Exactly. Good point. What would you have us do, a trial not by your peers, but one man who is not your peer at all? The jury trial system protects your rights as a defendant and is a imperfectly perfect system for an perfect world.
You Know, of all her friends that have talked about her trying to overdose, breaking up, and all the other things that supposedly would make her a bad prosecution risk, I have not heard one word that indicated that she was promiscuous (sp?). I don't know if a p*rn star could have all the things going on that apparently went on (regular style sans condom, back door sans condom, get up, strighten up, get dressed, and get back down stairs in 20 minutes ) much less a relatively inexperienced young girl. Try as I might, outside of watching Kobe play on TV, I don't know a thing about his personal life. If they find any girl in any hotel that Kobe has ever visitied that will testify that he even came on to her, much less attempted assault of any kind, His goose is so 'cooked'. I think after taking most of his money, they ought to throw him in a cell with a 400 pound ex-wrestler, named BRUNO, that just loves young 24 year old boys.
Riley & Bama, I should clarify. The jury part of the jury system sucks. I do see neither of you disagree only you wish I had a solution. Just to throw something out - How about professional jurors or how about the judges (maybe panels of judges) making judgements instead of kicking the decision to 12 bums who don't want to be there and don't have the mental capacity to understand the case. "Jury of your peers" is a joke -civil or criminal case. Back to Kobe, <b>ESPN just reported that the prosecution will most likely acknowledge that some part of the sexual activity between Kobe and the girl was consentual.</b> And that the physical evidence will prove some activity was not consentual.
micah -- i'm not trying to be condescending, but i'm not sure you understand how a jury works. the jury rarely needs to understand the law...they're triers of fact only. they tell us which version of the facts they believe...that they think is the more likely scenario. the judge can instruct them on the law if necessary, but their job is to tell us what actually happened...then the judge makes sure the facts fit the elements necessary i don't want judges (the government alone) making decisions on whether or not a criminal defendant spends the rest of his life in jail. if you think the jury process is abused...see life in countries where juries are not present in criminal hearings. i'm a trial lawyer...i've seen the jury system up close and personal. like every human institution, it has its limitations...but it's still the best way to arrive at the truth. do juries make mistakes?? absolutely! but i would fight to the death to defend trial by jury...the same way the founders of the country did.
Max has already said it, but I guess I'll say it again. Doing jury duty was an eye-opener for me. I did a civil lawsuit, but I was surprised how little control was actually given me. We were given 5 questions (like "Was the defendant a fiduciary of the company?") and if we answered Yes to all of them, the plaintiff won. Though we could manipulate the outcome by manipulating specific answers, we never had the opportunity to just say "that guy wins."
That's exactly right...it's called the jury charge. It's drafted jointly by both parties and approved by the judge. In Texas, we already have pattern jury charges that are used for each particular cause of action. You're only deciding the facts...they way you decide leads to how the law is applied to the situation. One of the biggest problems the Founders had with King George was the suspension of jury trials...when you lose faith in your government, why in the world would you want their judges to be the sole arbitrers on your liberty? Enter, the jury. A time-honored commitment to liberty and a limited government.
I am no legal expert. To me, the problem is the opposite. The problem is not the jury having too much power to decide, but the judge having too much power to control the whole trial process. Having an impartial (or at least balanced) jury is much easier than having an impartial and mistake-free judge. And no, I don't have any solution to that. And the fact that wealthy defendant can "buy" a "Dream Team" defense (and "fixers," as some claim) doesn't exactly help the justice system either.
i have one idea...let's get away from the concept of elected judges. as for the buying a dream team thing...i have no solution for that. it's a flaw that can't be fixed, i think.
Enough said! Ofcourse a trial lawyer would take my comment as an offense because juries unwittingly make them rich. I don't want this either. But judges are elected and/or appointed by elected persons, hence your peers. They also are educated and I would trust them make an educated decision more than the half wits who can not manage to get out of jury duty. All I want is the intelligence of the jury to be improved dramatically. But I think lawyers don’t want this so they can easily suggest/mold/trick the morons in the jury box to do what they want. BTW, the results of the jury (lottery) system have made us the laughing stalk of the world.
What effect does electing judges have on the justice of the courts? On the subject, btw, a lawyer friend once told me to just vote all incumbent judges out of office on every ballot; they get too comfortable there.
1. First off...no. I'm a defense attorney. No one is making me unwittingly rich. And Kobe's attorneys won't become rich by anything this jury does in this case. I bill hours...I get paid regardless of what the jury says or does. The plaintiff's work I do is mostly for banks and other financial institutions in the context of commercial litigation...very rarely do I take an interest in those cases past my billable rate. 2. you're just wrong...again...juries don't decide the law. they don't get to say, "yeah..put him away!" they have to arrive at conclusions of fact based on the evidence presented...and their conclusions can ultimately be overturned by an appellate court if it is not supported by any evidence...that eliminates the, "there's no evidence but i just don't like the guy so let's convict him" threat. 3. there is nothing more misunderstood than our legal system. people hear about coffee spilled at McDonald's and huge jury awards...but then never hear that they're subsequently corrected and reduced by an appellate court. the courts aren't perfect...no one is saying that at all...but the jury system is still worth preserving.
it makes it partisan...we have a whole county full of Republican judges...why?? because they voted for the Republican at the top of the ticket in a presidential election. These are supposed to be entirely unpartisan positions...they're not even allowed to talk about issues while campaigning! Every judge I know...elected or otherwise...Republican or Democrat...thinks that electing judges, as we do here, is insane. We lose very very very good judges because they don't have an (R) next to their name on the ballot. And people don't have the first clue what separates one judge from the next. There should be appointments...with elections periodically about whether the person should stay in office...or something to that effect. Thread effectively derailed. Sorry!
How about getting rid of private defense lawyers. And every defendant gets lawyer assignments randomly? Each defendant has the right to reject his/her lawyer assignment for a fixed number of times. I know it's dreamcasting. But that seems a fairer system to me.
She has the right to say 'no' and he should stop immediately. If he didn't, then he broke the law. Okay, now back to reality. This is a classic he said/she said case. Kobe has more money and therefore will win. Simple as that. By all accounts, so far, she wasn't forced into the room. Case closed. Welcome to the American justice system. O.J. lives.
but you have a right to hire whoever you damn want to represent you...and when your butt is on the line, you appreciate that right. seems like that allows for something even more abusive and sinister to me. plus..that system would only work in criminal cases..not civil cases. krosfyah -- assuming he raped her...i hope you're wrong. i'd love for them to prove you wrong. again...assuming he did what she says he did.
MM, Yes, I'm only talking about criminal cases, not civil cases. Maybe I'm too naive. I don't see how that system allows for something more abusive and sinister if the assignment is truly random, assuming all lawyers in the pool are competent. (Of course, there has to be a fairly complex system set up to ensure that. But I don't see why it can't be done, at least in theory.) As for the right to hire whoever I want, that goes both ways. The citizens (victims) don't get the right to get whoever they want for prosecution. The whole system is skewed to favor the defendant. I understand the rationale behind such "favoritism": rather mistakenly letting 10 criminals walk than wrongly accuse 1 innocent. While I understand and appreciate this principle, I'm not sure I totally agree with it. If jury is a duty for us ordinary citizens, why don't we make public criminal defense a duty (with good but not outrageous pay) for lawyers?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/story?id=1587569 The woman suffered physical trauma in the vaginal area, the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday, citing law enforcement sources close to the investigation.
