Civic Duty Part 2

[paiken]

After what seems like forever but in reality was 3 weeks, the trial in which I was a juror is finally over. Nothing earth shattering. The defendant was accused of running a chop shop for motorcycles. 22 total counts, we found him guilty of 1. The state did a massively crappy job of putting together this case, and we all let the prosecutor know about it after the trial. She agreed, stating that DPS learned a valuable lesson in how poorly they managed this particular case, and that their methodology will change in future investigations. For example, "dozens" of surveillance notes were "thrown away" after being incorporated into one detectives report, so it became impossible for us to corroborate the statements of at least 4 detectives who participated in the surveillance operations. And at one of the locations there were around 100 photos taken of various stolen or altered motorcycles and engines, but no evidence log or identifiers in the shots so that we could match witness statements with the "evidence". We in the jury all felt that the defendant was probably guilty of more than the one charge, but the burden of proof was on the prosecution (state), and we had to return not guilty charges, since "reasonable doubt" left us no other choice.

 

[Ken Stallings]

It really is upsetting to see prosecutors and detectives botch such normal procedures this way. I am glad you jury members let them know of your dissatisfaction because ultimately it is society that suffers from this poor performance.

I normally favor free enterprise, but in the case of the legal profession I have always thought it needs to be among the most highly regulated industries in the nation precisely because it is one of the very few that can deprive citizens of property and freedom.

To think that someone can profit freely off the seizure of property from another citizen is something that is alien.

My view is lawyers should be like cops, firemen, and other members of government branches. They should all work on fixed salaries and be appointed by the courts for both defense and prosecution. They should have their budgets set equally so that fairness exists for plaintiffs and defendants each.

There should be no decision point for a lawyer to accept or reject a case based upon presumed profit potential. Cases should be accepted or rejected based strictly upon the level of law it presumes is violated and the strength of the case.

Imagine the chaos if we paid cops a percentage of the confiscated property brought about by investigation! Imagine the same if we paid firemen a percentage of the property they successfully fought the fire to protect?

"Sorry, ma'me, your house was destroyed by fire as we passed by, but there was this larger and wealtheir home that had a trash fire outside and so we made more money fighting that blaze! Yes, we had other trucks but they were all piled around that warehouse so they could reap part of the dividend!"

I mean, it sounds silly, but that's pretty much the lay of the land in the legal profession now, especially torts!

Anyway, I sincerely appreciate you performing your civic duty. Juror duty is one of the last areas where citizens are required to step up and perform purely civic duties sans personal profit considerations. It is also the last bastion of the jurisprudence system in America where that can be accurately said! I just think it would benefit all if all officers of the court operated under the same concept.

Cheers,

Ken

 

[djscoo]

...

Note that monetary rewards are not involved in criminal cases where the plaintiff is "the people". In a criminal case, the burden of proof does not lie on the defendant. Theoretically, if the defendant is innocent, they need not present a case, and I would therefore argue that a lawyer's skill/price is of little consequence. The prosecutor must prove that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", the scales are tipped wholly to one side. I would argue that in terms of justice served, our current system isn't without flaws. Many guilty men have walked free due to a "good lawyer". That said, in terms of protecting the rights of the truly innocent, the number of men who have been wrongfully imprisoned due to a "bad lawyer" is vastly lower. Most wrongful convictions are the result of the prejudices of a judge, jury, or improper form by the prosecutor.

It could also be said argued that having a fully state/federally funded defense team would have the defendant's lawyer essentially working for the plaintiff. Leading to bias of the defenders perhaps in favor of convictions (judgments in favor of the state).

 

[tigisfat]

Note that monetary rewards are not involved in criminal cases where the plaintiff is "the people". In a criminal case, the burden of proof does not lie on the defendant. Theoretically, if the defendant is innocent, they need not present a case, and I would therefore argue that a lawyer's skill/price is of little consequence. The prosecutor must prove that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", the scales are tipped wholly to one side. I would argue that in terms of justice served, our current system isn't without flaws. Many guilty men have walked free due to a "good lawyer". That said, in terms of protecting the rights of the truly innocent, the number of men who have been wrongfully imprisoned due to a "bad lawyer" is vastly lower. Most wrongful convictions are the result of the prejudices of a judge, jury, or improper form by the prosecutor.

It could also be said argued that having a fully state/federally funded defense team would have the defendant's lawyer essentially working for the plaintiff. Leading to bias of the defenders perhaps in favor of convictions (judgments in favor of the state).

you're dead on about the situation, but you've got the results backwards. There are waaaay too many innocent men in prison for my likes. That's no BS.

The problem with the justice system is that it no longer works the way it's supposed too. Juries appeal to emotion now. Do you really think you're innocent until proven guilty if charged with child molestation? Gimme a break.

I don't care if the guy was guilty, I'm glad the OP did the right thing. Our justice is supposed to be a fringe (but neccessary) function of our government. Our US government is not supposed to be a predatory entity, it's supposed to preserve freedom. It doesn't do that at all anymore in the slightest way.

Not only are trials bankrupt of morality now, our laws are thick and rediculous. I think I mentioned before that it is a FELONY in California to carry spark plugs on your person. Let's see who here can tell me why. I know why, but I'll bet most don't and most don't know it's a law. You can become a convicted felon for bringing your rifle home from the range in most places.

 

[djscoo]

you're dead on about the situation, but you've got the results backwards. There are waaaay too many innocent men in prison for my likes. That's no BS.

Not sure if I understand.

Suppose a man is convicted of felony possession of sparkplugs. If he was carrying these sparkplugs, and it is a felony to do so, then he is not wrongfully convicted. The defendant committed a crime and the prosecutor showed sufficient evidence to prove this.One could argue that the law is unjust, but until it is overturned the man with the sparkplugs is out of luck. What I was getting at was the fairness of the trial itself rather than that of the law.

 

[Snuffy]

... There are waaaay too many innocent men in prison for my likes. That's no BS. ...

Well "IF" they're innocent, then what are they doing there? You mean to tell me, that innocence now has degrees of severity? Kinda like ... "Well I thought about stealing thus and such but didn't and got caught thinking about it., And now I'm in prison." ???

Innocence is black and white it is not gray/grey. You were either apprehended in the act of doing something wrong, or you were no where near the scene of the crime.

If the second part of that statement is true, then there would have been no reason for the law to come get you and put you in prison.

Sorry, but if they're in prison, they're usually there for a good reason.

And some of them that are there, shouldn't be sucking oxygen still ... JMHO.

 

[cheezyflier]

i agree with making lawyers salaried. as it stands now, most of them are more concerned with billable hours than they are with winning, in certain cases. i have seen it many times when it comes to child custody and child support issues. we have in fact, recently experienced it that way ourselves. outside of corporate law, there really isn't much competition between them, and most of them suck. on top of that they are quick to tell you they offer no garantees, but to show up without one is even worse. yet somehow, even when they fail, they still expect to be paid.

if you say to me "hey cheezy, can you fix the duct in my house?" and i drag the job out, charging you time and material, then do it wrong, would you pay me for it?

 

[n4gix]

Well "IF" they're innocent, then what are they doing there? You mean to tell me, that innocence now has degrees of severity? Kinda like ... "Well I thought about stealing thus and such but didn't and got caught thinking about it., And now I'm in prison." ???

Innocence is black and white it is not gray/grey. You were either apprehended in the act of doing something wrong, or you were no where near the scene of the crime.

Say what? Most cases are in fact "shades of gray," since the "evidence" is largely circumstantial and uncorroborated.

Some defendants are convicted solely because of inaccurate and/or misleading "evidence" and the inability of the defendant's lawyer to provide "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury. Other cases of conviction were solely the result of the "emotions" brought about in the juror's minds that outweighed "common sense."

There are also folks in prison serving lengthy sentences based entirely on "manufactured evidence!" Currently in Chicago a former police Commander is on trial for torturing confessions out of charged prisoners!

How many cases have come to light over the past decade where a review of DNA evidence has proven that the defendant could not possibly have committed the crime?

As for "tig's" comment regarding just being accused of child abuse, he is dead accurate. Whether a person is ever charged at all, just the accusation or suggestion is more than enough to totally ruin a person's life forever...

To "paiken" I will say this: "Good on ya!" You the jurors made the right call here.

 

[tigisfat]

Not sure if I understand.

Suppose a man is convicted of felony possession of sparkplugs. If he was carrying these sparkplugs, and it is a felony to do so, then he is not wrongfully convicted. The defendant committed a crime and the prosecutor showed sufficient evidence to prove this.One could argue that the law is unjust, but until it is overturned the man with the sparkplugs is out of luck. What I was getting at was the fairness of the trial itself rather than that of the law.

Our laws and codes are part of the justice system, and the whole thing is royally messed up. If a man is convicted of a felony for coughing because the local law says it's a felony to cough, I still say he's wrongfully convicted even if he's guilty of violating the code. A felony destroys your life, and rediculous laws are passed constantly.

The very fact that a law was passed making it a life-destroying felony to carry spark plugs smacks of totalitarian control and predatory oppression. Anyone that thinks they could never end up on the bad side of the law is sadly mistaken.

 

[tigisfat]

Try this on for size:

My lawyer told me of a case in the seventies where childcare providers were convicted of child molestation and the production of child pornography. The jury immediately and without much debate found them guilty of all charges. Four people were sentenced to life in prison. No pornography was ever found, and this was based on the claims of children, who were coached on what to say every bit of the way.

The claims were that they would take the children into a van and drive through a carwash, where they would do the unthinkable with them, and that rabbits were killed in front of the children and buried in the backyard of the provider's homes.

1. The carwash is 45 seconds long. It's not enough time to undress, do horrible things while shooting film, and be completely dressed again.

2. Noone is allowed in the vehicles as they go through that specific wash. There are no exceptions.

3. There was no record of the defendants ever having been to that carwash.

4. The accusers couldn't name the carwash, it was provided by the prosecution.

5. All the defendan't rabbits were accounted for ALIVE, and nothing was buried in the spot they claimed.


It took FOUR YEARS AND THREE APPEALS for them to be exonerated. The whole case from the beginning was a sham. It doesn't matter many times if the defense can't provide reasonable doubt. The prosecutors and jury don't care. They heard the accusations and turned up their noses in disgust when the defendants walked in to begin the trial.

MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and emotions. There is a reasonable doubt for just about everything, and once they think you're wrong it's hard to win.

 

[n4gix]

I think I mentioned before that it is a FELONY in California to carry spark plugs on your person. Let's see who here can tell me why. I know why, but I'll bet most don't and most don't know it's a law.

Well, I would have "guessed" it might be because a spark plug in one's fist is almost as good as a roll of quarters, a piece of lead, or brass knuckles, but...

I see that it is actually classed as a "misdemeanor" and is a violation of Section 466, insofar as it is considered a "burglary tool." Apparently it is a popular "tool" thieves use to soundlessly break car windows...

In pertinent part, section 466 provides that “[e]very person having upon him or her in his or her possession a picklock, crow, keybit, crowbar, screwdriver, vice grip pliers, water-pump pliers, slidehammer, slim jim, tension bar, lock pick gun, tubular lock pick, floor-safe door puller, master key, or other instrument or tool with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building, railroad car, aircraft, or vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Interestly though, "spark plugs" are not explicitly enumerated in the actual code! Rather they are "inferred" to be included based on the ambiguous "other instrument or tool..." clause!

However:

In People v. Gordon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Gordon), Division One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that possession of ceramic spark plug pieces does not violate section 466. Review was denied in that case on October 31, 2001. In their respondent’s brief, the People argued that the reasoning Gordon “is flawed” and should not be followed. In so arguing, the People relied upon the analysis set forth in an opinion filed after Gordon by a different division of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Since the People filed their brief, the California Supreme Court has granted review in the Fourth District’s case that criticized the reasoning in Gordon. (In re Robert B., rev. granted February 13, 2002 (S103022).) Although the appellate decision in Robert B. is superseded and no longer citable authority (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 976(d), 977 (a)), we have considered the legal analysis set forth in the People’s brief before reaching our determination that porcelain pieces of a spark plug do not qualify as burglar’s tools under section 466.

 

[n4gix]

Try this on for size:

My lawyer told me of a case in the seventies where childcare providers were convicted of child molestation and the production of child pornography. The jury immediately and without much debate found them guilty of all charges. Four people were sentenced to life in prison. No pornography was ever found, and this was based on the claims of children, who were coached on what to say every bit of the way.

Tig, I remember that case. Even now, years later and having been finally and formally exhonerated, those four individuals continue to suffer because of it. They have problems finding and holding onto jobs, have encountered problems with housing, etc.

 

[djscoo]

Innocence is black and white it is not gray/grey. You were either apprehended in the act of doing something wrong, or you were no where near the scene of the crime.

An interesting point, but in the US Judicial system, there is a considerable grey area. The verdict is "guilty" or "not guilty" rather than "innocent". When the verdict is read, it is decided whether the prosecutor has proven the guilt of the accused, or whether he has failed to provide sufficient evidence. The defendant doesn't have to prove their own innocence, it is implied.

 

[djscoo]

In pertinent part, section 466 provides that “[e]very person having upon him or her in his or her possession a picklock, crow, keybit, crowbar, screwdriver, vice grip pliers, water-pump pliers, slidehammer, slim jim, tension bar, lock pick gun, tubular lock pick, floor-safe door puller, master key, or other instrument or tool with intent feloniously to break or enter into any building, railroad car, aircraft, or vessel, trailer coach, or vehicle as defined in the Vehicle Code . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

I have a homemade slimjim, bump key and a screwdriver in my trunk...I suppose I should stay away from California!

 

[tigisfat]

I see that it is actually classed as a "misdemeanor" and is a violation of Section 466, insofar as it is considered a "burglary tool." Apparently it is a popular "tool" thieves use to soundlessly break car windows...

It's actually changed very recently. It now specifically states spark plugs and makes it a felony.

 

[PRB]

It really is upsetting to see prosecutors and detectives botch such normal procedures this way. I am glad you jury members let them know of your dissatisfaction because ultimately it is society that suffers from this poor performance.

I normally favor free enterprise, but in the case of the legal profession I have always thought it needs to be among the most highly regulated industries in the nation precisely because it is one of the very few that can deprive citizens of property and freedom.

To think that someone can profit freely off the seizure of property from another citizen is something that is alien.

My view is lawyers should be like cops, firemen, and other members of government branches. They should all work on fixed salaries and be appointed by the courts for both defense and prosecution. They should have their budgets set equally so that fairness exists for plaintiffs and defendants each.

There should be no decision point for a lawyer to accept or reject a case based upon presumed profit potential. Cases should be accepted or rejected based strictly upon the level of law it presumes is violated and the strength of the case.

Imagine the chaos if we paid cops a percentage of the confiscated property brought about by investigation! Imagine the same if we paid firemen a percentage of the property they successfully fought the fire to protect?

"Sorry, ma'me, your house was destroyed by fire as we passed by, but there was this larger and wealtheir home that had a trash fire outside and so we made more money fighting that blaze! Yes, we had other trucks but they were all piled around that warehouse so they could reap part of the dividend!"

I mean, it sounds silly, but that's pretty much the lay of the land in the legal profession now, especially torts!

Anyway, I sincerely appreciate you performing your civic duty. Juror duty is one of the last areas where citizens are required to step up and perform purely civic duties sans personal profit considerations. It is also the last bastion of the jurisprudence system in America where that can be accurately said! I just think it would benefit all if all officers of the court operated under the same concept.

Cheers,

Ken

First of all, the OP said the government botched the case, and so a conviction was lost, not the private lawyers. I'm not at all surprised to learn the government did something inefficiently and ineffectively. That's how they do most things. For that reason, but it isn't the most important reason, I don't think I want to be defended by the DMV if I get accused of a crime. Secondly, and most importantly, you seem to be saying that it would be great if, when I am accused of a crime by the government, that the lawyer appointed to "defend" me should be working for that very same government. No, thanks...

 

[Ken Stallings]

Try this on for size:

My lawyer told me of a case in the seventies where childcare providers were convicted of child molestation and the production of child pornography. The jury immediately and without much debate found them guilty of all charges. Four people were sentenced to life in prison. No pornography was ever found, and this was based on the claims of children, who were coached on what to say every bit of the way.

The claims were that they would take the children into a van and drive through a carwash, where they would do the unthinkable with them, and that rabbits were killed in front of the children and buried in the backyard of the provider's homes.

1. The carwash is 45 seconds long. It's not enough time to undress, do horrible things while shooting film, and be completely dressed again.

2. Noone is allowed in the vehicles as they go through that specific wash. There are no exceptions.

3. There was no record of the defendants ever having been to that carwash.

4. The accusers couldn't name the carwash, it was provided by the prosecution.

5. All the defendan't rabbits were accounted for ALIVE, and nothing was buried in the spot they claimed.


It took FOUR YEARS AND THREE APPEALS for them to be exonerated. The whole case from the beginning was a sham. It doesn't matter many times if the defense can't provide reasonable doubt. The prosecutors and jury don't care. They heard the accusations and turned up their noses in disgust when the defendants walked in to begin the trial.

MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and emotions. There is a reasonable doubt for just about everything, and once they think you're wrong it's hard to win.

You documented a particularly heinous wrongful conviction it would certainly appear. But I don't agree that by such examples you should conclude that "most cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and emotions." I would argue most cases are not. However, it must also be noted that circumstantial evidence comprises a very wide scope of facts and information, much of which can be powerful and compellingly persuasive! So, not all cases convicted upon circumstantial evidence indicates wrongful conviction.

The entire situation rests in the hands of the judge, who can wield considerable influence and power to keep all emotional appeals out of the earshot of the jury. If an attorney gets up and does something to strike an emotional appeal during the direct and cross, the judge can immediately intervene, order the jury to ignore the statement, clear the jury, and then reach into the lawyer's personal pockets for several thousands of dollars and back it up with a few months of jail time!

You smack that judgment down for contempt of court, and the show fast returns to logical and fair questions and answers!

Most criminal trial judges are not Lance Ito wannabes!

Ken

 

[tigisfat]

You documented a particularly heinous wrongful conviction it would certainly appear. But I don't agree that by such examples you should conclude that "most cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence and emotions." I would argue most cases are not.

The entire situation rests in the hands of the judge, who can wield considerable influence and power to keep all emotional appeals out of the earshot of the jury. If an attorney gets up and does something to strike an emotional appeal during the direct and cross, the judge can immediately intervene, order the jury to ignore the statement, clear the jury, and then reach into the lawyer's personal pockets for several thousands of dollars and back it up with a few months of jail time!

You smack that judgment down for contempt of court, and the show fast returns to logical and fair questions and answers!

Most criminal trial judges are not Lance Ito wannabes!

Ken

Wasn't it you that said that judges shouldn't be lawyers? I agreed with you then, and not so much now. I agreed with you because the outlook above is the way things are supposed to be and not things truly are. Any good trial lawyer will tell you that you use every tool to your advantage, including emotional appeals and dramatic scenes.

Ken, I retain several attorneys and have a few attorney friends and coworkers. They will all tell you that murder cases are almost never won or lost for any real reason, and that you cannot predict the outcome of any case. If the law was appealled to and followed every time, you would be able to get many cases thrown out.

Any case without tons of evidence, a witness and/or video should have reasonable doubt cast on it. How would you explain the prosecution of murder cases where only a murder weapon and DNA evidence is found? That's most of them. Is there a reasonable doubt? HECK YES THERE IS.

 

[Henry]

having spent the last 26 years in the US
all of my family and a few friends
are Lawyers and judges
im the oddball
there are a lot of different lawyers
my wife works for an insurance defense lawyer
and from time to time he does pro bono work
they all have to and he could be a defense lawyer for
a criminal suit he is out of his realm of experience
another good friend is actually a criminal defense lawyer
he is a sleeze his job is to defend criminals
no matter if they are guilty or not
many times i have told him you did good
nah he is as guilty as sin
the legal system is a buddy system
if the Judge likes you you have a good chance of winning
i also have a few friends who work for the police , parish etc
who do there darnest to get the evidence correct
sadly the system is not perfect
i have seen lawyers just make deals
that could win but just litigate it
and end it
this country really is based on lawyers guns and money
there are good judges and bad
i know a few of both
but as im British
i cannot be called to serve
and maybe thats best for me
H

 

[redriver6]

i also have a few friends who work for the police , parish etc
who do there darnest to get the evidence correct

i resemble that remark:salute: