Let’s look closer at how lawyers and judges question potential jurors. The questioning of potential jurors follows different rules depending on the jurisdiction (that is, if the case is in federal or state court). Even within a jurisdiction, trial judges often have their own methods for picking a jury.
My attorney sent me an email telling me not to show up because it was only to reset the court date from the RFO where the judge had recused himself because he was the roommate of opposing counsel in law school. (My exes attorney also is married to a Los Angeles Superior Court family law judge… No advantages for him.)
Before it even begins, a trial can be won or lost during jury selection. In a procedure called voir dire, lawyers and, sometimes, judges question potential jurors from a pool of citizens summoned to court to serve jury duty. Voir dire (vwar deer) means “to speak the truth.
I asked for a jury trial, so that a jury of my peers can determine if in fact he was in collusion or not.
A “hung jury,” also known as a “deadlocked jury,” is a jury whose members are unable to agree on a verdict by the required voting margin after extensive deliberations, resulting in a mistrial.
Variables considered include demographic information on jurors, personal characteristics of trial participants, influence of trial publicity on jurors, juror satisfaction with the verdict, and dynamics of the deliberation process.
The judge and the attorneys then ask the potential jurors questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury, a process called voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to exclude from the jury people who may not be able to decide the case fairly.
Common Effective Jury Duty ExcusesExtreme Financial Hardship. ... Full-Time Student Status. ... Surgery/Medical Reasons. ... Being Elderly. ... Being Too Opinionated. ... Mental/Emotional Instability. ... Relation to the Case/Conflict of Interest. ... Line of Work.More items...•
In which of the following conditions would a defendant be judged more harshly? When the defendant uses his or her attractiveness to commit a crime.
First, the research establishes that the presence of inadmissible evidence has a significant impact on juror verdicts in line with the evidentiary slant of the information: The level of guilty verdicts rises with pro-prosecution evidence and decreases with pro-acquittal evidence.
Jurors are presumed by their oaths to be impartial judges. However, where the potential bias is clear and obvious, or where it can be shown that there is a reason to suspect that members of a jury may possess bias that cannot be set aside, then the jury can be screened by a challenge for cause.
There are three groups that are exempt from federal jury service: members of the armed forces on active duty; members of professional fire and police departments; and. "public officers" of federal, state or local governments, who are actively engaged full-time in the performance of public duties.
Generally, the party who bears the burden of proof (plaintiff in a civil case or prosecution in a criminal case) begins the opening statements, followed immediately after by the adverse party (defendant).
Avoiding it, however, is ill advised: you cannot simply refuse and it is a criminal offence to not answer a jury summons without reasonable cause. You may, however, be able to defer (or possibly be excused) if you've served in the last two years or have a good reason.
Yes, it is legally required, and there are penalties for noncompliance. Jurors perform a vital role in the American system of justice. Jury service is an important civic function that supports one of the fundamental rights of citizens - the right to have their cases decided by a jury of their peers.
If the date your are summoned is inconvenient, the law allows you one postponement to an available jury term date of your choice within six months.
Ever wonder what the Average American Judge prefers to look at all day? See below.
The 34 other words, phrases, and practices that judges most often say they dislike:
Attorneys don’t get to pick their jurors. Instead, using a mixture of intense questioning, keen observation, and stereotyping, they get to eliminate people they think would hurt their case. “It’s not like a baseball team where you can choose your team members,” says Jeffrey Frederick, Director of Jury Research Services at the National Legal Research Group and author of Mastering Voir Dire and Jury Selection. “It’s not who I want, it’s who I don’t want. What we try to do is think of what backgrounds, life experiences, cognitive styles, opinions, and values jurors might have that would make them less receptive to our case.” Clues like demographics and personality can improve a lawyer’s chance of predicting a juror’s stance on a verdict by up to 15 percent. Here are a few things lawyers take into consideration when trying to figure you out.
One common question presented to jurors is, “Are there any religious beliefs that prevent you from passing judgment on another person?” Frederick says this is to weed out people whose faith might impede their ability to view a case objectively .
Open and receptive jurors, according to the Synchronics Group Trial Consultants, will have hair that is “casual and naturally flowing, rather than highly styled or gelled or plastered to the head … Beards and mustaches will be natural looking, rather than designed and sculpted.” The old adage says you can’t judge a book by its cover, but attorneys will certainly try.
The plaintiff attorney or prosecutor will generally look for people more inclined to trust authority.
One quick way to get dismissed from a jury, according to Tom King , a former Deputy Prosecutor in Indiana, is to voice strong opinions about the legal system: “Say, ‘I’ve read about these criminal prosecutions where the police and the prosecutors made up evidence and I just don’t think it’s a fair system.’”
Indeed, research shows that if you don’t vibe well with an attorney, you’re more likely to decide against their argument. “One attorney told me, 'If I can tell they don’t like me, I get rid of them,’” King says.
Leaders, contrarians, and independent thinkers can be pivotal in a verdict. These people have the potential to rally the rest of the group behind a unanimous decision, which is great for the plaintiff or the prosecutor.
Despite their efforts, sometimes juries just can’t reach a unanimous decision after lengthy jury deliberations. This is often referred to as a “hung jury.” When it becomes evident that a verdict will not be reached in the case, the judge will declare a mistrial.
This can take five minutes, five hours, five days or five weeks.
Because jury verdicts must be unanimous in criminal cases in most jurisdictions, it is not uncommon for deliberations to stall or reach an impasse. If a jury sends a note saying they are deadlocked, the judge can give them an instruction urging them to try harder to reach an agreement.
In Tarrant County, Texas, one of the longest jury deliberations in memory occurred in 2006 when a jury deliberated six days before convicting Rev. Terry Hornbuckle of sexually assaulting three women.
Some believe short deliberations mean jurors have found the defendant guilty, while longer deliberations mean they are leaning towards acquittal. Despite these theories, trying to predict the length of jury deliberations is generally a futile effort. Consider this:
Official statistics aren’t kept on jury deliberations, but in 2003, a jury in Oakland, California deliberated 55 days before acquitting three police officers accused of assaulting and falsely arresting residents.
The Allen Charge comes from the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case, “ Allen v. United States. The case involved 14-year-old defendant Alexander Allen who was tried and convicted twice of murder for killing 18-year-old Philip Henson in Arkansas. Both convictions were reversed due to error in the jury instruction, and during Allen’s third trial, the jury told the judge were having trouble reaching a decision. The Judge instructed the jury to re-examine their thoughts, leading to what is now known as the Allen Charge.
Most experienced trial attorneys will reach out to their adversaries before such a settlement conference to get a heads up and get some idea about what the defense's settlement position is before arriving in court. This way, they have some idea about what may happen during this conference.
Lawyers who appear for a settlement conference must be fully versed in the minute details of your case.
If playback doesn't begin shortly, try restarting your device.
In that instance, the attorneys will draw up settlement papers that must detail and lay out exactly what claims you are settling and for what amount of money.
Depending upon how long your case has been on the trial calendar, the judge may ask the attorneys to return in a few weeks or a few months if there is a possibility the case may be settled prior to trial. This is designed to encourage settlement negotiations and to continue the discussion if there is a chance your case might be resolved.
If the judge is able to determine during the settlement conference that there is no hope of settlement, a definite trial date will be set and all parties will begin preparations for battle.
Your attorney's goal is to provide you with the best legal advice about your risks and chances should you proceed forward.
Similar personal experiences could cause a potential juror to ignore the judge’s instructions to decide the case based on the evidence and the law without “passion or prejudice.”. When a potential juror has had a life experience closely resembling the facts of the case, that person will likely be excused by the court.
Then defense counsel may choose to dismiss those jurors by using what is called a “peremptory challenge.” Unlike “for cause” challenges, each side gets a fixed number of peremptory challenges. By using a peremptory challenge, a lawyer can dismiss a potential juror from the case without giving any reason to the judge.
Its primary purpose is to make sure that the jurors can listen fairly and impartially to the evidence and render a verdict in accordance with ...
Experienced attorneys ask questions to get a sense of how a juror will respond to the evidence and arguments in the case about to be tried. In most federal courts, lawyers submit questions to the judge, who will then question the potential jurors in open court. In state courts, however, lawyers are typically permitted to question ...
To expedite the selection process, potential jurors sometimes complete written questionnaires before meeting with the lawyers or the judge. These questionnaires help to quickly eliminate certain potential jurors—such as people who do not speak English well enough to follow testimony. They also identify subject areas, like prior experiences with law enforcement or the courts, for follow-up questions in the courtroom. If questionnaires are not used, lawyers or judges simply ask all of their questions in open court. Potential jurors may be questioned as a group or one at a time. Once preliminary issues, such as juror availability and competency have been covered, lawyers and judges move on to more substantive questions.
Where voir dire uncovers a legitimate concern about a conflict of interest or a potential bias, the judge will normally dismiss the juror “for cause.” A “for cause” dismissal means the court has agreed with at least one lawyer’s argument about the unsuitability of a potential juror (or has reached this conclusion on its own). A lawyer can raise an unlimited number of “for cause” challenges during jury selection.
If questionnaires are not used, lawyers or judges simply ask all of their questions in open court. Potential jurors may be questioned as a group or one at a time.
If you do decide to appeal the decisions of the family court, the Supreme Court, no less, will very likely uphold and support the malfeasance of the family court because the antics of the lower court personnel mirror those of the Supreme Court. I bet the family court personnel have recognized this and are busy minting.
If an attorney manages to liase many or all all your issues, then you have already lost, especially if they have told you not to talk to the spouse and they have served their purpose by fait accompli. If it comes down to money, you have lost, that is the level of basic understanding marriage has become for males.
In the end, the most important thing is keeping parents and children safe, and maintaining the economic viability of parents. These all involve human and civil rights. What despairs me, is that the judiciary is far too willing to rule in favor of men in appeals, and not take cases of mothers and children.
That’s what we do with everything else. If a plumber fixes your sink, then it acts up again and again, you DON’T KEEP having them work on it.
You should sue for undisclosed conflict of interest. At the very least, file a complaint with the State Bar Association or whoever it is in your state that hear s such things. Seriously. CLAIM DAMAGES.
Absolutely they do! That’s one of their jobs, to negotiate a meaningful outcome. Keep in mind that these folks work together nearly every day and many time go out to lunch together (especially in more rural areas.)
The gal did not investigate any of the leads I gave him. The magistrate had a stay for seven months. And the clerk of courts refused to send out the subpoenas. The clerk of courts told my attorney’s staff they were to short of staff to fax the subpoenas over my attorney’s office the day before the trial.