last barrier to abusive government is being dismantled.
To me, who live in a country where jury nullifcation has never existed, that statement sounds odd. Shouldn't the last barrier to abusive government be to depose it in public elections?
you need a lawyer t o presnt and defend your case not to pretend you are not guilty. Even if you killed somebody there is a legal difference whether this was a man slaughter or murder etc. and this difference may make you avoid execution squad even if lawyer does not pretend you are innocent.
The RIAA and MPAA are still powerful because people still buy products which support them. Check RIAA.org 's list of member companies if you're buying anything music related. For movies, it's a bit easier, but the member studios are nonetheless listed on MPAA.org as well. People need to stop complaining and stop buying to starve these guys of cash more effectively.
I'll bet you'd see a lot fewer frivolous prosecutions and lawsuits that way.
Um, why not simply get rid of the ridiculous damage amounts (especially punitive damages)?
The lawyer was an idiot and did stupid shit during the trial. He needs to lay off the acid.
I still don't like the ruling though. The issue here is we have the following damage awards:
[300 dollars here, and the filer is asinine]
For the following actual damages:
$
So we find 30 offenses
And looking above... yeah you see where I'm going with this. This is wrong. Maybe double or triple damages, or even 10 times the damages (30 offense, $300 fine). Think about it. 10 times actual damages. You get a song for $1.29 on iTunes, you commit 1000 offenses, you incur a $12,900 fine. Ouch. Steep for something that cost really $129? ... we had 24 offenses come with a $200,000 fine. Do you see it?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Huh?? Do you have a cite for this? They abolished debtor's prisons a long time ago.
Good to see the old free market system working for the benefit of society, as usual.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
But guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. No, hold on...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Here in the UK we have done away with this pesky balance and allow majority verdicts if the jury is taking too long to come to a unanimous decision.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well then, lefties can register beforehand, and get a kitchen knife mailed to them instead, with instructions on use. ~
And that juries are filled with 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
You should welcome jury duty, as true patriots like you mom do. I guess you consider military service stupid as well? IMO anybody who wants out of jury duty would be a piss poor jurist anyway, worse than the 11 that was on the jury with your mom.
Free Martian Whores!
People with poor comprehension skills are on my list. The big questions is, can you determine if you're on my list, and how worried does that make you?
Given what I've seen of your comprehension skills, I'll have to clarify. You're on my list, but, like the GPP, I have no interest in killing people on my list.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
You're on my list, but, like the GPP, I have no interest in killing people on my list.
So why the hell should I care? Most people who would make such a list are not going to act on it anyhow. I live in reality and in reality, do people really want to kill me? I'd say such people are incredibly rare and the ones that really want it are not going to be stopped by the law in most cases.
In response to your signature, I'd say that just because people are out to get you doesn't mean you need to be paranoid about it.
Currently hooked on AMP
For normal debts, yes. However, they didn't do the same thing when it comes to (for example) fines, and they've effectively been reintroduced in much of the US for failure to pay child support (mostly because doing so costs the government money...)
You're either an excellent troll or a miserable human being.
Or the CEO of a corporation that owns lots of legislators. Or a twelve year old who doesn't know any better.
Free Martian Whores!
Recently? Germany and France haven't had any problems with tyranny since the end of WWII. France hasn't had any problems with tyranny since the Napoleonic age in fact. (They did have some tyranny during WWII, but that was because the German Army invaded them and set up a puppet government that ruled by force. No jury could have stopped that.)
Even with Germany, I don't see how any jury could have stopped the rise of the Nazis. I'm no expert on German history, but my understanding is that Hitler was elected chancellor and had enormous popular support. Jury nullification is really only useful when the government has very little popular support, and is acting contrary to the wishes of the people and imposing onerous laws on them that they don't agree with. That situation didn't exist in pre-WWII Germany; the people were completely in support of the Nazis (except the minorities of course). Modern-day USA is actually probably a better climate for using jury nullification, because everyone hates the government here these days (though they all bitterly disagree on how it should be operating instead).
Empirical evidence is informative, but misleading. For more evidence, compare the conviction rates at the Old Bailey for those with and without counsel before legal representation became a right in the UK. The numbers are very different.
The people representing themselves now do so by choice. This is a self-selecting sample. How many of the ones that didn't elect to represent themselves but were acquitted would have been convicted had they tried? Probably a lot, if historical figures are anything to go by. One of the key benefits of a barrister is that you have someone who does not have an emotional involvement in the case on your side. It's very hard to think logically and objectively about witness testimony when your freedom or even life is on the line.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Guns don't kill people, thermonuclear weapons kill people. Buy your second-strike coverage from the Republic of Kazakhstan today!
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
A public defender is an attorney provided by the court at no cost to the defendant. Try reading the SCOTUS decision in Miranda v. Arizona:
A person "has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him."
That attorney that is provided is both free and court-appointed. This holds throughout the US. Your statements are completely made up.
"How could you possible get a defense lawyer on your side if you had hard evidence lined up against you?"
YOU don't have to get him on your side, its his JOB to be on your side, regardless of the evidence against you. Research "zealous representation."
Do you have any idea what indigent means? There are far more poor people than simply indigents. The level of ignorance some have on this topic is utterly amazing. These items are common knowledge and easily verifiable in whatever jurisdiction you happen to live in. Give your area jail a call, and ask them what the policy is for sitting out your fines. This what people who have a place to live but with no extra income need to do. It's a shame you can't take the time to verify it.
Here's a couple of examples for you since you're too lazy to do it yourself.
http://www.taylorcountytexas.org/ccl2faq3.html
http://www.jacksonvillepd.org/Jail.htm
I do hope you won't expect me to read to you as well.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Where did I say that I was anti-anything? If you want to know the problem with our current system Mr. McGrew, I'll be happy to point it out. An educated person like my mom could make more in a single day at work that she did on the two weeks she was on that jury. Now my mom was lucky, not only did she have vacation time due her, but she was still married at the time and my father owns his own business.
But what if the same situation happened to me? do you honestly think I could afford to just close my shop for TWO TO FOUR WEEKS for the pittance they offer? There is a difference between being patriotic and being an idiot. If I did that I would go straight from jury duty to sleeping in my truck. And THAT is the problem, by paying such a pittance they make sure that only the poorest and least educated can afford to take the job. what about yourself? Could you just walk away from your job for four weeks and be sure it would be waiting on you when you return? if it wasn't could you afford to keep yourself afloat until you found another one?
There is a difference between doing your duty and falling on the sword sir, and in this climate even those with an education can ill afford to simply walk away from their jobs, or put their bills on hold for the spare change they offer for jury duty. This is why you get stories like my mom's, with "12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty", not because people don't care, it is because they can't afford to do their part. And I have to wonder if it isn't at least partially intentional, as it is easier for a prosecutor to convince 12 stupid people of a bullshit case like the one my mom was on than to convince 12 educated folks. And since many use the DA's office as a stepping stone to higher office they certainly don't want those numbers slipping, do they?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Presumably, the prosecution would be electrocuted if they failed to convict said one. It's got to be fair, y'know ;)
That might diminish false prosecutions a bit...
What is the judge going to do? Say "Sorry, that's the wrong answer."
I don't recall the circumstances, nor whether it was a criminal or civil trial, but I do recall something on that order happening some years ago, where the judge sent the jury back to reconsider its verdict. Wish I could remember more, would be useful in context today.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
When did jury nullification become actively illegal? Last time I was handed info about it (probably 2-3 years ago) that literature specifically stated that it was NOT illegal, even tho some courts would instruct otherwise.
Combine the loss of this last ditch defense with crap like civil asset forfeiture, and we're in seriously deep shit, even tho we still live well enough to disguise that fact. :(
http://www.fear.org/
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
He's always ready to speak about these cases, so why is he silent on this one?
It's not illegal - it's just that, as you say, some courts instruct otherwise.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
"It doesn't make any difference."
Of course it makes a difference, what you maybe mean is that it doesn't make a difference in any practical (related to the part of the situation you happen to highlight) mean.
You, as a lawyer and knowing the facts, can lay out (what you consider) a better action plan, maybe trying to bargaining a deal instead of pleading for inocence; maybe change your legal strategy; maybe even, rejecting the defense on ethical (and/or practical) grounds.
But what if the same situation happened to me? do you honestly think I could afford to just close my shop for TWO TO FOUR WEEKS for the pittance they offer?
What if the Japanese bombed Pearl harbor and you got drafted? Jury duty is a civic responsibility; I personally wouldn't want to be accused of a crime an be in front of a jury who didn't want to be there! "If that asshole wouldn't have robbed that bank I wouldn't have to be here", never mind that somebody else robbed the bank.
I agree that they should pay more, but what's going to happen to your business if you wreck your car (someone runs a red light and t-bones you) and you're in the hospital for a month? Shit happens, and some of that shit that happens is jury duty. What's going to happen to your business if you're unjustifiably accused of some heinous crime and put in jail for two weeks (or months, waiting for your trial)?
I agree they should pay better, but if they did you'd bitch about the extra taxes you'd have to pay to cover the jurors. Actually I'd like to see them guarantee your normal wage; if that were the case, most people would WANT jury duty.
Could you just walk away from your job for four weeks and be sure it would be waiting on you when you return?
Yes, it's in my contract. And I may be mistaken, but I think in Illinois it's illegal to fire someone for not showing up for work if he has jury duty.
Free Martian Whores!