Thursday, April 10, 2014
As in the world of my own doppelganger I am both - a Defendant and a Plaintiff - wearing both hats is impossible and in one case I have an Attorney or two, the other I go Pro Se or a fancy legal way of saying "alone." I prefer the latter regardless of the challenges frankly. At least I communicate with myself. And yes I do "talk to myself" just not to the voices that may or may not be in my head.
And this article discusses the myth of the impartial Juror. And that is true NO ONE enters any Courtroom, classroom, dressing room without some type of bias, experience and belief that affects judgment. Period. We all have it.
The idea of the Jury system is somehow you leave all of that behind. All of it. How? In the media saturated age we live in we are a mere "google" away from any information, study or opinion that can lend or contribute to that idea of "impartiality" Anyone who thinks Juror's don't don't know Jurors.
The notion of Jury Science is just another bullshit idea that Attorney's came up with to add fees and delegate responsibility to some third party to do the work they should be doing but don't. Jury selection is all bullshit and guesses and a crapshoot, emphasis on crap. Many people don't have any desire to sit on Juries and when they do they already have a conception, albeit emphasis on mis, about the individual that sits there during voir dire or the case as that is dramatically told to them by the Prosecutor who is already wetting their knickers at the thought of having to have another pelt on the belt of misconduct and abuse.
As for the Judge well they are there to see Justice and by Justice they mean getting this shit out of their Courtroom as expeditiously as possible so they can get back to signing off plea deals and no knock warrants. Studying law, engaging with colleagues to discuss their roles and robes they wear in relation to the community, not likely.
So I was not sure what to make of this entry in the blog and the Juror who would convict regardless. Really? Would anyone of their right mind say this? Well yes if they don't want to serve on a Jury. And this idea of a Jury of their peers well let me assure you if your peers are angry, biased, not bright, and willing just to sit on a Jury right there NOT YOUR PEER.
And in America that pretty much describes EVERYONE. Does anyone like anyone in America outside of their "own?"
The entry is here and you can debate what transpired to that end result. But regardless I believe that the Judge is the real problem here as it was clear even the Prosecutor was working an end way to get this idiot off the panel. As for the defense they may have already met their maximum to excuse jurors, that I am unsure but it did open for an appeal, which was oddly refused. Again Judges make that call. The robe of silence maybe? If anyone thinks that the system is an open one needs to think again.
That is another factor to all Jurisprudence go into trial ready for appeal. If you aren't financially or legally prepared that ends the case right there. I have been in Court twice in my life and both times I said - bring what you need to appeal as you cannot enter evidence unless admitted the first time. I was right both times.
America the broken.