Adult Ed...

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 41891
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Adult Ed...

Postby Still Baron » 27 Sep 2017, 12:40

I've been meaning to post about how jury selection works in my jurisdiction, but haven't had a decent block of time to write something. Hopefully this evening ...
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 59625
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Adult Ed...

Postby sloopjohnc » 27 Sep 2017, 21:27

This thread has sure veered from beginning guitar and photography classes.
Bride Of Sea Of Tunes wrote:I for one wouldn't want to know what memories and deep and dark forces drive Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, or Radiohead, for certain.

User avatar
take5_d_shorterer
Posts: 5576
Joined: 22 Sep 2003, 23:09
Location: photo. by Andor Kertesz, Hung.

Re: Adult Ed...

Postby take5_d_shorterer » 27 Sep 2017, 22:28

Whoa!. We can go there if you want.

My latest find is this:

Image

It has all her songs AND all the weird tunings.

The fingerpicking is not the easiest, but the left hand technique isn't complicated once you have the right tuning.

User avatar
Still Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 41891
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Adult Ed...

Postby Still Baron » 28 Sep 2017, 02:57

Alright! It's been ten years since I've done this, but I'm very familiar with it, and I'm still involved on the legal technicalities end of it. I found that jury selection was the hardest thing I ever had to do as a lawyer. There are a lot of balls to be kept in the air at one time. The most important thing is that you want to win your case during jury selection. You want the jurors to be inclined toward you and your client and your theory of the case from the jump. Some have suggested that jurors pick who they think should win very early on and then look for information that validates that choice during the trial. You also want to get the jurors to talk and share their innermost feelings . . . to lawyers . . . in a courtroom with dozens of other people in it. And you have to ferret out the really crazy ones. And you have to remember who said what when and keep a mental count of how deep you'll have to go in the jury pool, remembering that jury selection is a misnomer, it's really jury de-selection.

Here's how it works in my jurisdiction. You get a room full of random people, how many depends on the case. It could be as few as 24 or as many as 100 something (six jurors for a misdemeanor, twelve for a felony, bigger pool for controversial case/inflammatory facts/general notoriety). In a felony, you have unlimited challenges for cause. So if someone says, for instance, that they can't follow the law or have preconceived notions, or will always believe cops, or whatever, the party who doesn't like them can move to challenge them for legal cause. These are unlimited, but the other side may object, or the judge may not think that what they said amounts to a legal problem, or whatever, so you typically end up with a handful of these guys . . . maybe six or ten? Then, in a felony, each side has ten peremptory strikes. This means they can get rid of a juror for any reason, so long as it is not based on race or gender (see discussion above). The whole point of jury selection (voir dire) is to question the panelists so you can make educated use of the challenges at your disposal.

What happens is all these suspicious/wary panelists file into the courtroom, and they're all given numbers (in chronological order from the front). If you don't like the look of the panel (if you like the looks of some people, but they're in the back), you can ask for a shuffle. If you do that, they file out, their names are shuffled, and they come back in a different order.

After the trial judge tells them the basics of how things work, each side gets an allotment of time to question the panel. Sometimes its as little as 20 minutes, sometimes you get an hour. In a death case, it's much more detailed. The prosecutor goes first, then the defense. While the other side is questioning, you're taking notes on what people say. Hopefully, you have someone to take notes for you when you're questioning. Since you invariably don't have enough time, there are techniques to get responses from a lot of people at once . . . scaled questions, etc. and questions that get people to talk about/buy into what will be the case (without them knowing it specifically). "How many of y'all have had to defend yourself?" Then you follow up on the people in the front rows (with a chance to actually make the jury). Mr. Sloop, tell us more about what was going through your mind when you had to defend yourself, or whatever. Mr. Boom, do you agree with Mr. Sloop? Tell us about your experience . . . etc. You don't want to waste your time talking to the back of the room, because they won't get close to being on the jury.

After the time is up, you and the other party approach the bench and make your arguments about should be struck for cause, based on their responses to questioning. Sometimes everyone agrees that someone has to go, other times it's really contested and in some rare occasions, the person is called up for more discussion . . . one of the parties will typically try to "rehabilitate" the panelist. After it's settled who is struck for cause, you take your jury list to a jury room or some other place where you have privacy and the judge gives you a few minutes (5, 10, 15 minutes) to decide how to use the peremptory strikes. If jurors 3, 7, 9, 14, and 15 have been struck for cause, then, since there will be 12 jurors and each side has 10 strikes, you know that any juror up to juror 37 is in play (I think, like I said, my math is bad). Using a strike on juror 45, for instance, is a waste, because that juror has no mathematical hope of winding up on the jury. You come back to the courtroom and "strike your lists," which is accomplished by turning in your strike lists to the judge. The judge then combines the list on a master list and calls the first 12 names that aren't struck. At this point, you make your objections to any racially motivated peremptory strikes and you renew objections to jurors the judge refused to strike for cause. To preserve the claim on appeal that the judge should have granted one of your challenges, you must strike the juror with a peremptory strike, then identify the objectionable juror who made the jury you would have used a peremptory strike on had you not had to burn it on a juror that should have been disqualified, and you have to ask the judge for another peremptory strike and be denied. I might've missed a detail, but suffice it to say, it's a pain in the ass (see, also, the Batson v. Kentucky procedures discussed earlier).

Being persuasive, likeable, getting people to say legally specific crazy shit, making them like you while talking about sensitive stuff and not pissing them off or having them hate your client, remembering everything that was said, and not dropping the ball on objections in what is often a very hurried process is really, really difficult. Only in death cases do you get to interview jurors one by one. It's really hard.

If you're still reading this, you may be interested in the materials on Robert Hirschhorn's site. He's a jury consultant and if I were on trial, I'd want to be able to hire him to help in some form or fashion.

http://www.cebjury.com/sample-materials/
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
take5_d_shorterer
Posts: 5576
Joined: 22 Sep 2003, 23:09
Location: photo. by Andor Kertesz, Hung.

Re: Adult Ed...

Postby take5_d_shorterer » 28 Sep 2017, 18:19

That's the sort of detail I was interested in.

I have some more detailed thoughts on this, especially regarding the "shuffle" mentioned above, but I'd send these by PM.

One immediate question that comes to mind is whether either side can strike a juror on the basis of documents and statements made outside the court.

For example, if juror 7 wrote something on social media or elsewhere that said "I always believe the police" or "I never believe the police", can that outside document be used to justify striking the juror?

Things can get complicated here. Let's say that you know that juror 7 wrote that elsewhere. Let's say then that you ask juror 7 if he or she wrote that, and juror 7 denies writing that. Would that be a valid reason for striking the juror?

As a general comment, it is amazing to hear that 20 minutes to an hour are all that are spent on this process.

One hopes that the average juror is rational enough so that getting rid of the outliers is all that is needed in most cases. On the other hand, there is a compelling case to be made that the makeup of the jury has a major effect on the outcome of a trial.

To make a comparison, I've been reading through Moneyball, which makes the claim that real work done in fielding a good baseball team is done by getting the right players onto the field in the first place. In other words, this is all the stuff that happens before a baseball game. Once the players are there, assuming you don't do stupid things, the rest is secondary.

Of course, trials are different from games in lots of ways. What I'm focusing on here is the idea that the initial condition may be the most important factor of all. If you take the general drift of Moneyball and try to apply it here, the problem becomes how to get as much information about a juror as possible before jury selection, which leads to another question:

Are both sides given the names of potential jurors prior to jury selection?


---------------

On a different subject, here's a transcription of "I Had King" from the aforementioned book.

https://content.alfred.com/catpages/00-40964.pdf

Some fascinating chord changes there.