President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

I forget who it was on here that said they were selected for a grand jury and had to spend an entire day being read the whole state criminal code. It sounded like an absolute nightmare.

 

I have never played this game. I know it’s big - based on the neighborhood comic book shop’s parking lot on Saturday’s when they host games. Anyway, still a fun read.

 

You should have answered: "As a journalist, it is imperative to get all of the information. If you don't, you're a fool or a lawyer."

 

Ignorance is bli$$

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...Cgk7qAlKHQ61Blg65WlsYwF4WtwY8&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

 

Got called one time and the judge announced after all the swearing in ceremonies that this was a murder trial that was expected to take a few months and that anyone that this would create a hardship for should fill out forms on the lobby. After about two dozen of us went to the lobby, the judge came out and told us we were all excused.

 

I got the shotgun, you got the briefcase. It’s all on the game, though, isn’t it?

 

I get the logic behind that line of thinking, but have never seen a defense attorney use their peremptory challenges on that question in that way. I cannot see any of the judges I am regularly in front of allowing a "for cause" challenge there, either.

I've been called twice. First time I was in college 600 miles away, wrote the jury clerk a letter to that effect (it was 1998) and never heard back. Second time I was only a few years into my legal career and knew the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the judge quite well. I was really curious how the judge would handle that, but they managed to seat the jury before my number was called.

I assume as a former prosecutor and assistant AG, that I'd get booted from most criminal trials, but every now and then it has happened to other attorneys I know, usually because the lawyers are out of challenges.

 

DeSantis' hand pick board to oversee Disney unanimously voted to give it's "superior authority" over the company, and he has the Florida legislature working a bill that would give the state the power to retroactively invalidate legal agreements.

I really wish the Mouse would bury the Meatball.
I've been tired of him for a long time. Now I'm just plain over him.

 

As a general proposition: That's correct. But it also depends on the case. If you have a really complex legal issue or your case involves interpreting dense material, then you do want a jury that might be a little better educated. The belief with a run-of-the-mill case - especially on the criminal side - is that a highly educated juror is more likely to introduce some question about the evidence that essentially elevates the burden of proof to "beyond all doubt."

The city in which I worked as a prosecutor and in which I have done defense work is one of those places where you're very likely to have PhDs, MDs, etc in your jury pool. Attorneys on both sides will work to get them off their juries. Especially on the prosecution side where they're also trying to account for a significant portion of the jury pool having negative feelings about/experiences with local law enforcement.

I've never worried about a potential juror's level of education personally. I'm more concerned with how they're answering questions, body language, past experiences that are relevant, etc.

 

I never thought it was about a journalist's intelligence. Rather, the habitual skepticism.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2023 Republican Party!