Stupid Guest Tricks

delsdad wrote:Were the judge and juror acquainted before hand? That would be cause for dismissal would it not ?

It shouldn't be. Both the judge and jurors are considered neutral in the process, so it shouldn't matter to the outcome of the case. They should disclose their friendship to the parties in the voir dire, but then it's up to the parties whether they think it's a problem or not.

What the parties are looking for is bias, where the juror for any reason favors one side or the other before hearing the evidence. So it would be a bigger deal if a juror knew or was related to either of the parties or their attorneys. Even then, though, dismissal isn't the cure, it's striking the juror from the panel. It's up to the parties to question him or her to uncover that bias. If the juror's answers show that he or she cannot judge the case fairly, the judge will strike him or her from the panel. If it doesn't reach that level, each party is given a number of "peremptory strikes" to get rid of potential jurors for almost any reason.

And like a lot of errors that can happen in a trial, the aggrieved party can waive their objection or fail to properly pursue it. If the parties in the voir dire fail to uncover some bias, or think it's not that big a deal at first, and allow the juror to be selected, it doesn't automatically follow that the case would be thrown out if the bias surfaces later. They had their chance.

Now, the bigger question is, why am I thinking about all this on a Saturday, especially when I'm about to leave for an all-day rehearsal with VM?

Main Streeter wrote:Must be great to know Everything!

hehehehe, I could be flippiant and answer "yes, it is"

but you know, I don't know a lot of how the behind the scenes work at busisnesses, like say Disnelyand. There is usually a logical set of rules designed to protect the customers and give them good value for their money. you call them guests. The ones that violate the rules you set in place on purpose are called stupid guests. the reason being is that they either may not be aware of the rules, or simply ignore them.

Those that work there usually get a good schooling in how things work, although most probably don't see the "big picture" and know every aspect of work rules until they encounter a situation where they are schooled by the correct way to apply them.

since the courts system is one that I have more than just a passing knowledge, indeed in my 35 years of working experience, I spend a bit of time in both state and federal courts, there are certain aspects that you get to know quite well.

and since I am sure the story you passed on was embellished, I think it a bit of a presumption to imply that I don't know what I am talking about, when in point of fact you were not at the alleged conversation in court and cannot absoutely verify that it transpired they way it was to allegedly have happened.

either way, it is of no significant importance other than a passing anecdote of a nature that shows the teller or the tale being able to "buck the system" and still retain a sense of civic duty and importance by having a judge tell a prospective juror that working at Disneyland is much more important that jury duty.

which I do not believe to be true.

BRWombat wrote:It shouldn't be. Both the judge and jurors are considered neutral in the process, so it shouldn't matter to the outcome of the case. They should disclose their friendship to the parties in the voir dire, but then it's up to the parties whether they think it's a problem or not.

What the parties are looking for is bias, where the juror for any reason favors one side or the other before hearing the evidence. So it would be a bigger deal if a juror knew or was related to either of the parties or their attorneys. Even then, though, dismissal isn't the cure, it's striking the juror from the panel. It's up to the parties to question him or her to uncover that bias. If the juror's answers show that he or she cannot judge the case fairly, the judge will strike him or her from the panel. If it doesn't reach that level, each party is given a number of "peremptory strikes" to get rid of potential jurors for almost any reason.

And like a lot of errors that can happen in a trial, the aggrieved party can waive their objection or fail to properly pursue it. If the parties in the voir dire fail to uncover some bias, or think it's not that big a deal at first, and allow the juror to be selected, it doesn't automatically follow that the case would be thrown out if the bias surfaces later. They had their chance.

Now, the bigger question is, why am I thinking about all this on a Saturday, especially when I'm about to leave for an all-day rehearsal with VM?

What I called dismissal, you call striking the Juror. Once when I was called for the Jury pool, I was sent home after filling out a questionnaire. Since my dad is a QC, "Queens Counsel", which is sort of like an honorary prosecutor I think. In any event they asked if we had family who worked in the justice system, and due to that title (although he stays away from criminal court whenever possible) I was "dismissed" due to my dads occupation. And that is the word the baliff used, she said I was dismissed, thanks to my father. I dont know what the trial was to be, but I was very glad to be sent home, as several trials they were filling that week went on for months.

It must be the difference in terminology between the legal systems, or maybe the people in the jury office used the wrong term.

delsdad wrote:What I called dismissal, you call striking the Juror. Once when I was called for the Jury pool, I was sent home after filling out a questionnaire. Since my dad is a QC, "Queens Counsel", which is sort of like an honorary prosecutor I think. In any event they asked if we had family who worked in the justice system, and due to that title (although he stays away from criminal court whenever possible) I was "dismissed" due to my dads occupation. And that is the word the baliff used, she said I was dismissed, thanks to my father. I dont know what the trial was to be, but I was very glad to be sent home, as several trials they were filling that week went on for months.

It must be the difference in terminology between the legal systems, or maybe the people in the jury office used the wrong term.

Actually, dismissed is proper for what you're describing, though around here the juror being "released" is more commonly used. My bad -- I was thinking about the case being dismissed, not the individual. Sorry!

GRUMPY PIRATE wrote:hehehehe, I could be flippiant and answer "yes, it is"

but you know, I don't know a lot of how the behind the scenes work at busisnesses, like say Disnelyand. There is usually a logical set of rules designed to protect the customers and give them good value for their money.

and since I am sure the story you passed on was embellished, I think it a bit of a presumption to imply that I don't know what I am talking about, when in point of fact you were not at the alleged conversation in court and cannot absoutely verify that it transpired they way it was to allegedly have happened.

either way, it is of no significant importance other than a passing anecdote of a nature that shows the teller or the tale being able to "buck the system" and still retain a sense of civic duty and importance by having a judge tell a prospective juror that working at Disneyland is much more important that jury duty.

which I do not believe to be true.

I liked your "yes" answer. It fit well. At DLR rules are not designed to protect the customer. Not at all! No one bucked the system. What an odd phrase. Yes, the event, not tale, was told to me. Doubt it was embellished as I heard the exact same story from the dismissed jurist & the judge. The "big picture" to borrow your termenology is - the statement abt DisneyLand was simple humor, & my brother was the judge. Carry on.