Judge calls prosecutor's rejection of gay juror 'shocking'

[Martinus]

Because a minority of judges love to tell prosecutors how to do their job

That's called "judging".

[crazy canuck]

Its official, Marti might work in a law office.  But he isnt a lawyer.

[grumbler]

What this story tells me is that there is a judge in San Diego that needs to be replaced, stat.  If the best a judge can do to justify dismissing an entire panel is moan about being "heartbroken" and admit being so naive that she finds juror challenges "shocking," she needs to go.

This is a non-story, other than the lunacy of the judge, as far as I can tell.

[The Brain]

What happened to the right to be tried by a jury of your queers?

[Barrister]

Because a minority of judges love to tell prosecutors how to do their job

That's called "judging".

No it is not.

The judge gets to make the final decision on everything.  As a prosecutor though I get to decide which cases to present and how to present them.  Most judges are very good, but there is a minority that thinks they can or should be able to dictate to me what cases to present and how I should present them.

[crazy canuck]

BB, you are arguing about judgment with Marti....

[dps]

I don't think we are getting the whole story here or something.  The Prosecutors reasons for dismissing the jurors seems reasonable and ordinary and not interesting at all.  Yet the Judge was shocked by it and people are suing about it.  How...what...is there evidence of some sort of systematic discrimination against Gays in this district or something?  Surely not wanting activists on an issue where the defendents are activists is a reasonable position for a prosecutor to take.  Why is this a story?

I can't even tell if the potential juror was dismissed for cause or if it was a preemptory dismissal.  The story doesn't seem to add up either way.  If it was a dismissal for cause (which seems to be the case), the judge could have just ruled it an invalid reason and allowed the juror to remain in the jury pool--there was no reason to dismiss the entire jury panel.  And if it was preemptory, the prosecutor didn't have to give any reason and there would be no basis for the judge to have any reaction at all.  So yeah, something is being left out or distorted here.

[Scipio]

I don't think we are getting the whole story here or something.  The Prosecutors reasons for dismissing the jurors seems reasonable and ordinary and not interesting at all.  Yet the Judge was shocked by it and people are suing about it.  How...what...is there evidence of some sort of systematic discrimination against Gays in this district or something?  Surely not wanting activists on an issue where the defendents are activists is a reasonable position for a prosecutor to take.  Why is this a story?

I can't even tell if the potential juror was dismissed for cause or if it was a preemptory dismissal.  The story doesn't seem to add up either way.  If it was a dismissal for cause (which seems to be the case), the judge could have just ruled it an invalid reason and allowed the juror to remain in the jury pool--there was no reason to dismiss the entire jury panel.  And if it was preemptory, the prosecutor didn't have to give any reason and there would be no basis for the judge to have any reaction at all.  So yeah, something is being left out or distorted here.

It can't have been a dismissal for cause, because JUDGES control those.  JESUS CHRIST.  You ask the judge to dismiss someone for cause, and if the judge doesn't agree with your request, the juror is not discharged.  Thus, there is no way this namby-pamby jackwagon of a judge dismissed the gay juror for cause.  This, perforce, has to be a peremptory challenge.

Please note that no lawyer here doubted it was peremptory.  Sheesh.

[Martinus]

What happened to the right to be tried by a jury of your queers?

If that was the case, the only two possible verdicts would be "Fabulous" and "Hated it!"

[Martinus]

Because a minority of judges love to tell prosecutors how to do their job

That's called "judging".

No it is not.

The judge gets to make the final decision on everything.  As a prosecutor though I get to decide which cases to present and how to present them.  Most judges are very good, but there is a minority that thinks they can or should be able to dictate to me what cases to present and how I should present them.

I was making a joke based on the double meaning of the verb "to judge". What happened to Languish punning tradition.

[DontSayBanana]

It can't have been a dismissal for cause, because JUDGES control those.  JESUS CHRIST.  You ask the judge to dismiss someone for cause, and if the judge doesn't agree with your request, the juror is not discharged.  Thus, there is no way this namby-pamby jackwagon of a judge dismissed the gay juror for cause.  This, perforce, has to be a peremptory challenge.

Please note that no lawyer here doubted it was peremptory.  Sheesh.

I just had a light bulb moment.  Squabble between judge and prosecutor?  Judge denies removal for cause, prosecutor exercises a peremptory challenge instead, judge throws a hissy fit and dismisses the panel?

[Scipio]

It can't have been a dismissal for cause, because JUDGES control those.  JESUS CHRIST.  You ask the judge to dismiss someone for cause, and if the judge doesn't agree with your request, the juror is not discharged.  Thus, there is no way this namby-pamby jackwagon of a judge dismissed the gay juror for cause.  This, perforce, has to be a peremptory challenge.

Please note that no lawyer here doubted it was peremptory.  Sheesh.

I just had a light bulb moment.  Squabble between judge and prosecutor?  Judge denies removal for cause, prosecutor exercises a peremptory challenge instead, judge throws a hissy fit and dismisses the panel?

Yep.  Stupid fucking judge.

[Barrister]

It can't have been a dismissal for cause, because JUDGES control those.  JESUS CHRIST.  You ask the judge to dismiss someone for cause, and if the judge doesn't agree with your request, the juror is not discharged.  Thus, there is no way this namby-pamby jackwagon of a judge dismissed the gay juror for cause.  This, perforce, has to be a peremptory challenge.

Please note that no lawyer here doubted it was peremptory.  Sheesh.

I just had a light bulb moment.  Squabble between judge and prosecutor?  Judge denies removal for cause, prosecutor exercises a peremptory challenge instead, judge throws a hissy fit and dismisses the panel?

I think pre-emptory challenges go ahead of a challenge for cause.

But then again in this country the judge doesn't decide challenges for cause.  You select two jurors, then they in turn decide any challenges for cause for the rest of the jury.

But yes, it almost certainly went something like how you described.

[Kleves]

I think pre-emptory challenges go ahead of a challenge for cause.

That would be a pretty stupid system. The whole point of preemptories is to remove jurors who would not otherwise be removed. It would force lawyers to guess and gamble over whether it's worth it to waste a preemptory a juror who could (or even should) be removed for cause, but who may not actually be removed by the judge.

[Admiral Yi]

But then again in this country the judge doesn't decide challenges for cause.  You select two jurors, then they in turn decide any challenges for cause for the rest of the jury.

How unusual.