|
Seems like the people I've known who have done jury duty sit on misdemeanor cases and it usually only takes a day or two before the court case is over. Getting stuck on a double homicide trial for 6 months seems like an extreme rarity.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Vargatron posted:Seems like the people I've known who have done jury duty sit on misdemeanor cases and it usually only takes a day or two before the court case is over. Getting stuck on a double homicide trial for 6 months seems like an extreme rarity. I got called to potentially be on a Grand Jury in Baltimore, where you're apparently on the hook every day for several months. Fortunately I had just moved out of the city so I dodged that one. It's also pretty grim work as I heard from an acquaintance who knew someone who did it - lots of unpleasant details that you have to consider.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
That sounds about right. It would suck having to go through evidence of a murder or rape. Gotta be a huge mental strain on everybody involved in the trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:What happens when a lawyer makes a commitment to a chickencheese and fails? Only if referred in person, and I can't remember what Phil's neighborhood bar is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:What happens when a lawyer makes a commitment to a chickencheese and fails? Look here. Lawyers may screw their clients. Laywers may have sex with their clients. Lawyers may forge judges signatures on fake orders. But lawyers don't welsh on chickencheese.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:I was in a fender bender on new years eve. There wasn't visible damage and I took photos, but I was still going ~10mph when I slid into him(icy roads) and it felt like enough to me for there to be some sort of damage. Call your own insurance that’s what you pay them for. Don’t pay the dude, you will get shafted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 15:25
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:That sounds about right. It would suck having to go through evidence of a murder or rape. Gotta be a huge mental strain on everybody involved in the trial. Is that something that's addressed in our systems? Does the state have any responsibility for trauma inflicted on jurors by exposing them to this kind of evidence or testimony?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
I never welshed on anything in my life. I knew the consequences and I’d do it again. I’ll do my time and won’t rat nobody out. You got the shotgun...I got the briefcase. It’s all the game though, right? Now take me to jail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Is that something that's addressed in our systems? Does the state have any responsibility for trauma inflicted on jurors by exposing them to this kind of evidence or testimony? States are generally immune from law suits
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Is that something that's addressed in our systems? Does the state have any responsibility for trauma inflicted on jurors by exposing them to this kind of evidence or testimony? It will get brought up in voir dire, and people who have had similar experiences will pretty much always get released from serving on that jury if they want to be. joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Devor posted:I got called to potentially be on a Grand Jury in Baltimore, where you're apparently on the hook every day for several months. I was on a grand jury a few months ago. I feel like you could replace most of the jurors with a bunch of cardboard cutouts labeled "I motion, I second, in favor" in crayon and it would have had about the same result. I now understand the "A competent federal prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" quip. What's the ostensible purpose of the preemptory strike? Given that Batson only happened in the mid 80s, it feels like a way to just ensure the result you want than to eliminate bias.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:, it feels like a way to just ensure the result you want than to eliminate bias. You say that like there's a difference between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I was on a grand jury a few months ago. I feel like you could replace most of the jurors with a bunch of cardboard cutouts labeled "I motion, I second, in favor" in crayon and it would have had about the same result. I now understand the "A competent federal prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" quip. there has been movement to abolish it because it's frequently used in biased ways. but the basic idea is you get to eliminate jurors you think are biased against your client for reasons you can't quite prove. i don't know the exact reason it exists but i would imagine it's basically this: if both sides get to eliminate the people they think are worst for them - but a limited number, so that they can't afford to just bounce everyone they think is not biased in their favor - then you will wind up with a jury that's a little more fair. and importantly, that both sides are likely to think is more fair - part of what makes the justice system work is the loser feeling they got a fair shake. in practice when you have the basis for those challenges being stereotypes about people then you start winding up with people, quite reasonably, thinking they're not getting a fair shake when magically the black people always get stricken for non-race related reasons, and they probably do more harm than good
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Call your own insurance that’s what you pay them for. if you call your own insurance company and admit to causing an accident they may raise your rates. people settling damages outside of insurance companies is common specifically to avoid that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I was on a grand jury a few months ago. I feel like you could replace most of the jurors with a bunch of cardboard cutouts labeled "I motion, I second, in favor" in crayon and it would have had about the same result. I now understand the "A competent federal prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" quip. Grand Juries have a different requirement structure than trial; the burden is different. It'd be really weird for a charge to be brought up that a grand jury wouldn't move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Grand Juries have a different requirement structure than trial; the burden is different. It'd be really weird for a charge to be brought up that a grand jury wouldn't move. I've actually seen a few in the past six months months, cases where the grand jury returned no bill but they still went forward with the traffic court charges from the same stop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I've actually seen a few in the past six months months, cases where the grand jury returned no bill but they still went forward with the traffic court charges from the same stop. You're in SC, home of the Worst Bar, that hardly counts
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're in SC, home of the Worst Bar, that hardly counts Oh no the lawyers are fine, it's the cop prosecutors One recently tried to maintain he didnt have to give me a copy of the body cam video so long as he showed it to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
Un-lurking for the jury discussion to add my anecdote to the pile; got called twice thus far. First pool was mainly for a suit that got settlement right as I entered the building, so unsurprisingly I and most of the other people never even made it into a courtroom to be chosen. Second time was last year, did actually get dragged into the courtroom and they even had me seated in the jury box before I was dismissed (never actually HEARD any discussion between the judge and lawyers, just got called up to the box and a few minutes later was told I was dismissed; I presumed they were doing it electronically maybe and I couldn't see?). Really glad considering that case was for somebody accused of raping their 6 year old daughter, I was pretty much in "let this cup pass me God" mode when I hit the jury box  . Kind of depressing how many people had to immediately beg off for what wasn't said but I suspect was being all too familiar with that kind of crime... Not sure what got me removed really; I didn't say anything apart from what was on my form.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 08:08
|
|
|
Lol juries. Don't have 'em don't want 'em
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 08:45
|
|
|
My 1 brush with it has been getting called and being #355 out of 361 that had to go in on day 1 of the 3. Based on my rudimentary understanding of the selection process, and the likelihood of my relatively podunk courthouse chewing through 350 people in one day, I just didn't go in. The night after that day, the website that announced the numbers said basically "if a judge didn't tell you otherwise today, your service has been fulfilled, thanks" I'm personally torn between what a pain in the rear end it would be to do, and immense curiosity about that experience, so I didn't NOT want to do it, but I DID want to avoid sitting in a lovely chair in a courthouse where I may or may not be able to use my phone for eight hours for absolutely no loving reason. I'd rather be one of the scattering of people who gets grilled first on tuesday than deal with that. So win/win for everyone this time, woooo
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
Defendant was found not guilty and there are news stories about it. Ok to post?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
If the verdict is in, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
Depends on your state ethics rules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
I just had someone knock on my door asking for names of everyone who lives in my house (I'm a renter). She claimed to work for a third party company who was working on behalf of the bank who holds my landlord's mortgage. I told her I was the lease holder and no i'm not answering questions to a random stranger at 6pm on a Sunday. She handed me a piece of paper and left, paper reads 'The mortgage holder has requested that *company* confirms the names of all the occupants of this building. Please contact our office by the close of business on Feb 3, 2020. Failure to do so my result in legal proceedings. We look forward to your response. Please direct all inquiries to *Company* *name, contact number*. This is in BC. I guess the first question is 'is it any business of the bank who lives in my landlord's house'? And if so does this mean he's about to get foreclosed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
Just heard back from landlord. He thinks it sounds like a scam and he doesn't deal with the bank she said the house was mortgaged to. So someone is lying about something. Awesome. I guess I call the bank branch tomorrow and confirm they've got a contract with the *company*. And/or call the company and see if they have any info on my landlord/property owner/proof they're who they say they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
ooh, intrigue!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
Call the police and set up a sting operation, then call and have the scammer come back out, and get Chris Hansen to invite them in and give them the ol, "Why don't you have a seat..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
Well we do have a vacancy in our I'm pretty sure they just went to the wrong address; 25 Blahblah St instead of 25 Blahblah Rd. But I'll call the relevant companies tomorrow and find out if my house got sold to foreign crime lords or something interesting. It still seems kinda skeevey a landlord's bank would hire a third party to see who's living at an address. Outrail fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Feb 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
Outrail posted:I guess I call the bank branch tomorrow and confirm they've got a contract with the *company*. And/or call the company and see if they have any info on my landlord/property owner/proof they're who they say they are. Why would you do this? This is clearly not your problem. If it's a problem for anyone it's the property owner and you have already made them aware.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Why would you do this? This is clearly not your problem. If it's a problem for anyone it's the property owner and you have already made them aware. Because it's a mystery. Also I want to make sure my landlord isn't hiding something. But mostly mystery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
And I want to hear how it ends, so you shoosh, mr. 'its not your business'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 07:23
|
|
|
You guys have mentioned that it is common for lawyers to refer other lawyers, so what do you think of lawyers that represent clients suing other lawyers for malpractice? Are they the lepers of the legal world?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
It’s a job, who cares. That is mostly going to be insurance company lawyers fighting each other in a detached reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:You guys have mentioned that it is common for lawyers to refer other lawyers, so what do you think of lawyers that represent clients suing other lawyers for malpractice? Are they the lepers of the legal world? They're no worse than PI attorneys chasing a settlement check.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
Normally I have no problem with lawyers handling the plaintiffs side in legal malpractice cases. Like any other area of the law it occasionally attracts huge jerks who lie to their clients either to convince them to pursue a bad case or to keep them going long after they should have settled or dropped a case. But again, that’s the same as most other plaintiffs side work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
As an aside it is so nice not having to worry about malpractice and not having to pay the premiums
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:As an aside it is so nice not having to worry about malpractice and not having to pay the premiums Is that you Michael Cohen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 15:33
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Like any other area of the law it occasionally attracts huge jerks who lie to their clients either to convince them to pursue a bad case or to keep them going long after they should have settled or dropped a case. What about suing a legal malpractice lawyer for legal malpractice, like is it legal malpractice all the way down, or...?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
I can’t think of a scenario where a defendant and the plaintiff lawyer would be in a relationship such that a cause of action for malpractice against the plaintiff lawyer by the defendant would arise or - if arisen - have any damages Maybe something screwy where the plaintiffs lawyer used to be the defendants lawyer
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 16:11
|
|