Computer Geeks and Jury Duty in the US? 173
Stan Schwarz asks: "I just spent a day doing jury duty here in Los Angeles, and it was a colossal waste of time. I've been called for jury duty five times over the last 18 years, and I -never- get picked for a jury. I answer the five questions (name, where you live, marital status, occupation, spouse's occupation) and they throw me out. My lawyer neighbor says this is because they don't want computer people because we think logically and are not emotional. Have other slashdot readers had similar experiences with the judicial system? Or should I just develop a complex about this?"
Makes sense (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
Yep (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yep (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, I'm not sure I'd want to be tried by a panel of 12 unbiased emotional eunuchs.
Re:Yep (Score:2)
And if you want to be judged by people who can't use their brains to figure out anything, you get the "justice" you deserve. Personally, I'd rather have the impartial ones over the idiots any day, thanks.
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Meanwhile, your llinking of "idiots" to partiality is typical of the kind of arrogant bias exhibited my many
Re:Yep (Score:2)
If you think that's arrogance, I can't fix you. Personally, it sounds to me like you have some really stupid stereotypes of logical people based on watching too much star trek. Logic can be tempered with emotion without you being an idiot. It's the fact that lawyers are looking for manipulable idiots that I'm railing against, not the populace at large.
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:2)
You mean judges? Yeah, okay. Next!
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:2)
They call 45 ish people. They need 23. The list of valid excuses is pretty lean. When we got there, there were 26 of us. They put our names in a bucket, turned it, and pulled three names. The judge said "You three can go." Then swore the rest of us in as grand jurors.
This would have to be modified slightly for a trial (or petite) jury. You'd have to give the lawyers SOME strikes for obvious bias, and start with a larger pool for the OJ Simpson cases of the world. Just make the number of strikes proportional to the pool. Once you have 24 'good men and true' (16 + 8 alternates), start the trial.
[1] Note: Grand jury's decide if a case can go to trial. A trial jury (petite jury) is at the trial, with the judge, etc. At the federal level (at least in Atlanta, Ga), they are set for a year term, with 6 months after that for 'recall' status. There are 4 juries at any given time, one for the first 4 tuesdays in a given month. We show up between 1 and 4 days a month (usually 1 or 2. The last three day was 4 years ago, and no one remembers a 5 day docket), and see around 5-8 cases/investigations a day. Our 'burden' is much lighter than a trial jury. We only have to see if the accused had 'probable cause' in this case (aka: did they probably do the deed). We also only hear the prosecution's side of the case.
We also hear investigations, basically a way that an attourney can question a potentially hostile witness under oath. These can go on for a while (which leads to the 'recall' status). We'd come back for minimal time to hear more evidence, or to see if an inditement is asked for from the AG.
It was a fasinating experience. I saw a LOT of stuff I wouldn't have seen otherwise, but it was quite boring at times, and my boss wasn't exactly amused (nothing they could do about it though... The constitution has a minor trump card in this matter. If they even sniff that you're let go because of it, the feds will come down like a ton of bricks).
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:2)
This fact has lead to a wide spread belief that grand juries are a rubber stamp on the process. However, you need to realize that about 95% of the cases we see are truly open and shut: "He has confessed that he did this.", or "He was deported, he's back, he's not allowed back, his finger prints match."
As you might guess, we were quite happy when we saw those cases that fell into the 5%. Some were done by amazingly stupid people, others were wide spread rings of very inteligent people who just got too greedy.
Finally, remember that we have a very light 'burden'. Proving that someone probably did something, when you only hear the evidence of the prosicution (sp) is pretty easy.
Re:Yep (Score:2)
"...being tried by twelve people who were not even smart enough to get out of jury duty"
Re:Nope (Score:2)
Remember that trials are adversarial -- dumb juries cut against both sides, yielding random verdicts. Of course, foolish lawyers may still want dumb jurors. But also, remember that half teh litigants lose, and the loser is going to tend to badmouth the decisionmaker.
Jury philosophy varies, and sure a lot of it is art, but I know of three very bright federal judges I worked with who served on juries (two of whom are *very* intellectual, and emotionally barren), plus plenty of clear-thinking college graduates. Especially if the subject matter is complex, you may want logical jurors. For a slip&fall, maybe the more emotional ones will help the plaintiff -- but what will the defense do in response?
State practice varies a lot; New York for one until recently had broad exclusions for everything from lawyers to undertakers (IIRC these were repealed). Thus the jury pool may be trimmed down in advance.
Under the federal system, the only one I know in detail, the parties have a limited number of peremptory challenges; all other challenges must be for-cause. The peremptories (3?) can be for any reason short of race or sex discrimination, etc.
Should we be upset? Good question. (Score:3, Insightful)
So lawyers are rejecting exactly the fairest jurors, doing a grave injustice to justice. We should be outraged, but on the other hand...
I think lawyers should have NO say on who goes in the jury. Not only can it skew the results, but it wastes a LOT of time. The time of people like you who are called in, interviewed, and rejected (I've heard of hundreds of people being summoned for high profile cases), and the court's time for the time spent interviewing and haggling. And they complain of a backlog!
Sure, not every random person is suitable, but neither is every lawyer-edited jury. IANAL, but I suspect that the time savings from simplifying jury trials (and reducing the number of jury members while we're at it) would greatly outweigh the putative increase in the mistrial rate. Bumping up the frequency of venue changes would help.
Since you asked about my juror experience as a geek, I was called once for a trial in Quebec, but I was in a Waterloo (Ontario) co-op program at the time. I was freaked out because the initial estimate of the trial length was 6 months, and even a couple of months would have delayed my degree by a whole year. Fortunately I did not have to go because they would have had to pay hotel bills since I was from out-of-province. It seems likely that professional geeks are more mobile than nongeeks, and therefore undersummoned for juries. In my case though, I was greatly relieved.
Re:Should we be upset? Good question. (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that each of the lawyer, judge, and jury have different roles, doesn't it seem a miscarriage of justice to allow the lawyers to select the jury? Lawyers cannot select the judge that hears their case, why should they be allowed to select the jury?
Re:Should we be upset? Good question. (Score:2)
Of course, the UK govt. is trying to limit the right to trial by jury (because juries often find people not guilty, especially for things like marijuana possession whish shoudln't be crimes in the first place), so this system won't last.
I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:5, Interesting)
And the ironic thing is that, as a Quaker, I would feel it to be of the utmost importance to listen to both sides without prejudice and to value both sides equally as I weight the facts.
In Richmond, VA, they take jurors from lists -- voting registration, property tax lists, driver's licenses, etc. I don't know if it is still true, but this used to mean that if you were on a number of these lists, you were more likely to be chosen, since your name was on the master jury list once for each of the other lists it was on (this is what I was told by someone working for the Jury Officer). I think the court should be required to have 80% of all eligible jurors serve before a juror is called back. I'm 40, and I was called 2 times while in college (given exemption because I was living out-of-town), once after that, again after I moved to a surrounding county (exempted since I no longer lived in the city), and, after moving back into Richmond, I've been called another 3 times. That's 4 times since I wsa 18 that I've served and 3 times I was called when I was not living in the district. While I try to maintain an even and calm viewpoint, I've gotten so many notices for jury duty, that I wonder if I'd able to make a dispassionate decision if I did sit on a case.
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:2)
And the ironic thing is that, as a Quaker, I would feel it to be of the utmost importance to listen to both sides without prejudice and to value both sides equally as I weight the facts.
Yeah, but if you're a prosecutor, especially if you have a good case, you don't want to take any chances of having a hung jury. I wonder what the statistics are, but my guess would be that most court cases are probably won by the prosecution. So as a prosector you're generally not looking for an exceptional juror. Just one who is going to look at the overwhelming evidence and convict. Not one who's going to second guess the legal system.
In other words, yes, you'd probably make a great juror. But it's still probably the right decision for one of the two lawyers to drop you.
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:4, Funny)
And the ironic thing is that, as a Quaker, I would feel it to be of the utmost importance to listen to both sides without prejudice and to value both sides equally as I weight the facts.
That's your problem right there, just start playing CS instead, they're much more emotional.
Or you can fake it and still be a Quaker, just stand up and yell "WTF?! STFU!!!" at the defendant after each question, then "0wn3d!!!11! lol lol lol" as they're found guilty.
To avoid the dozens of replies pointing out the obvious, yes, this post is a joke.
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:2)
How I got thrown out... (Score:2)
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:2)
Where does it say that?
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:2)
Never said it was a commandment. I believe the original post said something like "the bible says", not that it was a commandment. The bible says a whole lot more than just what's in the commandments. It's just something that Jesus supposedly said. I'm not religious anyway. I just posted the quote so that whoever asked would know what the guy was talking about.
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, what's the difference between the 10 commandments and the rest of them? How were they conveyed to people? The same way they were conveyed to Moses? Seems like he'd need a whole legal pad to write those down rather than some stone tablets. What do you consider the status of the NT to be? Is Jesus the son of God? Does he speak for God? Are the things he said considered commandments? If not, why not? I supposed different denominations believe different things, I'm just wondering about some of the specifics in this case.
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:2)
Interesting. I didn't know anything about the Bible saying that nothing could be added or removed? What verses can I look at on that one?
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:2)
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19.
Granted, that particular word might apply only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. But I think the concept is there -- God doesn't want His words tampered with!
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." -- Psalms 12:6-7
And Jesus actually kept to that principle: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 5:17-19
Jesus just took several points in the Law of Moses and said that it's really a HEART condition. Just not committing these sins is not good enough. The intention or desire to commit them also violates the law! All that, of course, leads up to the fact that none of us are perfect, or even good, in God's sight ("There is none righteous, no, not one" -- Romans 3:10). Which is why we are in desperate need of reconcilliation to God, which is something only Jesus, as God's UNIQUE Son, can do!
Sorry for preaching, but you asked, and it sort of led to all this.
Re:I Always Get Thrown Out For Another Reason (Score:2)
"But above all things, my brothers, do not swear, neither by heaven nor by earth nor with any other oath; but let your yes be yes, and your no, no, lest you fall under ajudgment." James 5:12.
Not really. The affirmation is that you will not only tell the truth, but you will say nothing but the truth.
That's the point. That's why Quakers (most of us) will affirm, but will not swear.
and ignore the ideas of the prosecutor and defender, and more importantly, the law.
And you cite bigamy as an example. I should re-state here that I do not consider the Bible inerrant, by any means. (I do not believe Yeshua was born in Bethleham, I do believe he was married to Mary Magdelene -- and nowhere in the Bible or in any historical document from that time does it indicate she was a whore, as the Church claimed -- and I can state quite firmly I do not, in any way, believe in virgin birth.) That would go STRONGLY against one of the four primary testimonies of the Religious Society of Friends (the official name for Quakers) -- equality. I don't want to get into this discussion, but if a man can have 2 wives, then it would only be fair for a woman to have 2 husbands (to see how strongly Quakers feel about equality of all people, you can read up on how many Quakers were part of the underground railroad, or look up info on some Quakers, such as Susan B. Anthony).
On a basic level, we live in the US. We choose to live in the US. If we don't like it, we can save our money and move to Iraq (or anywhere else). We also agree, by living here, to abide by the laws of the land.
On most laws, I would feel strongly that someone who is living here is party to an implied contract that they are aware that the consequence of certain acts is a fine or jail time.
On the other hand, there are some laws where I would have a very tough time finding someone guilty. For example, I could never have voted to convict Rosa Parks if the bus were segregated by law.
And, as a side point, we're talking about criminal cases. Oddly enough, the one time (and only time) I was selected to serve, it was a criminal case and when the jury went back to deliberate, we started with a verbal poll. Five people ahead of me all said "innocent." I said guilty, and felt the stares of everyone in the room -- especially the first five. I explained my reasons, and after me the majority of jurors voded "guilty." In the long run, we voted for a conviction. I can't ever be sure, but I feel if I were not in there, and did not have the courage to say what I felt, that this person would have not been convicted.
Every time I have had to go into the court room and been struck has been a civil trial, like a warrant in debt -- which i have no problem with. I've even had to file one against someone once.
You make some good points. It's clear this is something you have thought about or are aware of. Thanks for your comments and thoughts.
Funny thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember: when you go to court, you are trusting your fate to twelve people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!
I'm not so sure ... (Score:4, Insightful)
YMMV, of course -- and perhaps it was just random chance. All I know is that I missed out on 6 more days of CivII. Seriously, I actually enjoyed it -- I wasn't serving with the brightest bulbs in the in the county, and the case wasn't terribly difficult (had one guy that as soon as the door was closed said, "Ok, he's guilty - where's the forms").
Nowadays, with jury duty being 1 day/1 trial, there's really no excuse for folks not to serve. I know it's cliched and everything, but if I was on trial for something, I'd feel better knowing that there were slashdot folks on the jury, as opposed to 12 Angry Postal Workers.
Ok, maybe not.
Re:/. Jururs (Score:2)
Not just for computer people (Score:4, Interesting)
I work for a small engineering company, and I always wondered why people there would say in our weekly meetings "I've got jury duty, should be back before lunch." Turns out that most of the technical people there have had the same experience: when the lawyers find out what you do/what you're trained for, you're booted and fast.
I've been told it's because technical people think logically and aren't as easily swayed by the lawyers, who often rely on surging emotions to win their case. But I think too it's because of our natures: as a juror you're not supposed to do any external research on your own. But suppose it's a case about a collapsed bridge and you're a civil engineer on the jury. Are you going to be able to resist? Or for those of us with some background in physics, if you were on a jury for a traffic accident, could you resist pulling out the ol' conservation of momentum, 2D mechanics, etc.? Maybe we're just harder to control.
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:3)
The reason that lawyers don't like 'techies' on juries is that they, as rule, don't have 'tech' backgrounds, and having someone on a jury that does gives them nightmares.
My favorite example is one where a teen was charged with the position of an illegal knife, specifically a butterfly knife. The teen's attorney ask the manger of the store that sold sold him the knife if she would testify on behalf of his client, and she consented.
I'm addicted to Swiss Army Knives, multi-tools and the like, so the store was one of my favorite haunts. I was in the store just after she consented to testify, and she filled me in. As it turns out the portion of the Penal Code the the teen was being charged with was
Section 46.01 (11) "Switchblade knife" means any knife that has a blade that folds, closes, or retracts into the handle or sheath, and that:...
(B) opens or releases a blade from the handle or sheath by the force of gravity or by the application of *centrifugal* force.
You'll note that the term centriFUGAL for is used rather than centriPETAL force.
No doubt that physics type has chuckling now, as centriFUGAL force is not a real force but a pseudo-force. I loaned her three of my physics, and engineering texts with the pertinent sections marked.
When the defense counsel ask her if the knife opened via centriFUGAL force she said no. That caused the prosecutor to *vigorously* object. Which of course gave the defense counsel an opening to introduce the section of the texts that I had loaned her. To say the least the prosecutor had a conniption, and as I understand it made the judge more than a tad unhappy. The prosecutor argued that the the law had really meant centriPETAL which the judge allowed.(Doesn't give one a lot of confidence in judges, does it.)
To conclude: The teen was found guilty, but won on appeal. The appellate court was persuaded that centriPETAL does not have the same meaning as centriFUGAL by the following argument. The latin meaning of PETAL means to seek, where as FUGAL means to flee, thus the former means to seek the center, while the latter means to flee the center. Ergo, the words have diametrical opposite meanings. Example: gravity is a centriPETAL force thus is by definition a *downward* force, lift however is an upward force and thus centriFUGAL. Thus, to allow centriFUGAL to be used in the place of centriPETAL is equivalent to allowing the word UP to be used for DOWN.
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
Pseudo or not, it is still a force. I don't think the law should be changed, and I don't think your interpretation is correct.
You are right of course that centrifugal and centripetal are opposites, but I disagree that the law had really meant centripetal. A knife can not open due to centripetal force, only due to a lack of centripetal force; which is equivalent to a centrifugal force without a reacting force to stop the blade from opening.
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
Mechanics by Keith Symon
Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems
by Jerry B. Marion, Stephen T. Thornton
The Fourth edition I believe covers this material on pages 385-387
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
-- http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/
We're talking classical mechanics here *not* relativistic mechanics.
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
Still, your claim (as I read it) that the word 'centrifugal' in the text of the law should be simply substituted with 'centripetal' is not correct. The blade doesn't open because of the centripetal force; it opens because it would need a centripetal force to stay closed, and there is no centripetal force, or it is not big enough.
Also, you say "We're talking classical mechanics here *not* relativistic mechanics." Does the law specify that?
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
I've no idea of what level of physics courses that you've taken. I hold a M.Sc. in Physics, and am currently serving as Adjunct Professor of Physics at a small college in Texas. The books that I referred you to in a previous post are upper division (Jr./Sr.) level texts for physics majors. Both are considered classics for advanced undergraduate mechanics courses. Many of the lower level texts do not go into *any* detail with regard to nature of fictitious forces / pseudo-forces. This is a falling on the part of the authors of such texts. The better text will touch briefly on the fact that centrifugal forces are fictitious and give an elementary treatment of the nature of real forces vs. fictitious forces. Still one does not get to the meat of the matter till an advanced undergraduate analytic mechanics course.
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
That interpretation of "centrifugal" is a great example of using words to obscure meaning. You know, the lawyer knows, the defendant knows, and the judge knows that what was meant in the statute was "when something comes spinning out from the center of a rotating object." It's the normal everyday English meaning of the word even if it's not 100% scientifically precise in that sense.
Come on. By your reasoning a statute that refers to a "line" such as a property line can't be enforced because a "line" in mathematics is infinitely narrow and has no endpoints and there are so such lines on property records. That's a crazy interpretation that has nothing to do with what the law is supposed to mean or do.
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
Heehee, perhaps Spock's little rant is one of the reasons physicists don't get picked for juries more often.
Actually, one of the judge's duties is to interpret the law. The law could be as broad as applying to all knives, could describe particular characteristics of some knives, or specify the exact make and model of knife this person was caught with.
Such interpretations consider not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit and intentions of the legislature. In this case the judge felt the law was intended to restrict possession of the knife in question. This interpretation is a matter of law which may be basis for an appeal. Sounds like the system worked in this case. (Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in physicists trying to be lawyers.)
There is also an issue of information which has not been presented as evidence and examined by both the prosecutor and defense entering into the jury deliberations. What if Spock was on the jury in the case he discusses and during deliberations he tells the other jurors he knows the knife in question releases on the application of centripetal force, not centrifugal force as specified in the law. Well, then Spock would be offering testimony, possibly poisoning the jury, and certainly causing grounds for appeal, if not a mistrial. If the judge instructs the jury centripetal force and centrifugal force have the same meaning and effect in regards to the law (which is not the same as in regards to physics) then the jury should consider those terms interchangeable. If this is indeed the case is an issue to be decided by the trial and appellate judges.
To conclude, in this case the lawyers and judges did their jobs, the system worked, and if lawyers agree to not play physicist, will the physicists agree to not play lawyer? Though Spock may want to start offering his services as an expert witness. I can hear old man Weatherby now, "I would of gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that damn meddling physicist."
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
True enough, but it is the jury's duty to determine issues of *fact*. Thus, it is a juror may find that the facts in the afore mentioned case does not support a verdict of guilty.
"There is also an issue of information which has not been presented as evidence and examined by both the prosecutor and defense entering into the jury deliberations."
Facts which are considered to be with in the realm of 'common knowledge' do not have to be presented as evidence during the trial. A fact which a juror has, or may have retained from a normal public school education is considered to be within that realm. In other words if a fact is presented to students in a high school physics class as a matter of course then that fact may not be considered to be special knowledge. Indeed, a fact that is presented as a part of a general undergraduate physics course is highly likely to be ruled to be a matter of common knowledge. What is considered to be common knowledge is not a set of facts that the majority of the populous retains in their memories, but rather a fact of common knowledge is considered to be a fact that a member of the general public has a reasonable chance of encountering during his/her life. The likelihood off the retention of that fact is not at issue.
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
As you might imagine, this can sometimes cause problems. But yeah, as a lawyer it would be very hard to restrain myself, but I would avoid it. If I stumbled across anything significant, or knew something indepedently, however, I would report it to the judge -- if they want to toss me, they can and still get a verdict, provided I don't contaminate the others. Some places also have liberal policies allowing jurors to send out questions.
But engineers and lawyers alike do sometimes serve -- it's not bulletproof.
Re:Not just for computer people (Score:2)
This is the scariest thing I've heard in a long time. If I ever get called, I'm gonna do all sorts of research, and to hell with anyone if they think I'm 'biasing' myself. If I'm a juror, I've got a duty to Justice, not to the judge, and not to the lawyers. That means getting informed about everything I can, including to the laws actually on the books, not just the law 'as explained to you by the bench'. It is the duty of the judge to present the evidence of the case fairly to the jury, but I'll be damned if I let anyone else interpret the law for me -- that's my job. And if I think, under my own interpretation, that the law is unfair, I'll invoke my rights [fija.org] and acquit.
Here's a quote, in case you find my opinion misguided:
Of course, expressing knowledge about my basic rights and responsibilities as a juror will probably get me thrown out. I've only served once, and the case was settled after I was chosen to serve, so I never got to give the lawyers the bad news that they'd have to send me home.Bah - anybody that can't get out of jury duty... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I suggest Juniors and Seniors in college, preferably during the off season (summer, xmas break...) They are smart(er), better read, up on current events, fair(er), and as of yet do not owe anybody anything so they do not have political burdens or obligations. Nobody is as smart as a college Junior or Senior, just ask them and they will assure you of that.
As for me, I have a bunch of cards that generally get pulled. The 'unjustly busted for speeding when I wasn't by the evil highway patrolman' card comes out early, the 'race' card comes out after that, the 'eager to be a juror because I can spot a guilty man a mile away' card after that, followed by the 'of course he is guilty
Just say you believe in Jury Nullification (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/
and for most of us, it's true...(unless you believe that Law always equals Justice and the movites of superiors should NEVER be questioned..)
basically, you're saying if you believe a law is BS, you have the right to acquit the defendant even if legally, the crime was committed...a good example would acquiting a guy who smoked pot because you believe the war on drugs is BS persecution.
sometimes it goes the wrong way (good ol' boys who are acquited in the south of lynchings...) - but it is a right of the founding fathers...
Lawyers HATE these guys, and in fact, if you believe in this and don't declare it...they can hit you for contempt of court...
But I've contempt of our court system for a while now...
RB
Re:Just say you believe in Jury Nullification (Score:2)
Defendants are allowed to mention jury nullification, though, and often do so in cases involving stupid laws (drug possession, etc.). Lawyers sometimes get around the ban by arguing that one law violates another law --- for example, they can say that the law against marijuana violates human rights law in cases where people are using it medically. The jury then gets to decide which law is most important.
There was a famous case involving a group of peace protesters who broke into an arms factory and smashed up a fighter jet that the company was about to (legally) sell to a foreign dictator. They were charged with vandalism and found not guilty, because they argued that the planes would be used for murder (a worse crime than vandalism).
Computer Geeks Married to Lawyers (Score:2)
Before my wife passed the Bar, I would get the occasional notification for jury duty. I have not been called once in eight years since she passed the Bar and started practicing law. For those that don't know, lawyers are exempt from jury duty (although their spouses are not)
Back when I did get called for jury duty, I would go show up and answer their questions. Each time, when the selection process was happening, they changed my occupation from "systems admin" or "database admin", or whatever I put down, to "white-collar-worker" and then I would be summarily dismissed -- and, a bit worried about being mugged on my way to my car. Maybe its just Saint Louis, Missouri, but it seemed to me that they wanted uneducated housewives or factory workers.
But, like I said, I don't understand the jury selection process at all. Neither does my wife who practices in federal courts without juries.
Re:Exempt Occupations (Score:2)
Re:Exempt Occupations no longer (Score:2)
You are right that automatic disqualifications vary from place to place.
Lawyers do serve (Score:2)
The magistrate was pretty funny when describing her experience. She said she looked forward to getting some insight, and declined to be foreperson because she wanted to observe. I think it was a medical malpractice case, and she said the jurors started saying something like, well, we don't think the doctor did anything wrong, but we should give the plaintiff some money anyway. She piped up politely that she was pretty sure they had to find negligence first (the verdict form must have indicated this -- do step A then B). Now she's probably looking at juries cockeyed.
That's an example BTW of prohibited jury nullification -- jurors ignoring the rules to do what they want, here probably figuring it was just some insurance company taking the hit. It's ugly.
Re:Lawyers do serve (Score:2)
Re:Lawyers do serve (Score:2)
I think it was that nervous tic of yours.
That you haven't been summoned in over 8 years sounds like blind probability. I haven't been called in 5, though I did get a pre-questionnaire. Do they keep data on you somewhere? Did you move when you got married? Jurisdictions vary in how they stock and purge the juror pool, using voter registration, tax records and the like. Maybe if you call them you can get back in the queue. Of course, they'll also decide you're insane.
Yeah, I got your point about spousal contamination. I don't know jury practice but I do know lawyers worry about the influence of family members. They're looking for some hint of unfavorable bias of prejudice. Although juries have been studied extensively I get the sense a lot of what the lawyers do is superstition. But hey, if your superstitions win cases -- and aren't repugnant to the Constitution -- go for it.
Here [voirdirebase.com] is one discussion of philosophy culled from Google.
*
So how is it being married to a lawyer? Do you think she argues too much? Or do you finds the sprinkles of Latin phrases (res ipsa loquitor!) sexy? My wife seems OK with it, but I do have to remember not to go for broke.
Are you sure that you want to be on a jury? (Score:5, Interesting)
I served on a jury once, and it was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. Although it was interesting to get a glimpse inside the system, it's a very weighty feeling to be responsible for judging someone guilty or innocent and possibly condemn them to prison for life.
They never asked me about my occupation. I just happened to have the second lowest juror number of everyone there, so I was one of the first called up. The way it works where I live is the jurors are called up in order and the defense and prosecution can either accept you for the jury or decline. They keep going until they have 13 people (12 jurors and one alternate). They each have a limited number of declines (maybe five?) so there is an incentive to take the first few people and save the declines for when they really need them.
It was a sad case, involving armed robbery, carjacking, and a poor guy being locked in his own trunk. There was, IMHO, not a lot of direct evidence to tie the defendant to the crime, at least according to my logical geek mind, but enough to convict him according to the law. No one was able to testify that they actually saw the robber's face, just heard his voice. The clincher was when the suspected accomplice testified against the defendant. His testimony was crucial, but he was so reluctant to testify against his friend that he just danced around the questions and only at the end said that the defendant was the guy. There was also some insinuations that he'd only agreed to testify as part of a plea bargain, so his testimony was somewhat suspect.
We found him guilty, but it was a wrenching decision. Props to the judge for being very fair throughout. Afterward, he came to the jury chamber and told us that he thought we made the right decision. He told us that, depending on how he structured the sentence, the guy could go to jail for the rest of his life. While I'm glad that a guilty man will be punished it was very difficult to have it happen through my hands. Someone asked how old the guy was and then, only after the trial was over, the judge was able to tell us that he was only 19. It was like the air went out of the room. 19??? And we'd just played a part in sending him to jail for life. Of course it was his own deeds that he was punished for, but if you take it seriously, it's hard to have the decision rest on your shoulders.
I'm glad that I did my duty and that, for the most part, justice was served. I'm sorry for the victim and his ordeal. But it was a heavy experience and I don't ever want to have to do it again.
My experience with jury duty (Score:5, Funny)
1. Bring a laptop on which you can do work. If your job cannot be done on a laptop with no network connection then you are screwed and should take the alternate approach, finding excuses to get out of jury duty.
2. Find the outlet in the jury pool room, and sit next to it. Arrive early if you have to. Your laptop battery will not keep you going long enough, so you must plan to run on AC power. If there is only one outlet, you must not let anyone else sit next to it. To avoid problems, you may want to arrive early or bring an extension cord.
3. Pretend to be an idiot during voir dire. This is crucial. Courts take a dim view of software development work in the jury box. The place you want to spend your time is the jury pool room, not the courtroom. It's easy to minimize the time you spend in the courtroom. During the voir dire process, be sure to express at least one of the following opinions whenever any question is asked of you:
You may still get picked for a jury despite your best efforts. If this happens to you, make sure you have something dry and technical to read, like a printout of some API documentation. (Don't bring anything more interesting along or you'll end up reading that instead.) Most judges don't care if you catch up on your reading during the procedural lulls that consume most of the court's time, when your attention isn't needed. People read romance novels on juries all the time. But I think an open laptop would be pushing it.
4. Don't make any friends. Remember, you're going to jury duty to get lots of work done, not to socialize! The reason jury duty is great is that it forces you to work because there's nothing else to do and no one interesting to talk to! No meetings, phone calls, emails, or Slashdot. You have to take advantage of this valuable time. If you make friends in the jury pool room, you defeat the entire purpose of not trying to get out of jury duty!
Seriously, I got called for jury duty and I got an amazing amount of work done that week. It was unpleasant and uncomfortable as hell while I was there, but afterwards it was definitely worth it.
Re:My experience with jury duty (Score:2)
Re:My experience with jury duty (Score:2)
I hope I'm never charged with a crime. My future would be decided by people who can entertain themselves for days with crossword puzzles and word searches. Makes a shiver go up your spine, doesn't it?
is this a bad thing? :) (Score:2)
not really (Score:2)
Several hundred people were called for this one trial alone, but it takes that many to get a jury of 12 people plus 12 alternates. Some are eliminated because they've heard too much news about the case. Some because of their feelings about the laws concerning the case (e.g., the death penalty). Some because they have family in law enforcement. Some because lost work time would be a financial hardship. Some for health reasons. We filled out a lengthy questionnaire, and many people were doubtless automatically eliminated because of answers to various questions.
But eliminated because they're a techie? I don't think so. Several years ago a co-worker (one of the seniormost programmers) was called for a kidnap and rape case, and ended up serving on the jury. He ended up being jury foreman as well. He said at the time that many of the jurors selected were older, retired folks.
Maybe I'm strange... (Score:2)
Really, if I were called for jury duty, I'd be chuffed to have the opportunity to involve myself with the legal system in this way. As long as I don't stand to lose millions of dollars or my life, I'd certainly not make any excuses.
Bring it on. I'm just waiting for the opportunity...
Re:Maybe I'm strange... (Score:2)
and that's why you'll never be picked.
Re:Maybe I'm strange... (Score:2)
Like being in the army, it's a good thing only after it's long over. Being in it sucks and you spend most of your time wanting to be out. On the other hand, even the OJ jury didn't have to put in their full 20 years- why couldn't I have done jury duty instead?
I got picked--and hung the jury (Score:5, Interesting)
In California, at least, this is further confused by the jury instructions we were given. In california, circumstantial evidence is allowed, and the jury instructions state something like "if there are two explanations, and one is reasonable and one is not, you must accept the reasonable explanation." But what it doesn't say is that the evidence must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the reasonable scenario actually happened. The other jurors took this to mean that if they felt the prosection's story was more reasonable than the defendent's story, then they could convict him. We finally got an opportunity to get the judge to clarify these instructions and explain that any decision must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence, but by then the others had already made up their mind.
All in all, it was a very disturbing experience. All I can say is that if I'm ever accused of a crime, I pray that there is a programmer on my jury!
Re:I got picked--and hung the jury (Score:2)
It's about a jury that goes through the exact same thing. It's kind of shocking how it concludes and really makes you think.
The jury system isn't there for jurors (Score:4, Interesting)
Juries protect the rights of people who are accused of crimes, and they protect injured people from insurance companies that won't pay claims (the defendant in any given civil case is nearly always an insurance company). Today's Bushie-Republican judges almost always rule in favor of the rich and powerful, and against the poor and weak, no matter what the merits of the case. Someday you or someone you love might actually benefit from having 12 ordinary people in the box!
Yes, computer professionals are thought of as unfeeling and/or unable to assign a dollar value to things that can't be objectively quantified, say, "pain and suffering" damages in civil injury cases. The more I read Slashdot, the more I am convinced that this stereotype is TOTALLY, 100% VALID.
Yes, the system was designed in an age long ago when jurors' time was less valuable than today; and there are many rules that don't make sense, even to many lawyers. The only consolation I can offer is that most of the rules are there for a reason, lawyers are not exempt from jury duty (at least not in California), and you are performing a valuable public service that you would really appreciate if you were in the other guy's shoes.
IAAL, and I get bounced out of the blue chairs even quicker than you do.
Re:The jury system isn't there for jurors (Score:2)
I guess you have NOT been following the fact that the Senate (democrat) didn't approve any of Bush's judges - you can't blame it on him
Re:the Microsoft case contradicts you (Score:2)
Reading material (Score:2)
I checked out Reading People:How to Understand People and Predict Their Behavior-Anytime, Anyplace [amazon.com] from my local library, and I STRONGLY recomend everyone who is interested in this story do so. The author is a professional jury selecter (She help selecte the Jury for the O.J. Simpson case), and her insites will help you understand what is going on.
Note: I found myself wanting to throw this book against the wall several times, Arguing out loud with it, and other behavior only reserved for things that are really wrong. In other words I don't recomend this as a way to learn to read people (not that I claim to know anything about reading people), so much as a way to understand lawyers. Not that I disagree with it so much as I find it horiable that people are choosen/rejected for the reasons stated. Often what she would call a definate no for a jury is someone I would want!
Ps: that link is to amazon.com, because it was the first I found. I know there are better companys to order from.
They want idiots (Score:2)
My grandpa recalls two cases. One he was selected for, and he stood up the first day of the trial and said "Your honor, it is true that I don't know the defendant, but I know three other people he has beat up". The lawyers couldn't get him out of there fast enough after that. (and because he knew those people he shouldn't have been selected anyway) However the other jurers would have no opportunity to know that this is not a one time incident, something he felt was important to suggest.
Another time a friend was on a big murder case, and they described cutting open the defendants coat and finding some metal, and that was the critical evidence that allowed them to convict him. Only afterwords was it pointed out that the coat had been to the FBI experts, and the odds of them not finding such critical evidence is low. However after the FBI was done with it other people (prosicution...) had opportunity to plant evidence. (Typically the jury isn't allowed to handle evidence, this was an exception that we don't understand)
In other words, the lawyers from both sides have it in their best interest to not have thinkers finding holes in their arguments. Normally the prosicution has things in order in criminal cases, and guilty is fairly likely (why waste your time with a trial if you are not 100% sure he is guilty. however sometimes they are wrong.)
Your Time Will Come (Score:3, Interesting)
I was a math student (ABD) and turned computer programmer in the financial industry - pretty geeky credentials. A year and a half ago I was interviewed for the jury on a securities fraud case. I thought for sure I'd be rejected when they found out my line of work, but that didn't seem to faze the lawyers.
In fact I was selected, and it turned out that the government used as evidence my company's data and graphs of stock prices of some of the securities in question. I found this somewhat surprising because I had told them that I work on the code that displays those types of graphs. All they asked me about that in the interview was whether I thought it would interfere with my ability to make a fair decision. I said that no, it wouldn't
On the other hand, some years before, I was rejected from a case when, in the interview, I raised what I thought was something relevant. (Nothing work-related.) A lawyer asked the same question - if I thought my experience would interfere with my ability to make a fair decision. I think that saying "I hope not" was probably what caused them to reject me.
No jury duty for me (Score:2)
I'm a geek, and I've served on a jury (Score:2)
*Commission of a felony which resulted in a death. You and your roommate hold up a drugstore; your partner shoots the clerk. Both of you are accused of armed robbery. In addition, you'd be charged with felony murder, and he faces more serious charges of homicide or first degree murder. If no shots were fired, but the clerk had a heart attack and died during the robbery, you'd both faced with charges of felony murder in addition to armed robbery. Your milage may vary in other states. This does not consitute legal advice. IANAL. HAND.
My second time, I came close to being seated on a (six week!) medical malpractice case. No one cared that I programmed computers. The plantiff's lawyer didn't like that a close friend of mine was a family practitioner fighting a malpractice case.
My third time in the jury pool
As an external observation... (Score:2, Insightful)
As life is so wont to imitate art these (heavily media-laden and influential) days, I'm going to assume there's at least SOME truth in what we see in shows like "The Practice", "L.A. Law" or (oh sweet Mercy, save us) "Ally McBeal" (at least in legal procedures, if nothing else. I may live half a world away, but the culture is saturated in the media). Or even, for just a moment, "Rumpole Of The Bailey" (if anybody remembers the late and lamented Leo McKern).
Lawyers are sometimes portrayed as clever private detectives, uncovering that vital piece of evidence or small niggling fact that everybody else missed. Makes for good TV, don't it?
However, lawyers are also very frequently portrayed as amazing PR flacks, coaching the client and witnesses to present the best image possible with rehearsed statements and body cues... n'est pas?
To whom would it be more advantageous to show a carefully crafted image - someone trained in analysis and problem solving, or somebody fed a lifelong psychologically crafted stream of media memes? Which group would experience the maximum effect?
Of course, the world could never be so cynical. With businesses and lawyers in the corporate world, image is never as important as cold, hard reality, surely...
When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law AND the facts are against you, make sure you're photogenic... or at least know the best buyer for the rights to the story.
Re:As an external observation... (Score:2)
You are not watching the amazingly dry process of law grind its way through people's lives. I'm not sure what your point was, and thus, my only point was a corrective measure. Please, don't confuse the output of Hollywood with reality in the U.S.
Re:As an external observation... (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you're a troll, but hey, I'll bite. Quit repeating yourself. If you have trouble distinguishing "reality" shows from reality, you need some fucking help. Believe it or not, what happens on TV is NOT REAL. Sorry. BTW...no such thing as Santa Claus either, even if CNN is tracking the sleigh as it makes its path.
Observers can note all they want about what sounds like what. A metaphor is not a proof, and the media is a sponge. You don't live in the U.S. This is a good thing, because it gives you an out for your inane comments-you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Don't worry. I won't tell you to step out of your delusions regarding the output of Hollywood. Frankly, I don't believe it would do a whole lot of good, since you've made up your mind based on the manufactured experience given to you by a medium aimed at the dummies of the world.
I bet you even think you're insightful. To me, you sound like an average joe pothead who never picked up a book, watched way too much fucking television, and decided the world was too easy for a mind like your's. Then again, I have to alter this...maybe in your country, you ARE bright. What's that? I shouldn't generalize based on what country you came from? I shouldn't be a moronic bigot? I shouldn't take my ignorance and cover it up with guesses? Well, I guess you might have a point. I bet if we try hard enough, we could all learn something.
Re:As an external observation... (Score:2)
I live in the U.S. I understand to a painful degree the warts of my society. I understand the numbing shallowness of most days here. I don't pretend to know anything about the societies outside mine based on their media coverage. Why? Because I can see how the media coverage in my country is skewed from reality. Why would I naively presume that the media in other countries is more objective and, more importantly, complete? Believe it or not, most everyone I live around and with laugh at the reality shows. We know they are crap. We know that most movies that come out are crap. We know that this is a byproduct of our society. On a daily level, me, the hundreds(maybe thousands...not doing a count right now) of people I know, and the thousands of people that we've dealt with indirectly but sufficiently rule out Hollywood as having any idea of what life is like outside of a very, very small bubble.
Bush sounded like a television show because he was using hyperbole. Bin Laden seems to have some(mind you only some) idea of how to manipulate the media. Those dorks you see on the NBC Today Show with their "Hi Mom!" signs are for the most part just having fun. They know they're behaving like dorks, aping it up for the camera. The problem with your sample data is that it is sourced in the media. You don't having anything outside of the media, so OF COURSE its going to seem like "The American public - not to mention the entire world - is reared on the memetic teat of Hollywood." The media and hollywood(barely separable, I know) are narcissistic. The only reason it seems the U.S. public is voyeuristic is the people who pretend to show you what it is like here primarily focus on themselves. Ever notice how many movies are made about directors, actors, producers, and news people? Ever notice how well they are received in the reviews? Don't even get me started on the circle-jerk award ceremonies, or the TV shows about TV stars. Most people here do not care, have never cared, and will never care about what some dipshit in Hollywood does with his spare time. If you watch a lot of U.S. news broadcasts...have you ever noticed how much news is about the news? I hardly ever watch the news anymore. It's five minutes of news wrapped up in 25 minutes of commercials, highlights of what's to come next in the news, flashing images of the people who deign to bring us said news, and flashy graphics about the news we're about to be provided. That's on a local level! On a national level, the "news" is almost always a day or two behind the net. If I want to know about something, I cull it from google news articles, bbc, cnn, reuters, and...well, slashdot. Every so often, I do hear about something here first. Sometimes, its wrapped into a post marked off-topic, or sometimes its linked in someone's sig.
You'll have to explain what you meant by "And you can go tell the Marines too." In case you're wondering, the people who pull the BEST job on guiding the media is our government. Hands down. Play dumb, trump up a red herring, slip nasty procedure/law/decision through on page 20 of the Wall Street Journal, where it will quietly go unread.
Oh...btw. I realized you mistook my comment about your insightfulness out of context. I was jabbing at you for your presumption of knowledge about the U.S. I've posted things marked insightful. Granted, I've been having fun burning some karma...but hey.
Next time, I think I'll just skip on the sarcasm and cut right to it.
- We shouldn't generalize our responses to an individual based on what country in which they live.
- Anyone who thinks we should, is a moronic bigot and is only attempting to cover their ignorance with guesses.
On the one hand, your entire post has been insulting, rude and arrogant not only to myself, but to an entire country. On the other hand, your last five sentences indicate that at the very least, you can parrot common sense. You may want to check your medication levels.No medications here. Just some poorly executed sarcasm.
I got picked... (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the trial was, however, a large waste of time. Had we started at 9am every day, shrunk the 2 hour lunches to 1 hour, cut down on pointless evidence and circular questioning by the attorneys, it would have taken 3 days instead of 5. Had the defendant pled out as he should have based on the evidence at hand, there would have been no trial at all.
Thankfully I still get paid for jury duty, so no big loss, though I did miss out on some training that week. It was interesting nonetheless, but could have been handled more efficiently at times.
Here is one fameous view on how the lawyer see it (Score:2)
A whole bunch of other good, related links can be found here [crf-usa.org].
Fer the love of... (Score:2)
Oh come on, you know fine well what the correct answer is. "Unemployed, and can we hurry this up, I have to get home in time for the rasslin'."
Alternatively, you could lobby your elected representatives to fix the farce of jury selection. What the hell business does paid legal council have dictating who decides the facts of the case? Imagine what sort of legal system we'd have if we allowed politicians to decide what parts of the electorate have their vote counted.
Oh, wait...
I like jury duty (Score:2)
But then I seem in the minority. I also like voting, for example.
Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the key is to have open-minded jurors. And computer geeks who think they know everything (and rarely do, especially about the law) are probably not a good selection.
The law is logical if you've studied it inside and out and know all the reasons behind every little inconsistency. But if you haven't, you can't really make sense of it, so you just have to buy whatever the judge instructs you to.
Misconception.... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US -- juries have slowly been stripped out power by judges and lawyers, but they are the backbone of the system (or should be).
See: http://nowscape.com/fija/fija_us.htm
Juries are a critical piece of the puzzle that makes America work... People need to remember the power they have...
http://nowscape.com/fija/_600wrd.htm
Re:Misconception.... (Score:2)
Re:Misconception.... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which begs the question, what, exactly, is the *point* of the law in the first place? If normal people can't understand it, how can they be expected to follow it? If the law doesn't mean what it looks like it means (requires the judge to interperet it) then why have actual writeen laws in the first place? Why not just have everyone come before a judge once a year and have him decide arbitrarily if you should be a free man or locked up.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
One of the things you are expected to do is seek legal counsel in the appropriate circumstances, like securities and tax law. So you may indeed have to spend some money to do it right, just like you might hire other consultants.
Occasionally ignorance of the law is a defense -- the DMCA oddly enough.
But yes, I agree with you, the rule that everyone is expected to know every law however complex is sometimes asinine. It is largely a rule of practicality, without which people might deliberately avoid learning about the law or lie about what they knew. The number of truly complex laws are few, and the details of the jury instructions may go more to splitting fine hairs and covering the bases to avoid appeal.
One element tempering justice is the prosecutorial discretion not to bring charges, or to plead it out. The prosecutor has a lot of power in our system by controlling what does or does not see a courtroom. For civil cases, you have to take responsibility for injuries you inflict -- good precautions and good insurance are good ideas.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Occasionally ignorance of the law is a defense -- the DMCA oddly enough.
Only to the criminal parts of the DMCA, and it's not really that odd. Any law is going to have a certain level of mens rea [cornell.edu] required, and because the DMCA is inherently a law invented by congress (and not a common sense rule such as murder laws), the level required is quite high.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
No, the DMCA is quite unusual for having a willfulness element [politechbot.com], which goes to the defendant's knowledge of the law rather than guilty conduct.
That's really not that unusual for the type of criminal law the DMCA covers. Criminal copyright infringement [cornell.edu] also must be done "willfully." Also, it's arguable whether or not the willfulness element really means knowledge of the law itself. That's just one judges interpretation at the moment.
I agree that Staples is not directly relevant.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
How would you propose to fix it?
The law is complicated because life is complicated.
Re:huh? (Score:4, Informative)
My father was called for jury duty frequently, but never sat on a jury in over 30 years. He was an accountant and an engineer by training, so defense attorneys did not want him in criminal cases because he had been trained to think in terms of the facts. He worked for an insurance company, so plaintiffs' attorneys did not want him in civil cases because there was usually an insurance angle to where the money would come from.
Re:I've heard the same thing, but I had to serve (Score:2)
So were you?
bottom of the 9th (Score:2)
IANAL, however I do like reading decisions from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Why that particular circuit -- aside from you probably live in it? (For the uninitiated, the system [emory.edu] has 11 numbered circuits plus the DC circuit and the federal circuit. The armed services have their own appeals court.)
The 9th is unique, covering -- well, as their site says: "The Ninth Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits and includes all federal courts in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands." That must be about 50 million people?
Maybe because it is so large the 9th is known for internal divisions that can lead to some chaotic and even contradictory precedent. I worked as a staff attorney in another circuit and the informal rule was never to cite to the 9th unless distancing ourselves from it. I know that sounds very parochial, but there has been criticism from other quarters as you likely know.
It's past time to break the 9th up into two or three circuits similar to the others -- it's literally that big! This would hopefully improve the administration of justice, but when and how this will happen I don't know. The circuit itself says everything is fine as it is [uscourts.gov]. The current situation places an unnecessary strain on the people in the circuit, and it must be quite expensive on those occasions all the judges must meet in one place. Aside from those meetings, some judges of the circuit rarely see and faintly know other judges. In other circuits, the court hears all its cases in one or maybe two locations, which does help generate some collegiality.
Whatever. I think it's cool an IANAL is reading and enjoying the decisions.
Re:bottom of the 9th (Score:2)
And the stereotypes I'm more familiar with are that the Fourth is conservative (maybe that's what you mean by Neanderthal -- but less so than the "hang 'em high" Fifth); the DC tends to be political; and the 9th is unreliable. But these are just stereotypes. Because a given case is decided by 3 of 10-40 (or so) judges, the panel may be composed of more or less creative/ethical/intelligent/liberal judges. So there can be some surprises.
The Second is often called the most intellectual "mother circuit"; the Seventh is known for its intellect and Chicago School judges; and I can't think of any more profiles....
I wasn't kidding however about being forbidden from citing the 9th in my circuit; and if it comes to that something is terribly wrong. This says nothing of the skill or ability of the 9th Circuit, but instead the unworkability of such a populous and physically sprawling circuit. They have also had an alarmingly high reversal rate by the Supreme Court, including many unanimous votes and barbed commentary by the Justices. This is bad.