http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2FRetten-ma-vurdere-meddommer-pa-nytt-6782865.html%23.T15hEPVwZCA
Soooo.. a spree killer goes mad kills 70 plus people at a summer camp for being members of the organisation that organised the summer camp. .
At the trial one of the jury substitutes is the father of a local chapter leader of the organisation that organized the summer camp and probably participated in the camp on previous years.
The question is, do you exclude the father?
I would. In the US, you could get him struck for cause.
Knowing European judicial systems, I'm surprised the jury pool isn't filled with family members of the defendant. THEYRE SORTA LIKE PEERS
Well, in norway the jury pool is usually pulled from election rosters lists. So, unsurprisingly the first act of political terror in norway results in the specific target obviously gets it's own jury member.
Those who might remember that I have bitched about this specific aspect of the norwegian jury system previously.
Quote from: Viking on March 12, 2012, 03:53:10 PM
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2FRetten-ma-vurdere-meddommer-pa-nytt-6782865.html%23.T15hEPVwZCA
Soooo.. a spree killer goes mad kills 70 plus people at a summer camp for being members of the organisation that organised the summer camp. .
At the trial one of the jury substitutes is the father of a local chapter leader of the organisation that organized the summer camp and probably participated in the camp on previous years.
The question is, do you exclude the father?
Even as the prosecutor I would want to excldue that person.
That being said - I probably would never know.
As a defense lawyer I'd let him stay and then if I lost call for a mistrial :lol:
I'm not a lawyer, but I think I get the gist of lawyering from watching Law & Order. Of course I would exclude the guy.
Quote from: HVC on March 12, 2012, 04:19:37 PM
As a defense lawyer I'd let him stay and then if I lost call for a mistrial :lol:
Not going to work.
Now the new lawyer could argue incompetence of counsel because the first lawyer allowed the biased juror to get on the jury, but as the first lawyer that's not much help...
If I was a lawyer, I would have already put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger in shame of being a lawyer.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
If I was a lawyer, I would have already put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger in shame of being a lawyer.
Shame? What is this word 'shame'?
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2012, 04:22:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 12, 2012, 04:19:37 PM
As a defense lawyer I'd let him stay and then if I lost call for a mistrial :lol:
Not going to work.
Now the new lawyer could argue incompetence of counsel because the first lawyer allowed the biased juror to get on the jury, but as the first lawyer that's not much help...
could lawyer number 2 work for the same firm, or is that still a no-no?
*edit* or could i claim i didn't know until after the trial. Won't work in this case becasue of the news coverage, but in a other not so covered story?
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
If I was a lawyer, I would have already put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger in shame of being a lawyer.
:D
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2012, 04:47:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 12, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
If I was a lawyer, I would have already put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger in shame of being a lawyer.
Shame? What is this word 'shame'?
Emotions that people (non-lawyers in lawtalker speech) have when they do or feel something that they are uncomfortable telling their mothers about.
Quote from: HVC on March 12, 2012, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 12, 2012, 04:22:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 12, 2012, 04:19:37 PM
As a defense lawyer I'd let him stay and then if I lost call for a mistrial :lol:
Not going to work.
Now the new lawyer could argue incompetence of counsel because the first lawyer allowed the biased juror to get on the jury, but as the first lawyer that's not much help...
could lawyer number 2 work for the same firm, or is that still a no-no?
*edit* or could i claim i didn't know until after the trial. Won't work in this case becasue of the news coverage, but in a other not so covered story?
AFAIK, in the US at least, ineffective assistance of counsel claims would be brought by the person appealing his conviction to the court -- either by the person himself (though I think all jurisdiction have a first appeal by right) or through an attorney, who I guess could be from the same firm, with all the usual conflict of interest rules applying.
Quote from: Viking on March 12, 2012, 05:13:09 PM
Emotions that people (non-lawyers in lawtalker speech) have when they do or feel something that they are uncomfortable telling their mothers about.
Like joining the Mile High Club? :huh:
Quote from: Scipio on March 12, 2012, 03:54:27 PM
In the US, you could get him struck for cause.
This.
Probably so, but it raises some questions for me.
Has any relatively recent political assassin ever faced a jury? Like, say Jared Lee Loughner was not crazy, and instead held competent to stand trial, and did so. Would a juror being a registered Democrat be sufficient to strike for cause? How about if the juror just voted Democrat? (I mean, I'm not a registered Democrat, but obviously I'd be biased as shit.)
For the prosecutor, what if the juror was or voted Republican, and thus may be more sympathetic to the idea of trepanning a Democratic congresswoman?
That is, do you need to find people that live under rocks to avoid a strike for cause due to political association?
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2012, 09:57:37 PM
That is, do you need to find people that live under rocks to avoid a strike for cause due to political association?
I'd assume they treat it like a celebrity case and focus on the ability of a juror to allow testimony and evidence to take precedence over their own exposure. A quick search turned up some commentary from the DeLorean and O.J. Simpson trials on the topic of preventing jury contamination.
Delorean:
http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/40/takasugi.pdf?rd=1
Simpson:
http://www.varinsky.com/publications/publication_6.pdf
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2012, 09:57:37 PM
Probably so, but it raises some questions for me.
Has any relatively recent political assassin ever faced a jury? Like, say Jared Lee Loughner was not crazy, and instead held competent to stand trial, and did so. Would a juror being a registered Democrat be sufficient to strike for cause? How about if the juror just voted Democrat? (I mean, I'm not a registered Democrat, but obviously I'd be biased as shit.)
For the prosecutor, what if the juror was or voted Republican, and thus may be more sympathetic to the idea of trepanning a Democratic congresswoman?
That is, do you need to find people that live under rocks to avoid a strike for cause due to political association?
Wasn't there some local sheriff or rep who got assassinated a few years ago?
Well, there was the federal judge standing next to Gabrielle Giffords. He's not a pretty lady with fine ideals who fucks a spaceman, so I didn't bother to remember his name.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 13, 2012, 12:36:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2012, 09:57:37 PM
That is, do you need to find people that live under rocks to avoid a strike for cause due to political association?
I'd assume they treat it like a celebrity case and focus on the ability of a juror to allow testimony and evidence to take precedence over their own exposure. A quick search turned up some commentary from the DeLorean and O.J. Simpson trials on the topic of preventing jury contamination.
Delorean:
http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/40/takasugi.pdf?rd=1
Simpson:
http://www.varinsky.com/publications/publication_6.pdf
Quote from: the second oneTo make sure a fair and impartial jury is seated, however, the court would be
well-advised to authorize the use of pretrial juror questionnaires and individual, attorney-conducted voir
dire.
Yeah, I think they do that in NC as a matter of course. I like it.
Anyway, a political killing or other crime is likely to involve the same concerns of media-sensation cases, but with the added wrinkle of tribal affiliation potentially trumping impartiality. I'm saying that, in a politically charged case, if you're willing to strike for cause for formal party registration, you should be able to strike for cause for informal political allegiance; if I were Jared Lee Loughner, I'd want Tea Party fucksticks on my jury; if I were the prosecutor, I'd want Democrats. And probably both should be stricken; the problem is if (as we say would be ideal) the entire population were politically engaged, in a two-party system, you may run into problems.
However, I expect there would be enough politically disengaged voters that you could find the under-rock people you need.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 12, 2012, 09:57:37 PM
Probably so, but it raises some questions for me.
Has any relatively recent political assassin ever faced a jury? Like, say Jared Lee Loughner was not crazy, and instead held competent to stand trial, and did so. Would a juror being a registered Democrat be sufficient to strike for cause? How about if the juror just voted Democrat? (I mean, I'm not a registered Democrat, but obviously I'd be biased as shit.)
For the prosecutor, what if the juror was or voted Republican, and thus may be more sympathetic to the idea of trepanning a Democratic congresswoman?
That is, do you need to find people that live under rocks to avoid a strike for cause due to political association?
European political parties are more like a club like the elk lodge or freemasons. This is more like a parent of a recent Virginia Tech student sitting on the Jury for the VTech murderer or in the case of loughner a parent of a regular shopper at the safeways that gifforts and co. got shot at.
BTW, I just got an email from my local Conservative Party Chapter trying to get members to sign up for jury duty since they obviously can't meet their quota.