View Full Version : The driver who hit me is taking it to court.
Gooserider
May 28th 07, 11:39 PM
I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my crash, informing me that I
need to be at the courthouse on June 1. Evidently the driver who hit me is
going to contest his "Improper Pass" citation. WTF? This guy is lucky he
didn't KILL ME, and he's going to waste the court's time and the taxpayers'
money by fighting this ticket. Unbelievable.
landotter
May 29th 07, 12:54 AM
On May 28, 5:39 pm, "Gooserider" > wrote:
> I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my crash, informing me that I
> need to be at the courthouse on June 1. Evidently the driver who hit me is
> going to contest his "Improper Pass" citation. WTF? This guy is lucky he
> didn't KILL ME, and he's going to waste the court's time and the taxpayers'
> money by fighting this ticket. Unbelievable.
Wasn't he clearly in the wrong? His insurance company is going to sort
you out I hope? WTF is the penalty for an improper pass? A hundred
bucks and a point on your license. Sounds like a genuine asshole.
Bring all you can to document the crash. Impressive mangled bits can
really help, as can CT films. Wear a coat jacket and look respectable,
as some judges and people in general have a bias for cyclists.
Good luck!
Leo Lichtman
May 29th 07, 01:01 AM
"Gooserider" wrote: (clip) Evidently the driver who hit me is going to
contest his "Improper Pass" citation. (clip) This guy is lucky he didn't
KILL ME,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would say that some of the luck is on your side.
This suggests to me that he probably has enough "points" on his driving
record that he will lose his license if this one sticks. Let us know how it
goes. The trooper who wrote the ticket is going to testify to its
correctness, and the judge is very unlikely to doubt his testimony. Then
you're going to take the stand, and he is dead meat.
bryanska
May 29th 07, 01:25 AM
PLEASE keep us updated.
teh dude
May 29th 07, 01:26 AM
On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:39:55 -0400, Gooserider wrote:
> I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my crash, informing me that I
> need to be at the courthouse on June 1. Evidently the driver who hit me is
> going to contest his "Improper Pass" citation. WTF? This guy is lucky he
> didn't KILL ME, and he's going to waste the court's time and the taxpayers'
> money by fighting this ticket. Unbelievable.
lol pwned
Leo Lichtman
May 29th 07, 02:52 AM
432"landotter" wrote (clip) Wasn't he clearly in the wrong? His insurance
company is going to sort you out I hope? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think this is an insurance case--it sounds like the guy is going to
plead not-guilty on a traffic ticket. Gooserider is not going to have the
burden of proving anything. He will be a prosecution witness, and he will
testify that the car passed him with insufficient clearance, and hit him.
The police officer needs that testimony to support the ticket that he wrote.
As I said earlier, the guy is probably on the verge of losing his license,
and I wouldn't be surprised if he is paying a lawyer way more than the fine
for such a traffic ticket.
Gooserider
May 29th 07, 03:01 AM
"Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
...
> 432"landotter" wrote (clip) Wasn't he clearly in the wrong? His
> insurance company is going to sort you out I hope? (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't think this is an insurance case--it sounds like the guy is going
> to plead not-guilty on a traffic ticket. Gooserider is not going to have
> the burden of proving anything. He will be a prosecution witness, and he
> will testify that the car passed him with insufficient clearance, and hit
> him. The police officer needs that testimony to support the ticket that he
> wrote. As I said earlier, the guy is probably on the verge of losing his
> license, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is paying a lawyer way more
> than the fine for such a traffic ticket.
You are correct, Leo. I'm still working the bike replacement out with the
driver's insurance company, but I've been paid for my pain and suffering and
my medical bills have been covered. The driver must be either close to
losing his license or is such an obnoxious redneck that he doesn't think the
crash was his fault. He said as much to witnesses at the scene, I've been
told. He said he couldn't see me because he was following the car in front
of him too closely. Doesn't sound like a winning strategy for him to follow.
>
On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:39:55 -0400, Gooserider wrote:
> I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my crash, informing me that I
> need to be at the courthouse on June 1. Evidently the driver who hit me is
> going to contest his "Improper Pass" citation. WTF? This guy is lucky he
> didn't KILL ME, and he's going to waste the court's time and the taxpayers'
> money by fighting this ticket. Unbelievable.
In your previous post you said his insurance has already given you a check
for P+S plus medical right? The insurance wouldn't have coughed up if they
thought he had a reasonable chance of fighting it. Like the others here
have said, you shouldn't have anything to worry about, the guy is probably
making a desperate attempt to keep his license, and doesn't look to good
for him. Go to court, and with any luck, watch him get slapped down.
Again, please keep us informed.
landotter
May 29th 07, 03:12 AM
On May 28, 9:01 pm, "Gooserider" > wrote:
> You are correct, Leo. I'm still working the bike replacement out with the
> driver's insurance company, but I've been paid for my pain and suffering and
> my medical bills have been covered. The driver must be either close to
> losing his license or is such an obnoxious redneck that he doesn't think the
> crash was his fault. He said as much to witnesses at the scene, I've been
> told. He said he couldn't see me because he was following the car in front
> of him too closely. Doesn't sound like a winning strategy for him to follow.
>
>
Maybe he'll use the "driving too fast" excuse as well and really seal
the deal! "Your honor, I was both tailgating and speeding--how am I to
see a cyclist with all I had on my plate?!"
No Name
May 29th 07, 04:19 AM
In article >, Gooserider@mouse-
potato.com says...
> I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my crash, informing me that I
> need to be at the courthouse on June 1. Evidently the driver who hit me is
> going to contest his "Improper Pass" citation. WTF? This guy is lucky he
> didn't KILL ME, and he's going to waste the court's time and the taxpayers'
> money by fighting this ticket. Unbelievable.
Not surprising. The moron who rear-ended me on I-5 a couple of years
ago contested his ticket for following too close, long after his
insurance had paid me in full.
He had no other points on his license, but he had one *deferred* ticket
that would reappear if he were convicted of another traffic offense, so
the one ticket for hitting me carried the weight of two.
In the end I didn't have to testify -- the judge reviewed the case and
explained the available defenses the driver would have to prove if he
contested the ticket, and reminded him that if he contested and lost
he'd be paying court costs as well as the two tickets. At that point he
decided he had no defense for the ticket and pled guilty.
--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>
Zen Cohen
May 29th 07, 07:30 AM
"Gooserider" > wrote in message
...
>I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my crash, informing me that
>I need to be at the courthouse on June 1. Evidently the driver who hit me
>is going to contest his "Improper Pass" citation. WTF? This guy is lucky he
>didn't KILL ME, and he's going to waste the court's time and the taxpayers'
>money by fighting this ticket. Unbelievable.
I'm a lawyer but have very little exposure to this area of law. IIRC,
sometimes insurers want to fight the ticket because if the driver loses, in
some jurisdictions the judgment could be introduced to prove liability in a
civil suit. Even though it sounds like the insurer has paid most of your
claim, it could still be trying to lessen its exposure. Or, as you suggest,
the driver might just be a contentious prick. Good luck.
On May 28, 5:39 pm, "Gooserider" > wrote:
> I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my crash, informing me that I
> need to be at the courthouse on June 1. Evidently the driver who hit me is
> going to contest his "Improper Pass" citation. WTF? This guy is lucky he
> didn't KILL ME, and he's going to waste the court's time and the taxpayers'
> money by fighting this ticket. Unbelievable.
No matter what the charge, he has a right to demand a trial. That's
the way our legal system works. Things would be much simpler if there
was no such right but would you want to live under such a system? The
*real* question is are you going to do your civic duty and appear in
court to testify or are you going to shrug your shoulders, not appear
to testify, and just cash the insurance check like most complaining
witnesses in traffic cases do?
(Hint- If you choose the latter the charge will likely be dismissed
and you will have been just as responsible for "wasting the court's
time and the taxpayers' money" as the defendant.)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
It always pays to go to court as you can usually plead down the charge
and get fewer/no points on the license. You dont HAVE to show unless
subpeonaed but then the guy will plead to "obstructing traffic" or
other such nonsense
On May 28, 9:52 pm, "Leo Lichtman" >
wrote:
> 432"landotter" wrote (clip) Wasn't he clearly in the wrong? His insurance
> company is going to sort you out I hope? (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't think this is an insurance case--it sounds like the guy is going to
> plead not-guilty on a traffic ticket. Gooserider is not going to have the
> burden of proving anything. He will be a prosecution witness, and he will
> testify that the car passed him with insufficient clearance, and hit him.
> The police officer needs that testimony to support the ticket that he wrote.
> As I said earlier, the guy is probably on the verge of losing his license,
> and I wouldn't be surprised if he is paying a lawyer way more than the fine
> for such a traffic ticket.
Roger Zoul
May 29th 07, 11:50 PM
Bob wrote:
:: (Hint- If you choose the latter the charge will likely be dismissed
:: and you will have been just as responsible for "wasting the court's
:: time and the taxpayers' money" as the defendant.)
I disagree with the latter part of your statement.
On May 29, 5:50 pm, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> :: (Hint- If you choose the latter the charge will likely be dismissed
> :: and you will have been just as responsible for "wasting the court's
> :: time and the taxpayers' money" as the defendant.)
>
> I disagree with the latter part of your statement.
You're free to disagree if you wish because the right to hold and
express differing opinions- even when they are incorrect- is also part
of our system. ;-)
A gut reaction might be to say that my statement is unsympathetic to
the OP but if you analyze the situation I think you'll see sympathy
has nothing to do with it and come to agree with me. In our legal
system the OP isn't a "victim" but simply a prosecution witness.
Prosecution or defense, witnesses that don't appear cause delays and
those delays waste both court time and tax money and it doesn't matter
who that witness is. Whether it is the OP, the driver, a witness for
the OP, a witness for the driver, or the cop that wrote the ticket
makes no difference.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Gooserider
May 30th 07, 02:21 AM
"Bob" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 28, 5:39 pm, "Gooserider" > wrote:
>> I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my crash, informing me
>> that I
>> need to be at the courthouse on June 1. Evidently the driver who hit me
>> is
>> going to contest his "Improper Pass" citation. WTF? This guy is lucky he
>> didn't KILL ME, and he's going to waste the court's time and the
>> taxpayers'
>> money by fighting this ticket. Unbelievable.
>
> No matter what the charge, he has a right to demand a trial. That's
> the way our legal system works. Things would be much simpler if there
> was no such right but would you want to live under such a system? The
> *real* question is are you going to do your civic duty and appear in
> court to testify or are you going to shrug your shoulders, not appear
> to testify, and just cash the insurance check like most complaining
> witnesses in traffic cases do?
> (Hint- If you choose the latter the charge will likely be dismissed
> and you will have been just as responsible for "wasting the court's
> time and the taxpayers' money" as the defendant.)
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
Yes, I'm going. I don't know if I will even be called to testify, but the
trooper said I should be there so I will be.
Roger Zoul
May 30th 07, 07:31 AM
Bob wrote:
:: On May 29, 5:50 pm, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::: Bob wrote:
:::
::::: (Hint- If you choose the latter the charge will likely be
::::: dismissed and you will have been just as responsible for "wasting
::::: the court's time and the taxpayers' money" as the defendant.)
:::
::: I disagree with the latter part of your statement.
::
:: You're free to disagree if you wish because the right to hold and
:: express differing opinions- even when they are incorrect- is also
:: part of our system. ;-)
:: A gut reaction might be to say that my statement is unsympathetic to
:: the OP but if you analyze the situation I think you'll see sympathy
:: has nothing to do with it and come to agree with me. In our legal
:: system the OP isn't a "victim" but simply a prosecution witness.
:: Prosecution or defense, witnesses that don't appear cause delays and
:: those delays waste both court time and tax money and it doesn't
:: matter who that witness is. Whether it is the OP, the driver, a
:: witness for the OP, a witness for the driver, or the cop that wrote
:: the ticket makes no difference.
Even so, the witness is not as responsible for wasting court time as the
defendant.
On May 29, 8:21 pm, "Gooserider" > wrote:
> Yes, I'm going. I don't know if I will even be called to testify, but the
> trooper said I should be there so I will be.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good. Be sure to check in if that particular court requires it and by
all means try to speak to the prosecutor- even if it's just to tell
them you are there- before the case gets called. Best of luck.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
On May 30, 1:31 am, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> :: On May 29, 5:50 pm, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:::: Bob wrote:
>
> :::
> ::::: (Hint- If you choose the latter the charge will likely be
> ::::: dismissed and you will have been just as responsible for "wasting
> ::::: the court's time and the taxpayers' money" as the defendant.)
> :::
> ::: I disagree with the latter part of your statement.
> ::
> :: You're free to disagree if you wish because the right to hold and
> :: express differing opinions- even when they are incorrect- is also
> :: part of our system. ;-)
> :: A gut reaction might be to say that my statement is unsympathetic to
> :: the OP but if you analyze the situation I think you'll see sympathy
> :: has nothing to do with it and come to agree with me. In our legal
> :: system the OP isn't a "victim" but simply a prosecution witness.
> :: Prosecution or defense, witnesses that don't appear cause delays and
> :: those delays waste both court time and tax money and it doesn't
> :: matter who that witness is. Whether it is the OP, the driver, a
> :: witness for the OP, a witness for the driver, or the cop that wrote
> :: the ticket makes no difference.
>
> Even so, the witness is not as responsible for wasting court time as the
> defendant.
The manhours of wasted court time and attending costs are exactly the
same no matter who the non-appearing witness is but, assuming you
aren't crunching budget numbers for the government, you're free to
believe whatever you like.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Roger Zoul
May 30th 07, 09:36 AM
Bob wrote:
:: On May 30, 1:31 am, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::: Bob wrote:
:::
::::: On May 29, 5:50 pm, "Roger Zoul" >
::::: wrote:::: Bob wrote:
:::
::::::
:::::::: (Hint- If you choose the latter the charge will likely be
:::::::: dismissed and you will have been just as responsible for
:::::::: "wasting the court's time and the taxpayers' money" as the
:::::::: defendant.)
::::::
:::::: I disagree with the latter part of your statement.
:::::
::::: You're free to disagree if you wish because the right to hold and
::::: express differing opinions- even when they are incorrect- is also
::::: part of our system. ;-)
::::: A gut reaction might be to say that my statement is unsympathetic
::::: to
::::: the OP but if you analyze the situation I think you'll see
::::: sympathy
::::: has nothing to do with it and come to agree with me. In our legal
::::: system the OP isn't a "victim" but simply a prosecution witness.
::::: Prosecution or defense, witnesses that don't appear cause delays
::::: and
::::: those delays waste both court time and tax money and it doesn't
::::: matter who that witness is. Whether it is the OP, the driver, a
::::: witness for the OP, a witness for the driver, or the cop that
::::: wrote
::::: the ticket makes no difference.
:::
::: Even so, the witness is not as responsible for wasting court time
::: as the defendant.
::
:: The manhours of wasted court time and attending costs are exactly the
:: same no matter who the non-appearing witness is but,
Which still keeps the blame on the defendant....or the legal system...but
the witness owns the least of any blame for wasting court tme and mostly
certainly for the so-called attending costs.
assuming you
:: aren't crunching budget numbers for the government, you're free to
:: believe whatever you like.
Of course I am and I will.
Leo Lichtman
May 30th 07, 04:51 PM
"Bob" wrote: The manhours of wasted court time and attending costs are
exactly the same no matter who the non-appearing witness is (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The manhours of wasted court time are exactly the same whether I have tuna
or egg salad for lunch. Gooserider never suggested that he was not going to
appear. In fact, he has said that he will. This places an additional
burden on him, even though he has done no wrong. The defendant, on the
other hand, caused him an injury by breaking the law (I know, he's presumed
innocent until....). Rather than accept the responsibility for what he did,
HE is placing a burden on the courts. How can you say the two are the same?
On May 30, 3:36 am, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
> Which still keeps the blame on the defendant....or the legal system...but
> the witness owns the least of any blame for wasting court tme and mostly
> certainly for the so-called attending costs.
We are talking about two different things- blame and responsibility.
If you want to assign blame for the wasted court time, blame the
people that wrote the Bill of Rights. They are the ones that said
defendants have an absolute right to trial.
If you want to discuss responsibility though, every participant in a
legal case has a responsibility to do what is required by law whether
they are an aggrieved party or not.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
On May 30, 10:51 am, "Leo Lichtman" >
wrote:
> "Bob" wrote: The manhours of wasted court time and attending costs are
>
> exactly the same no matter who the non-appearing witness is (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The manhours of wasted court time are exactly the same whether I have tuna
> or egg salad for lunch. Gooserider never suggested that he was not going to
> appear. In fact, he has said that he will. This places an additional
> burden on him, even though he has done no wrong. The defendant, on the
> other hand, caused him an injury by breaking the law (I know, he's presumed
> innocent until....). Rather than accept the responsibility for what he did,
> HE is placing a burden on the courts. How can you say the two are the same?
First, while I freely admit that I wrote my original response in a
rather challenging tone I've never suggested that Gooserider would not
attend court. I've even encouraged him and wished him luck in his
court appearance. Second, what I said was that a witness that *fails
to appear* places the exact same burden on the courts' time as does a
defendant that demands trial- your tuna salad and egg salad metaphor-
so it seems to me that on that we are in agreement.
There is a difference though between even the guiltiest defendant
demanding a trial and a witness that fails to appear in court. Every
defendant has an absolute right to trial but no one has the right to
refuse to testify *as a witness*. The defendant demanding trial isn't
imposing a burden on the courts. That burden is imposed by the US
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is no right to refuse to
give testimony against another to be found anywhere in those
documents.
*Should* someone guilty of breaking the law stand up and take their
punishment like an adult instead of demanding trial in the hope a
witness won't appear, the judge will be a sympathetic one, the
prosecutor will be incompetent, or they'll get a brain dead OJ Simpson
type jury? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to think they will? Not in my
experience.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Roger Zoul
May 31st 07, 12:22 AM
Bob wrote:
:: On May 30, 3:36 am, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::
::: Which still keeps the blame on the defendant....or the legal
::: system...but the witness owns the least of any blame for wasting
::: court tme and mostly certainly for the so-called attending costs.
::
:: We are talking about two different things- blame and responsibility.
:: If you want to assign blame for the wasted court time, blame the
:: people that wrote the Bill of Rights. They are the ones that said
:: defendants have an absolute right to trial.
:: If you want to discuss responsibility though, every participant in a
:: legal case has a responsibility to do what is required by law whether
:: they are an aggrieved party or not.
Oh please Bob....if a witness is required by law to do something then there
are penalities for not doing so. If not, then said witness is free to do
what said witness wishes.
Roger Zoul
May 31st 07, 12:32 AM
Bob wrote:
:: On May 30, 10:51 am, "Leo Lichtman" >
:: wrote:
::: "Bob" wrote: The manhours of wasted court time and attending
::: costs are
:::
::: exactly the same no matter who the non-appearing witness is (clip)
::: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
::: The manhours of wasted court time are exactly the same whether I
::: have tuna or egg salad for lunch. Gooserider never suggested that
::: he was not going to appear. In fact, he has said that he will.
::: This places an additional burden on him, even though he has done no
::: wrong. The defendant, on the other hand, caused him an injury by
::: breaking the law (I know, he's presumed innocent until....).
::: Rather than accept the responsibility for what he did, HE is
::: placing a burden on the courts. How can you say the two are the
::: same?
::
:: First, while I freely admit that I wrote my original response in a
:: rather challenging tone I've never suggested that Gooserider would
:: not attend court. I've even encouraged him and wished him luck in his
:: court appearance. Second, what I said was that a witness that *fails
:: to appear* places the exact same burden on the courts' time as does a
:: defendant that demands trial- your tuna salad and egg salad metaphor-
:: so it seems to me that on that we are in agreement.
:: There is a difference though between even the guiltiest defendant
:: demanding a trial and a witness that fails to appear in court. Every
:: defendant has an absolute right to trial but no one has the right to
:: refuse to testify *as a witness*. The defendant demanding trial isn't
:: imposing a burden on the courts. That burden is imposed by the US
:: Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is no right to refuse to
:: give testimony against another to be found anywhere in those
:: documents.
:: *Should* someone guilty of breaking the law stand up and take their
:: punishment like an adult instead of demanding trial in the hope a
:: witness won't appear, the judge will be a sympathetic one, the
:: prosecutor will be incompetent, or they'll get a brain dead OJ
:: Simpson type jury? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to think they will?
:: Not in my experience.
::
:: Regards,
:: Bob Hunt
If a witness has no *right* not to refuse to give testimony, then said
witness would be subject to penalty under the law for not doing so. Thus,
there should be little "hoping" a witness won't appear.
Patrick Lamb
May 31st 07, 02:47 AM
On Tue, 29 May 2007 21:21:11 -0400, "Gooserider"
> wrote:
>"Bob" > wrote
>> The
>> *real* question is are you going to do your civic duty and appear in
>> court to testify or are you going to shrug your shoulders, not appear
>> to testify, and just cash the insurance check like most complaining
>> witnesses in traffic cases do?
>> (Hint- If you choose the latter the charge will likely be dismissed
>> and you will have been just as responsible for "wasting the court's
>> time and the taxpayers' money" as the defendant.)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Hunt
>
>Yes, I'm going. I don't know if I will even be called to testify, but the
>trooper said I should be there so I will be.
It's easy for me to say, "You ought to go," but the burden is on you.
I, for one, am glad to see you accept this responsibility. I'm not
always so responsible about calling in harassment from motorists.
Pat
Email address works as is.
Kristian M Zoerhoff
May 31st 07, 02:48 AM
On 2007-05-30, Roger Zoul > wrote:
>
> Oh please Bob....if a witness is required by law to do something then there
> are penalities for not doing so. If not, then said witness is free to do
> what said witness wishes.
This is correct. A witness can only be compelled to appear by subpoena, which
is ignored at the risk of jail time for contempt of court. Otherwise, they
have no obligation to appear, and many won't.
--
__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_
(_)/ (_)
On May 30, 6:32 pm, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> :: On May 30, 10:51 am, "Leo Lichtman" >:: wrote:
> ::: "Bob" wrote: The manhours of wasted court time and attending
>
> ::: costs are
> :::
> ::: exactly the same no matter who the non-appearing witness is (clip)
> ::: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ::: The manhours of wasted court time are exactly the same whether I
> ::: have tuna or egg salad for lunch. Gooserider never suggested that
> ::: he was not going to appear. In fact, he has said that he will.
> ::: This places an additional burden on him, even though he has done no
> ::: wrong. The defendant, on the other hand, caused him an injury by
> ::: breaking the law (I know, he's presumed innocent until....).
> ::: Rather than accept the responsibility for what he did, HE is
> ::: placing a burden on the courts. How can you say the two are the
> ::: same?
> ::
> :: First, while I freely admit that I wrote my original response in a
> :: rather challenging tone I've never suggested that Gooserider would
> :: not attend court. I've even encouraged him and wished him luck in his
> :: court appearance. Second, what I said was that a witness that *fails
> :: to appear* places the exact same burden on the courts' time as does a
> :: defendant that demands trial- your tuna salad and egg salad metaphor-
> :: so it seems to me that on that we are in agreement.
> :: There is a difference though between even the guiltiest defendant
> :: demanding a trial and a witness that fails to appear in court. Every
> :: defendant has an absolute right to trial but no one has the right to
> :: refuse to testify *as a witness*. The defendant demanding trial isn't
> :: imposing a burden on the courts. That burden is imposed by the US
> :: Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is no right to refuse to
> :: give testimony against another to be found anywhere in those
> :: documents.
> :: *Should* someone guilty of breaking the law stand up and take their
> :: punishment like an adult instead of demanding trial in the hope a
> :: witness won't appear, the judge will be a sympathetic one, the
> :: prosecutor will be incompetent, or they'll get a brain dead OJ
> :: Simpson type jury? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to think they will?
> :: Not in my experience.
> ::
> :: Regards,
> :: Bob Hunt
>
> If a witness has no *right* not to refuse to give testimony, then said
> witness would be subject to penalty under the law for not doing so. Thus,
> there should be little "hoping" a witness won't appear.
Said witness actually *is* subject to a penalty. The charge is
contempt and the punishment here in Illinois is jail time for each
offense not to exceed 364 days. That it is rarely imposed doesn't make
it not so. No, I am not arguing for throwing absent witnesses in
traffic cases in jail (and I doubt you are either).
As for what "should" be- I *should* be tall and rich instead of simply
good looking and charming but what "should" be often isn't. <g>
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Roger Zoul
May 31st 07, 12:52 PM
Bob wrote:
:: On May 30, 6:32 pm, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::: Bob wrote:
:::
::::: On May 30, 10:51 am, "Leo Lichtman"
::::: >:: wrote:
:::::: "Bob" wrote: The manhours of wasted court time and attending
:::
:::::: costs are
::::::
:::::: exactly the same no matter who the non-appearing witness is
:::::: (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:::::: The manhours of wasted court time are exactly the same whether I
:::::: have tuna or egg salad for lunch. Gooserider never suggested
:::::: that he was not going to appear. In fact, he has said that he
:::::: will. This places an additional burden on him, even though he
:::::: has done no wrong. The defendant, on the other hand, caused him
:::::: an injury by breaking the law (I know, he's presumed innocent
:::::: until....). Rather than accept the responsibility for what he
:::::: did, HE is placing a burden on the courts. How can you say the
:::::: two are the same?
:::::
::::: First, while I freely admit that I wrote my original response in a
::::: rather challenging tone I've never suggested that Gooserider would
::::: not attend court. I've even encouraged him and wished him luck in
::::: his court appearance. Second, what I said was that a witness that
::::: *fails
::::: to appear* places the exact same burden on the courts' time as
::::: does a defendant that demands trial- your tuna salad and egg
::::: salad metaphor-
::::: so it seems to me that on that we are in agreement.
::::: There is a difference though between even the guiltiest defendant
::::: demanding a trial and a witness that fails to appear in court.
::::: Every defendant has an absolute right to trial but no one has the
::::: right to refuse to testify *as a witness*. The defendant
::::: demanding trial isn't imposing a burden on the courts. That
::::: burden is imposed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
::::: There is no right to refuse to
::::: give testimony against another to be found anywhere in those
::::: documents.
::::: *Should* someone guilty of breaking the law stand up and take
::::: their punishment like an adult instead of demanding trial in the
::::: hope a
::::: witness won't appear, the judge will be a sympathetic one, the
::::: prosecutor will be incompetent, or they'll get a brain dead OJ
::::: Simpson type jury? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to think they
::::: will?
::::: Not in my experience.
:::::
::::: Regards,
::::: Bob Hunt
:::
::: If a witness has no *right* not to refuse to give testimony, then
::: said witness would be subject to penalty under the law for not
::: doing so. Thus, there should be little "hoping" a witness won't
::: appear.
::
:: Said witness actually *is* subject to a penalty. The charge is
:: contempt and the punishment here in Illinois is jail time for each
:: offense not to exceed 364 days. That it is rarely imposed doesn't
:: make it not so.
The fact is, if most people were told that simply being asked to appear in
court carried this kind of penalty, they'd be there. Or, the laws would be
changed. Frankly, I'm dubious of your claim here.
No, I am not arguing for throwing absent witnesses in
:: traffic cases in jail (and I doubt you are either).
:: As for what "should" be- I *should* be tall and rich instead of
:: simply good looking and charming but what "should" be often isn't.
:: <g>
::
My basic point still stands....anyone can request a trail or court
appearance even if they are dead guilty. That person and the legal system
are what are most responsible for any waste that may occur. A witness
choosing not to be inconvenienced and acting within the law is the least
responsible for any waste.
:: Regards,
:: Bob Hunt
AustinMN
May 31st 07, 03:08 PM
On May 30, 4:25 pm, Bob > wrote:
<snip>
> There is a difference though between even the guiltiest defendant
> demanding a trial and a witness that fails to appear in court. Every
> defendant has an absolute right to trial but no one has the right to
> refuse to testify *as a witness*.
I assume you are forgetting that in most circumstances, it is
impossible to compel a witness to testify against their own spouse.
In such cases, a witness *does* have the right to refuse to testify.
Austin
Leo Lichtman
May 31st 07, 04:44 PM
"Gooserider" wrote: I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my
crash, informing me that I need to be at the courthouse on June 1.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We are arguing about whether you are being summoned as a witness, with
penalties for failure to appear. I find it a little odd that you would be
summoned to court by a phone call from a trooper. For that, you would have
to be "served," paper work handed to you by a process server. I'm just
guessing that the trooper thinks you should be there just in case you are
needed, and you probably won't even be called to testify. If the prosecutor
needed you there, you would have been served.
On May 31, 10:44 am, "Leo Lichtman" >
wrote:
> "Gooserider" wrote: I got a call from the State Trooper who worked my
>
> crash, informing me that I need to be at the courthouse on June 1.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> We are arguing about whether you are being summoned as a witness, with
> penalties for failure to appear. I find it a little odd that you would be
> summoned to court by a phone call from a trooper. For that, you would have
> to be "served," paper work handed to you by a process server. I'm just
> guessing that the trooper thinks you should be there just in case you are
> needed, and you probably won't even be called to testify. If the prosecutor
> needed you there, you would have been served.
I thought we were discussing whether or not there is any "right" to
refuse to testify as a witness. I wasn't aware that we're arguing. :-)
But in any event, no- the trooper's phone call does not carry the
legal weight of a subpoena. Generally speaking however, complaining
witnesses are seldom subpoenaed. Usually the prosecutor just asks the
arresting officer to contact that witness and advise them to come to
court so I'd continue to encourage the OP to go to court.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
On May 31, 6:52 am, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> :: On May 30, 6:32 pm, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:::: Bob wrote:
>
> :::
> ::::: On May 30, 10:51 am, "Leo Lichtman"::::: >:: wrote:
> :::::: "Bob" wrote: The manhours of wasted court time and attending
>
> :::
> :::::: costs are
> ::::::
> :::::: exactly the same no matter who the non-appearing witness is
> :::::: (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> :::::: The manhours of wasted court time are exactly the same whether I
> :::::: have tuna or egg salad for lunch. Gooserider never suggested
> :::::: that he was not going to appear. In fact, he has said that he
> :::::: will. This places an additional burden on him, even though he
> :::::: has done no wrong. The defendant, on the other hand, caused him
> :::::: an injury by breaking the law (I know, he's presumed innocent
> :::::: until....). Rather than accept the responsibility for what he
> :::::: did, HE is placing a burden on the courts. How can you say the
> :::::: two are the same?
> :::::
> ::::: First, while I freely admit that I wrote my original response in a
> ::::: rather challenging tone I've never suggested that Gooserider would
> ::::: not attend court. I've even encouraged him and wished him luck in
> ::::: his court appearance. Second, what I said was that a witness that
> ::::: *fails
> ::::: to appear* places the exact same burden on the courts' time as
> ::::: does a defendant that demands trial- your tuna salad and egg
> ::::: salad metaphor-
> ::::: so it seems to me that on that we are in agreement.
> ::::: There is a difference though between even the guiltiest defendant
> ::::: demanding a trial and a witness that fails to appear in court.
> ::::: Every defendant has an absolute right to trial but no one has the
> ::::: right to refuse to testify *as a witness*. The defendant
> ::::: demanding trial isn't imposing a burden on the courts. That
> ::::: burden is imposed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
> ::::: There is no right to refuse to
> ::::: give testimony against another to be found anywhere in those
> ::::: documents.
> ::::: *Should* someone guilty of breaking the law stand up and take
> ::::: their punishment like an adult instead of demanding trial in the
> ::::: hope a
> ::::: witness won't appear, the judge will be a sympathetic one, the
> ::::: prosecutor will be incompetent, or they'll get a brain dead OJ
> ::::: Simpson type jury? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to think they
> ::::: will?
> ::::: Not in my experience.
> :::::
> ::::: Regards,
> ::::: Bob Hunt
> :::
> ::: If a witness has no *right* not to refuse to give testimony, then
> ::: said witness would be subject to penalty under the law for not
> ::: doing so. Thus, there should be little "hoping" a witness won't
> ::: appear.
> ::
> :: Said witness actually *is* subject to a penalty. The charge is
> :: contempt and the punishment here in Illinois is jail time for each
> :: offense not to exceed 364 days. That it is rarely imposed doesn't
> :: make it not so.
>
> The fact is, if most people were told that simply being asked to appear in
> court carried this kind of penalty, they'd be there. Or, the laws would be
> changed. Frankly, I'm dubious of your claim here.
>
> No, I am not arguing for throwing absent witnesses in
> :: traffic cases in jail (and I doubt you are either).
> :: As for what "should" be- I *should* be tall and rich instead of
> :: simply good looking and charming but what "should" be often isn't.
> :: <g>
> ::
>
> My basic point still stands....anyone can request a trail or court
> appearance even if they are dead guilty. That person and the legal system
> are what are most responsible for any waste that may occur. A witness
> choosing not to be inconvenienced and acting within the law is the least
> responsible for any waste.
>
> :: Regards,
> :: Bob Hunt
Were I claiming that if the OP disregarded the phone call he received
he'd be subject to jail, I'd doubt that claim too but that is not what
I wrote. What I wrote was that there is no "right" to refuse to
testify as a witness, that witness testimony can be compelled. I
should have explained that the compulsion occurs when a subpoena,
either a subpoena for trial testimony or a grand jury testimony, is
issued. Failure to comply with either type of subpoena can and does
result in the reluctant witness being jailed. That isn't a "claim" but
a statement of fact that is easily documented. Usually though, the
mere threat of a subpoena is sufficient to convince the witness to
testify.
As for your basic point, it seems to me that what you are saying is
that when an individual willingly and knowingly chooses to disregard
their civic and moral duty- in this case the duty to give testimony-
then they are not responsible for the results of their choice. We
disagree on that and it's obvious neither of us will be convinced by
further discussion.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
On May 31, 9:08 am, AustinMN > wrote:
> On May 30, 4:25 pm, Bob > wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > There is a difference though between even the guiltiest defendant
> > demanding a trial and a witness that fails to appear in court. Every
> > defendant has an absolute right to trial but no one has the right to
> > refuse to testify *as a witness*.
>
> I assume you are forgetting that in most circumstances, it is
> impossible to compel a witness to testify against their own spouse.
> In such cases, a witness *does* have the right to refuse to testify.
>
> Austin
That your spouse has a right (in most cases) to refuse to testify
against *you* does not mean your spouse has a right to refuse to
testify. The former is an exception to the rule. The law is full of
exceptions, conditions, and qualifiers. That's one reason we have so
darned many lawyers.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Leo Lichtman
June 1st 07, 01:48 AM
"Bob" wrote: (clip) I wasn't aware that we're arguing. :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bob, you are obviously a very careful thinker, and I am a very perceptive
person, so I recognize that, and I agree with you on all points. However, I
also perceive that you are a bit of a nit-picker, as I am also, so I will
challenge you on the following points:
1.) Generally speaking however, complaining witnesses are seldom
subpoenaed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't believe Gooserider is a complaining witness. Isn't the complaint
issued and signed by the trooper?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2.) Usually the prosecutor just asks the arresting officer to contact that
witness and advise them to come to
> court (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't believe anyone was ARRESTED. The violator was issued a traffic
citation, which he signed, promising to appear, and then he was free to
go--in effect, released on his own recognizance. <G>
Roger Zoul
June 1st 07, 02:38 AM
Bob wrote:
:: On May 31, 6:52 am, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::: Bob wrote:
:::
::::: On May 30, 6:32 pm, "Roger Zoul" >
::::: wrote:::: Bob wrote:
:::
::::::
:::::::: On May 30, 10:51 am, "Leo Lichtman":::::
:::::::: >:: wrote:
::::::::: "Bob" wrote: The manhours of wasted court time and
::::::::: attending costs are
:::::::::
::::::::: exactly the same no matter who the non-appearing witness is
::::::::: (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
::::::::: The manhours of wasted court time are exactly the same
::::::::: whether I have tuna or egg salad for lunch. Gooserider never
::::::::: suggested that he was not going to appear. In fact, he has
::::::::: said that he will. This places an additional burden on him,
::::::::: even though he has done no wrong. The defendant, on the
::::::::: other hand, caused him an injury by breaking the law (I know,
::::::::: he's presumed innocent until....). Rather than accept the
::::::::: responsibility for what he did, HE is placing a burden on the
::::::::: courts. How can you say the two are the same?
::::::::
:::::::: First, while I freely admit that I wrote my original response
:::::::: in a
:::::::: rather challenging tone I've never suggested that Gooserider
:::::::: would
:::::::: not attend court. I've even encouraged him and wished him luck
:::::::: in
:::::::: his court appearance. Second, what I said was that a witness
:::::::: that *fails
:::::::: to appear* places the exact same burden on the courts' time as
:::::::: does a defendant that demands trial- your tuna salad and egg
:::::::: salad metaphor-
:::::::: so it seems to me that on that we are in agreement.
:::::::: There is a difference though between even the guiltiest
:::::::: defendant
:::::::: demanding a trial and a witness that fails to appear in court.
:::::::: Every defendant has an absolute right to trial but no one has
:::::::: the
:::::::: right to refuse to testify *as a witness*. The defendant
:::::::: demanding trial isn't imposing a burden on the courts. That
:::::::: burden is imposed by the US Constitution and the Bill of
:::::::: Rights.
:::::::: There is no right to refuse to
:::::::: give testimony against another to be found anywhere in those
:::::::: documents.
:::::::: *Should* someone guilty of breaking the law stand up and take
:::::::: their punishment like an adult instead of demanding trial in
:::::::: the
:::::::: hope a
:::::::: witness won't appear, the judge will be a sympathetic one, the
:::::::: prosecutor will be incompetent, or they'll get a brain dead OJ
:::::::: Simpson type jury? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to think they
:::::::: will?
:::::::: Not in my experience.
::::::::
:::::::: Regards,
:::::::: Bob Hunt
::::::
:::::: If a witness has no *right* not to refuse to give testimony, then
:::::: said witness would be subject to penalty under the law for not
:::::: doing so. Thus, there should be little "hoping" a witness won't
:::::: appear.
:::::
::::: Said witness actually *is* subject to a penalty. The charge is
::::: contempt and the punishment here in Illinois is jail time for each
::::: offense not to exceed 364 days. That it is rarely imposed doesn't
::::: make it not so.
:::
::: The fact is, if most people were told that simply being asked to
::: appear in court carried this kind of penalty, they'd be there. Or,
::: the laws would be changed. Frankly, I'm dubious of your claim here.
:::
::: No, I am not arguing for throwing absent witnesses in
::::: traffic cases in jail (and I doubt you are either).
::::: As for what "should" be- I *should* be tall and rich instead of
::::: simply good looking and charming but what "should" be often isn't.
::::: <g>
:::::
:::
::: My basic point still stands....anyone can request a trail or court
::: appearance even if they are dead guilty. That person and the legal
::: system are what are most responsible for any waste that may occur.
::: A witness choosing not to be inconvenienced and acting within the
::: law is the least responsible for any waste.
:::
::::: Regards,
::::: Bob Hunt
::
:: Were I claiming that if the OP disregarded the phone call he received
:: he'd be subject to jail, I'd doubt that claim too but that is not
:: what I wrote. What I wrote was that there is no "right" to refuse to
:: testify as a witness, that witness testimony can be compelled. I
:: should have explained that the compulsion occurs when a subpoena,
:: either a subpoena for trial testimony or a grand jury testimony, is
:: issued. Failure to comply with either type of subpoena can and does
:: result in the reluctant witness being jailed. That isn't a "claim"
:: but a statement of fact that is easily documented. Usually though,
:: the mere threat of a subpoena is sufficient to convince the witness
:: to testify.
Perhaps had you explained your points properly in the first place we would
not have had this exchange.
:: As for your basic point, it seems to me that what you are saying is
:: that when an individual willingly and knowingly chooses to disregard
:: their civic and moral duty- in this case the duty to give testimony-
:: then they are not responsible for the results of their choice. We
:: disagree on that and it's obvious neither of us will be convinced by
:: further discussion.
I agree that no further discussion is warranted since you have resorted to
making up all kinds of random BS.
Blair Maynard
June 1st 07, 03:39 PM
"Gooserider" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, I'm going. I don't know if I will even be called to testify, but the
> trooper said I should be there so I will be.
>
I am not going to read this whole thread right now, and it is already June
1. Good for you for going to the hearing.
It sounds like that driver got off lightly with a ticket. Hope the
prosecutor, with your testimony as a witness, may be willing to come up with
a charge a little more appropriate for what the guy did. Please do
everything you can to convince the prosecutor that you are a good witness
and are willing to testify at a felony trial, such as something involving
reckless endangerment or whatnot. Prosecutors are looking for is proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. They have limited investigative resources so if
you can do some of the footwork for them, such as identifying other
witnesses, it might help.
I can't believe that guy is contesting a ticket, it sounds like he should
have gotten worse.
Bob > wrote:
> But in any event, no- the trooper's phone call does not carry the
> legal weight of a subpoena. Generally speaking however, complaining
> witnesses are seldom subpoenaed. Usually the prosecutor just asks the
> arresting officer to contact that witness and advise them to come to
> court so I'd continue to encourage the OP to go to court.
I think if it were me, I'd go just for the satisfaction of seeing the
cager get what he deserves.
Bill
__o | Roads aren't for cars. They're for people.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |
On May 31, 8:38 pm, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
>
> I agree that no further discussion is warranted since you have resorted to
> making up all kinds of random BS.
Claiming I'm making up all kinds of "random BS" is a coward's way of
accusing me of lying. You should check your facts before you accuse
others of lying, even when you couch the accusation in such weaseling
terms, because what I've written are facts. That you don't know them
or don't like them in no way makes them any less factual.
On May 31, 7:48 pm, "Leo Lichtman" >
wrote:
> "Bob" wrote: (clip) I wasn't aware that we're arguing. :-)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Bob, you are obviously a very careful thinker, and I am a very perceptive
> person, so I recognize that, and I agree with you on all points. However, I
> also perceive that you are a bit of a nit-picker, as I am also, so I will
> challenge you on the following points:
> 1.) Generally speaking however, complaining witnesses are seldom
> subpoenaed.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't believe Gooserider is a complaining witness. Isn't the complaint
> issued and signed by the trooper?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 2.) Usually the prosecutor just asks the arresting officer to contact that
> witness and advise them to come to> court (clip)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't believe anyone was ARRESTED. The violator was issued a traffic
> citation, which he signed, promising to appear, and then he was free to
> go--in effect, released on his own recognizance. <G>
Leo-
You certainly *are* a nitpicker <g> but Gooserider *is* a complaining
witness.
"Complaining witness" is the term generally used to describe a
prosecution witness that has in some way been injured by the
defendant- the victim in a battery complaint, the store's
representative in a retail theft case, or, as in this case, the
cyclist struck by the inattentive/negligent/reckless driver- when they
did *not* sign the complaint. When they sign the complaint, we just
call them the complainant.
When a person is detained by the police and is not free to leave
without posting some type of bond whether it's a bond card, a driver's
license, or even just their signature it is an arrest. Not all arrests
are criminal arrests. Some, like most traffic arrests, are quasi-
criminal. If the violator signed a citation it was an arrest. (I
wonder if Roger Z will accuse me of making that up as well. I'll be
crushed if he does. <g>)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Roger Zoul
June 2nd 07, 12:25 PM
Bob wrote:
:: On May 31, 8:38 pm, "Roger Zoul" > wrote:
::
:::
::: I agree that no further discussion is warranted since you have
::: resorted to making up all kinds of random BS.
::
:: Claiming I'm making up all kinds of "random BS" is a coward's way of
:: accusing me of lying. You should check your facts before you accuse
:: others of lying, even when you couch the accusation in such weaseling
:: terms, because what I've written are facts. That you don't know them
:: or don't like them in no way makes them any less factual.
I don't need to check any facts, I simply read what you wrote concerning me
and some desire to not be responsible for my actions.
If I wanted to call you a liar, I would have. You're just an asshole.
Gooserider
June 2nd 07, 04:44 PM
Got to court on Friday only to find that the court date had been delayed a
week. Next Friday. We'll see what happens.
R Brickston
June 2nd 07, 04:55 PM
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:44:58 -0400, "Gooserider"
> wrote:
>Got to court on Friday only to find that the court date had been delayed a
>week. Next Friday. We'll see what happens.
>
Typical lawyer trick to see if you won't show.
Roger Zoul
June 2nd 07, 05:06 PM
Gooserider wrote:
:: Got to court on Friday only to find that the court date had been
:: delayed a week. Next Friday. We'll see what happens.
I'm sure you'd have wasted a lot of court time and costs had you decided not
to show up (not that that's would I think you should have done - this
comment is for Bob H.'s benefit). :)
Leo Lichtman
June 2nd 07, 06:48 PM
"Gooserider" wrote: Got to court on Friday only to find that the court
date had been delayed a week. Next Friday. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why couldn't they let you know before you showed up? Things like this
contribute to the attitude that the courts are a big waste of time. (That
is not my attitude, but I do believe that many of the courts don't put
enough value on the time people spend waiting for jury selection, waiting to
testify and being available only to be delayed again and again.)
Roger Zoul
June 2nd 07, 07:39 PM
Leo Lichtman wrote:
:: "Gooserider" wrote: Got to court on Friday only to find that the
:: court date had been delayed a week. Next Friday. (clip)
:: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:: Why couldn't they let you know before you showed up? Things like
:: this contribute to the attitude that the courts are a big waste of
:: time. (That is not my attitude, but I do believe that many of the
:: courts don't put enough value on the time people spend waiting for
:: jury selection, waiting to testify and being available only to be
:: delayed again and again.)
Perhaps they didn't let him know due to the fact that the system itself is
so inefficient and wasteful. Part of the reason why the witness is the
least part of contributing to waste of time and court costs.
Mike Kruger
June 2nd 07, 11:39 PM
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Gooserider" wrote: Got to court on Friday only to find that the
> court date had been delayed a week. Next Friday. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Why couldn't they let you know before you showed up?
I've wondered this myself. It's not as though it would be terribly difficult
in an age of automated communications. (e-mail, automated dialing).
On Jun 2, 12:48 pm, "Leo Lichtman" >
wrote:
> "Gooserider" wrote: Got to court on Friday only to find that the court
>
> date had been delayed a week. Next Friday. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Why couldn't they let you know before you showed up? Things like this
> contribute to the attitude that the courts are a big waste of time. (That
> is not my attitude, but I do believe that many of the courts don't put
> enough value on the time people spend waiting for jury selection, waiting to
> testify and being available only to be delayed again and again.)
As one who has spent literally hundreds if not thousands of hours
waiting to testify only to have the defense attorney or the prosecutor
say they weren't ready for trial, I can empathize with that attitude.
It's an unfortunate fact of our legal system that witnesses' time is
valued less than attorneys' time or the defendants' rights. Attorneys'
time is valued more for practical reasons. If you tie up an attorney
in one court room you'll likely as not delay cases in other courts.
Defendants' rights are more highly valued than anyone else's because
that's the only way anyone has found to guarantee that we as a society
wrongfully convict the fewest number of people.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Gooserider
June 3rd 07, 12:24 AM
"Bob" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 2, 12:48 pm, "Leo Lichtman" >
> wrote:
>> "Gooserider" wrote: Got to court on Friday only to find that the court
>>
>> date had been delayed a week. Next Friday. (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Why couldn't they let you know before you showed up? Things like this
>> contribute to the attitude that the courts are a big waste of time.
>> (That
>> is not my attitude, but I do believe that many of the courts don't put
>> enough value on the time people spend waiting for jury selection, waiting
>> to
>> testify and being available only to be delayed again and again.)
>
> As one who has spent literally hundreds if not thousands of hours
> waiting to testify only to have the defense attorney or the prosecutor
> say they weren't ready for trial, I can empathize with that attitude.
> It's an unfortunate fact of our legal system that witnesses' time is
> valued less than attorneys' time or the defendants' rights. Attorneys'
> time is valued more for practical reasons. If you tie up an attorney
> in one court room you'll likely as not delay cases in other courts.
> Defendants' rights are more highly valued than anyone else's because
> that's the only way anyone has found to guarantee that we as a society
> wrongfully convict the fewest number of people.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
It's worse than that. When I called earlier in the week to find out which
courtroom I needed to find, the clerk told me Courtroom A with Judge X. She
then asked me if I was injured, and I told her yes. When I went to court on
Friday, Courtroom A was empty. So I ended up talking to the same clerk I
spoke to on the phone---and she said "I should have called you. Because
there was an injury your case has to be seen by Judge X, not Mr. Y in
traffic court.". HUH? So I was originally scheduled to see Judge X but the
case was continued because I have to see Judge X. Not efficient.
Mike A Schwab
June 3rd 07, 12:54 AM
On Jun 2, 10:44 am, "Gooserider" > wrote:
> Got to court on Friday only to find that the court date had been delayed a
> week. Next Friday. We'll see what happens.
Be sure to turn the time in to his insurance company as lost time
until the case is closed.
Blair Maynard
June 3rd 07, 03:22 AM
"Gooserider" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> It's worse than that. When I called earlier in the week to find out which
> courtroom I needed to find, the clerk told me Courtroom A with Judge X.
> She then asked me if I was injured, and I told her yes. When I went to
> court on Friday, Courtroom A was empty. So I ended up talking to the same
> clerk I spoke to on the phone---and she said "I should have called you.
> Because there was an injury your case has to be seen by Judge X, not Mr. Y
> in traffic court.". HUH? So I was originally scheduled to see Judge X but
> the case was continued because I have to see Judge X. Not efficient.
So you arrived and nobody else was there? Then the offender doesn't know you
are going to show up?
I would guess the person fighting the ticket is banking on the belief that
you are not going to show up to testify.
If you can notify the defendant's counsel that you will be showing up, they
may decide not to contest the charge and you won't have to show up.
Assuming the judge can't give him worse than what he is currently charged
with, this is probably a bet worth taking for the accused.
Leo Lichtman
June 3rd 07, 03:35 AM
"Bob" wrote: (clip) Defendants' rights are more highly valued than anyone
else's because that's the only way anyone has found to guarantee that we as
a society wrongfully convict the fewest number of people.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Absolutely! I certainly would never advocate abridging a defendant's rights
for convenience, or even budgetary reasons. But a defendant's rights are
best protected, in the broadest sense, when the courts work smoothly, and
where witnesses are willing, even eager, to testify. If, witnesses were
paid by the courts, don't you think they would be looking for ways to save
money, WITHOUT abridging defendants' rights? (Except, of course, the
Bush/Gonzalez Justice Department.)
Last time I had my car worked on, they kept me waiting for two hours. I
ain't goin' back there. Should I feel the same way about our courts?
R Brickston
June 3rd 07, 06:08 AM
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:22:34 GMT, "Blair Maynard"
> wrote:
>
>"Gooserider" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bob" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>> It's worse than that. When I called earlier in the week to find out which
>> courtroom I needed to find, the clerk told me Courtroom A with Judge X.
>> She then asked me if I was injured, and I told her yes. When I went to
>> court on Friday, Courtroom A was empty. So I ended up talking to the same
>> clerk I spoke to on the phone---and she said "I should have called you.
>> Because there was an injury your case has to be seen by Judge X, not Mr. Y
>> in traffic court.". HUH? So I was originally scheduled to see Judge X but
>> the case was continued because I have to see Judge X. Not efficient.
>So you arrived and nobody else was there? Then the offender doesn't know you
>are going to show up?
>
>I would guess the person fighting the ticket is banking on the belief that
>you are not going to show up to testify.
>
>If you can notify the defendant's counsel that you will be showing up, they
>may decide not to contest the charge and you won't have to show up.
That's not a very good idea. That attorney could attempt to make it
sound like intimidation. This system allows one to contest any charge,
you have let the driver have his day in court if that what he chooses.
He could come out better or worse. The witness should do his best to
appear as many times as it take.
>
>Assuming the judge can't give him worse than what he is currently charged
>with, this is probably a bet worth taking for the accused.
>
R Brickston
June 3rd 07, 06:12 AM
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:54:35 -0000, Mike A Schwab
> wrote:
>On Jun 2, 10:44 am, "Gooserider" > wrote:
>> Got to court on Friday only to find that the court date had been delayed a
>> week. Next Friday. We'll see what happens.
>
>Be sure to turn the time in to his insurance company as lost time
>until the case is closed.
The insurance company is not responsible for the opposition's witness.
On Jun 2, 9:35 pm, "Leo Lichtman" > wrote:
> "Bob" wrote: (clip) Defendants' rights are more highly valued than anyone
>
> else's because that's the only way anyone has found to guarantee that we as
> a society wrongfully convict the fewest number of people.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Absolutely! I certainly would never advocate abridging a defendant's rights
> for convenience, or even budgetary reasons. But a defendant's rights are
> best protected, in the broadest sense, when the courts work smoothly, and
> where witnesses are willing, even eager, to testify. If, witnesses were
> paid by the courts, don't you think they would be looking for ways to save
> money, WITHOUT abridging defendants' rights?
You say this as if no one is looking for solutions to problems that
everyone knows exist. If anyone can come up with a system that
encourages witnesses to testify, preserves the defendants' rights, and
improves courtroom efficiency they'll become the most popular person
in the criminal justice system.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
On Jun 2, 6:24 pm, "Gooserider" > wrote:
> It's worse than that. When I called earlier in the week to find out which
> courtroom I needed to find, the clerk told me Courtroom A with Judge X. She
> then asked me if I was injured, and I told her yes. When I went to court on
> Friday, Courtroom A was empty. So I ended up talking to the same clerk I
> spoke to on the phone---and she said "I should have called you. Because
> there was an injury your case has to be seen by Judge X, not Mr. Y in
> traffic court.". HUH? So I was originally scheduled to see Judge X but the
> case was continued because I have to see Judge X. Not efficient.
I can sympathize with your frustration but one clerk's error is hardly
an indictment of the system.
Free advice- Call the prosecutor's office and ask to speak to the
assistant prosecutor assigned to Judge X's courtroom. Tell him or her
you are a witness in whatever case it is and ask them when you should
appear. Appear on that date and speak to that assistant prosecutor.
When the case is called that assistant will say to the judge something
like, "Ready for trial, judge. Complaining witness in court". If there
is then a continuance granted the defense that assistant will ask that
you be excused until the defense is ready to proceed to trial. You'll
be notified when that happens and will avoid multiple trips to the
court house.
Disclaimer- This is how the system is supposed to work but like any
human system it is not 100% foolproof.
Best of luck.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Leo Lichtman
June 3rd 07, 06:36 PM
"Bob" wrote:
> I can sympathize with your frustration but one clerk's error is hardly
> an indictment of the system.
> Free advice- Call the prosecutor's office and ask to speak to the
> assistant prosecutor assigned to Judge X's courtroom. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bob, I have been pretty much in agreement with you so far, but you are
beginning to come across as an apologist for a system that could use a lot
of improvement. What you are suggesting to the OP is fine, IF HE HAD ONLY
KNOWN. I would nopt have known to do that--he did not know to do that, and
I suggest that very few people outside the legal profession know the
ins-and-outs well enough to avoid all the delays and inconveniences.
Leo Lichtman
June 3rd 07, 06:36 PM
"Bob" wrote: You say this as if no one is looking for solutions to problems
that everyone knows exist. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Over two hundred years, and no one has solved these problems? In that time
we have traveled to outer space, built multipurpose dams with a power grid
that covers the continent, gone from minstrel shows to color TV and DVD and
the internet. Let's have a show of hands. How many think the best minds in
the country have not been able to solve this problem? How many think it
would be solved if the right people tried?
Off the top of my head, I'll propose a solution to the wasted time problem
in jury selection. Don't fill the courtroom corridors with prospective
jurors, waiting for hours for the courtroom to open. Don't fill the
courtroom with prospective jurors, most of whom spend additional hours only
to be sent home. Instead, schedule appointments, where counsel from both
sides meet with the prospective jurors individually, or in small groups.
They could pre-screen them, or do the actual jury selection.
R Brickston
June 3rd 07, 07:22 PM
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:36:29 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
> wrote:
>
>"Bob" wrote:
>> I can sympathize with your frustration but one clerk's error is hardly
>> an indictment of the system.
>> Free advice- Call the prosecutor's office and ask to speak to the
>> assistant prosecutor assigned to Judge X's courtroom. (clip)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Bob, I have been pretty much in agreement with you so far, but you are
>beginning to come across as an apologist for a system that could use a lot
>of improvement. What you are suggesting to the OP is fine, IF HE HAD ONLY
>KNOWN. I would nopt have known to do that--he did not know to do that, and
>I suggest that very few people outside the legal profession know the
>ins-and-outs well enough to avoid all the delays and inconveniences.
>
The legal system on the court level is steeped in tradition and imo
very hard to change. The lateral thinking syndrome by the players,
i.e. the attorney's, clerks, judges, etc., prevent them from the
slightest thought of making it easy for the layman. Only in small
claims court do they bother to spell out anything. Part of this is due
to a desire to keep non-professionals from depriving the lawyer's
their fees; this goes back to the beginning of time practically.
Third, the attitude is the layman already slow down the system. Last,
the system has to be based on a rigid set of generally inflexible
rules. These rules created for and by lawyers in a top down fashion,
most originating from the state's superior court judges, the rest come
from legislature; another group of attorneys for the most part. Last,
most courts are buried in cases because of the litigous society we
live in.
On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, "Leo Lichtman" >
wrote:
> "Bob" wrote:
> > I can sympathize with your frustration but one clerk's error is hardly
> > an indictment of the system.
> > Free advice- Call the prosecutor's office and ask to speak to the
> > assistant prosecutor assigned to Judge X's courtroom. (clip)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Bob, I have been pretty much in agreement with you so far, but you are
> beginning to come across as an apologist for a system that could use a lot
> of improvement. What you are suggesting to the OP is fine, IF HE HAD ONLY
> KNOWN. I would nopt have known to do that--he did not know to do that, and
> I suggest that very few people outside the legal profession know the
> ins-and-outs well enough to avoid all the delays and inconveniences.
I'm certainly not apologizing for the inefficiencies in the system or
claiming there is no room for improvement. The single biggest
improvement that can be made- and has been made in some jurisdictions-
is creating "witness support advisors", court employees whose sole job
is to help shepherd witnesses through the system. Even with support
such as that there are going to be delays and inconveniences. Some of
those inconveniences are because of human error like that of the clerk
the OP complained about while others are the result of plain
incompetence and laziness. Even if we eliminate all human error,
incompetence, and laziness delays and inconveniences will remain
though because procedurally the deck is stacked in favor of defendants
and defendants rarely push for efficiency and speed. Why should they
speed their trip to prison? Try to level the field and you'll have the
ACLU screaming bloody murder, tying up yet more courts and cutting
efficiency even more. Catch-22.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, "Leo Lichtman" >
wrote:
> "Bob" wrote: You say this as if no one is looking for solutions to problems
>
> that everyone knows exist. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Over two hundred years, and no one has solved these problems? In that time
> we have traveled to outer space, built multipurpose dams with a power grid
> that covers the continent, gone from minstrel shows to color TV and DVD and
> the internet. Let's have a show of hands. How many think the best minds in
> the country have not been able to solve this problem? How many think it
> would be solved if the right people tried?
>
> Off the top of my head, I'll propose a solution to the wasted time problem
> in jury selection. Don't fill the courtroom corridors with prospective
> jurors, waiting for hours for the courtroom to open. Don't fill the
> courtroom with prospective jurors, most of whom spend additional hours only
> to be sent home. Instead, schedule appointments, where counsel from both
> sides meet with the prospective jurors individually, or in small groups.
> They could pre-screen them, or do the actual jury selection.
We did all those things yet we still have crime. Is that because the
best minds don't care about murder, rape, and robbery or is it because
human nature isn't amenable to change?
As for jury service, I'll go you one better. Don't allow anyone to be
excused from jury service for any reason and don't allow any
challenges to jurors. You get called, you serve. End of story. Some
defendants will walk that shouldn't and some will be convicted that
probably shouldn't but it would all even out in the end. Of course
those defendants that get convicted when they shouldn't and those
victims that see their attackers/exploiters set free might not think
things were quite so even but you can't please everyone. ;-)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
P.S.- Jurors that sit in a jury assembly room all day long and never
sit on a jury serve a vital purpose. Many defendants decide at the
last minute to take a plea bargain and "the last minute" means when a
jury is ready to hear their case. Call it what you will, fear that a
jury will rightfully convict them of the more serious charge or the
system extorting guilty pleas, it only works because those bored
prospective jurors are *there*.
Blair Maynard
June 4th 07, 03:42 AM
"R Brickston" <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:22:34 GMT, "Blair Maynard"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gooserider" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Bob" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> It's worse than that. When I called earlier in the week to find out
>>> which
>>> courtroom I needed to find, the clerk told me Courtroom A with Judge X.
>>> She then asked me if I was injured, and I told her yes. When I went to
>>> court on Friday, Courtroom A was empty. So I ended up talking to the
>>> same
>>> clerk I spoke to on the phone---and she said "I should have called you.
>>> Because there was an injury your case has to be seen by Judge X, not Mr.
>>> Y
>>> in traffic court.". HUH? So I was originally scheduled to see Judge X
>>> but
>>> the case was continued because I have to see Judge X. Not efficient.
>>So you arrived and nobody else was there? Then the offender doesn't know
>>you
>>are going to show up?
>>
>>I would guess the person fighting the ticket is banking on the belief that
>>you are not going to show up to testify.
>>
>>If you can notify the defendant's counsel that you will be showing up,
>>they
>>may decide not to contest the charge and you won't have to show up.
>
> That's not a very good idea. That attorney could attempt to make it
> sound like intimidation. This system allows one to contest any charge,
> you have let the driver have his day in court if that what he chooses.
> He could come out better or worse. The witness should do his best to
> appear as many times as it take.
>
The attorney could TRY to make it sound like intimidation. But he would
have to explain how the appearance of an eyewitness to an event is
"intimidating." That might be interesting. I can just hear defendant's
counsel asking the court to dismiss the charge because his client was
unfairly indimidated by a witness informing him of the high likelihood of
said witness' actual appearance at trial. Maybe he could seek intentional
infliction of emotional distress too. :)
But I would agree that there is probably be something improper about a
witness contacting a defendant's attorney. Hopefully the prosecutor will do
this communicating before the next trial.
R Brickston
June 4th 07, 05:29 AM
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:42:32 GMT, "Blair Maynard"
> wrote:
>
>"R Brickston" <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:22:34 GMT, "Blair Maynard"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Gooserider" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> "Bob" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>>>> It's worse than that. When I called earlier in the week to find out
>>>> which
>>>> courtroom I needed to find, the clerk told me Courtroom A with Judge X.
>>>> She then asked me if I was injured, and I told her yes. When I went to
>>>> court on Friday, Courtroom A was empty. So I ended up talking to the
>>>> same
>>>> clerk I spoke to on the phone---and she said "I should have called you.
>>>> Because there was an injury your case has to be seen by Judge X, not Mr.
>>>> Y
>>>> in traffic court.". HUH? So I was originally scheduled to see Judge X
>>>> but
>>>> the case was continued because I have to see Judge X. Not efficient.
>>>So you arrived and nobody else was there? Then the offender doesn't know
>>>you
>>>are going to show up?
>>>
>>>I would guess the person fighting the ticket is banking on the belief that
>>>you are not going to show up to testify.
>>>
>>>If you can notify the defendant's counsel that you will be showing up,
>>>they
>>>may decide not to contest the charge and you won't have to show up.
>>
>> That's not a very good idea. That attorney could attempt to make it
>> sound like intimidation. This system allows one to contest any charge,
>> you have let the driver have his day in court if that what he chooses.
>> He could come out better or worse. The witness should do his best to
>> appear as many times as it take.
>>
>
>The attorney could TRY to make it sound like intimidation. But he would
>have to explain how the appearance of an eyewitness to an event is
>"intimidating." That might be interesting. I can just hear defendant's
>counsel asking the court to dismiss the charge because his client was
>unfairly indimidated by a witness informing him of the high likelihood of
>said witness' actual appearance at trial. Maybe he could seek intentional
>infliction of emotional distress too. :)
>
>But I would agree that there is probably be something improper about a
>witness contacting a defendant's attorney. Hopefully the prosecutor will do
>this communicating before the next trial.
>
I think the court may tend to view it as a threat to cause the
defendant to give up his right to due process; a big no-no in the
court system. That said, I'm not saying it would benefit the defendant
necessarily, but that it could cause the otherwise innocent witness a
problem.
Leo Lichtman
June 4th 07, 08:11 AM
"Bob" wrote: in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, "Leo Lichtman" >
> wrote:
>> "Bob" wrote: You say this as if no one is looking for solutions to
>> problems
>>
>> that everyone knows exist. (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Over two hundred years, and no one has solved these problems? In that
>> time
>> we have traveled to outer space, built multipurpose dams with a power
>> grid
>> that covers the continent, gone from minstrel shows to color TV and DVD
>> and
>> the internet. Let's have a show of hands. How many think the best minds
>> in
>> the country have not been able to solve this problem? How many think it
>> would be solved if the right people tried?
>>
>> Off the top of my head, I'll propose a solution to the wasted time
>> problem
>> in jury selection. Don't fill the courtroom corridors with prospective
>> jurors, waiting for hours for the courtroom to open. Don't fill the
>> courtroom with prospective jurors, most of whom spend additional hours
>> only
>> to be sent home. Instead, schedule appointments, where counsel from both
>> sides meet with the prospective jurors individually, or in small groups.
>> They could pre-screen them, or do the actual jury selection.
>
> We did all those things yet we still have crime. Is that because the
> best minds don't care about murder, rape, and robbery or is it because
> human nature isn't amenable to change?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think it is because human nature is not amenable to change. So are you
saying that the inefficiencies in our court system are in the same
category--that there is no way to effect change? I think you're wrong, and
I hope you're wrong. Permit me to borrow a line from one of your earlier
posts: "We disagree on that and it's obvious neither of us will be
convinced by further discussion."
>
>(clip) As for jury service, I'll go you one better. Don't allow anyone to
>be excused from jury service for any reason and don't allow any challenges
>to jurors. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is the classic "straw man" argument.
You get called, you serve. End of story. Some
> defendants will walk that shouldn't and some will be convicted that
> probably shouldn't but it would all even out in the end. Of course
> those defendants that get convicted when they shouldn't and those
> victims that see their attackers/exploiters set free might not think
> things were quite so even but you can't please everyone. ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
> P.S.- Jurors that sit in a jury assembly room all day long and never
> sit on a jury serve a vital purpose. Many defendants decide at the
> last minute to take a plea bargain and "the last minute" means when a
> jury is ready to hear their case. Call it what you will, fear that a
> jury will rightfully convict them of the more serious charge or the
> system extorting guilty pleas, it only works because those bored
> prospective jurors are *there*.
>
On Jun 4, 2:11 am, "Leo Lichtman" > wrote:
> "Bob" wrote: in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, "Leo Lichtman" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Bob" wrote: You say this as if no one is looking for solutions to
> >> problems
>
> >> that everyone knows exist. (clip)
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Over two hundred years, and no one has solved these problems? In that
> >> time
> >> we have traveled to outer space, built multipurpose dams with a power
> >> grid
> >> that covers the continent, gone from minstrel shows to color TV and DVD
> >> and
> >> the internet. Let's have a show of hands. How many think the best minds
> >> in
> >> the country have not been able to solve this problem? How many think it
> >> would be solved if the right people tried?
>
> >> Off the top of my head, I'll propose a solution to the wasted time
> >> problem
> >> in jury selection. Don't fill the courtroom corridors with prospective
> >> jurors, waiting for hours for the courtroom to open. Don't fill the
> >> courtroom with prospective jurors, most of whom spend additional hours
> >> only
> >> to be sent home. Instead, schedule appointments, where counsel from both
> >> sides meet with the prospective jurors individually, or in small groups.
> >> They could pre-screen them, or do the actual jury selection.
>
> > We did all those things yet we still have crime. Is that because the
> > best minds don't care about murder, rape, and robbery or is it because
> > human nature isn't amenable to change?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think it is because human nature is not amenable to change. So are you
> saying that the inefficiencies in our court system are in the same
> category--that there is no way to effect change? I think you're wrong, and
> I hope you're wrong. Permit me to borrow a line from one of your earlier
> posts: "We disagree on that and it's obvious neither of us will be
> convinced by further discussion."
>
>
>
> >(clip) As for jury service, I'll go you one better. Don't allow anyone to
> >be excused from jury service for any reason and don't allow any challenges
> >to jurors. (clip)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That is the classic "straw man" argument.
It's not at all a straw man argument because I am quite serious. Not
letting people tapdance their way out of performing jury duty and
disallowing challenges (by either side) would streamline the system
enormously *and* result in more reasoned verdicts.
Perhaps you thought I was making a straw man argument because I made
light of the inevitable miscarriages of justice but miscarriages of
justice are inevitable no matter who is serving on juries. People make
mistakes. Smart people make fewer ones though and the most widely used
jury selection procedures don't as a rule get the best or smartest
jurors- although good smart people do sometimes get chosen for
service- but simply those most available. There's at least a grain of
truth in the definition of a jury I once heard, "A jury is a group of
people designated as triers of fact that is made up of 12 people who
weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."
Regards,
Bob Hunt
AustinMN
June 5th 07, 03:27 PM
On Jun 4, 9:53 pm, Bob > wrote:
> It's not at all a straw man argument because I am quite serious. Not
> letting people tapdance their way out of performing jury duty
This I agree with...
> and
> disallowing challenges (by either side) would streamline the system
> enormously *and* result in more reasoned verdicts.
Be careful about challenges. When a judge rules out a juror, ("the
defendant's lawyer is my brother") he's streamlining the challenge
process. However, I would limit challenges to those *with cause*, and
define that term by law.
> There's at least a grain of
> truth in the definition of a jury I once heard, "A jury is a group of
> people designated as triers of fact that is made up of 12 people who
> weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."
When I lived in Massachusetts, the Governor once sat on a jury. I was
called three times, but "got out of it" once by moving out of the
county, and once by moving out of the state. Would you have me fly
1500 miles to serve on your DWI jury? Clue: I don't give a rip if you
were having an insulin reaction, you are guilty.
Austin
Leo Lichtman
June 5th 07, 04:51 PM
"Bob", "We disagree on that and it's obvious neither of us will be convinced
by further discussion."
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.