Gaming and Jury Duty Discrimination?

[argo]

Then it makes very little sense for "nobody" to want engineers. In the vast majority of jury trials, one side is going to have the advantage of facts and evidence.

Nah, defense attorneys want to tell you how their client is a decent guy who helps his landlady take out the garbage while the prosecution want to tell you that the bad man sitting at the defense table just can't wait to be let off so he can go mug your grandmother. Everybody uses emotional pleas.

Besides, if one side really does have a clear advantage of evidence then the thing will probably be settled before trial anyway.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Wholly incorrect.

Bah. You selectively quoted Wikipedia. From exactly the same article (and quoting authorities substantially more recent than Justice John Jay in 1794 ... ):

"In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." The jury convicted the defendant, and the judge's answer was upheld on appeal.

In 1997, in U.S. v. Thomas, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).

'We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.'

In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving statutory rape led to a new jury instruction that requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law."

I was, however, a little imprecise. Jury nullification, per se, is not illegal. (As Wikipedia says, it is a de facto power (but not a right).) Perjury, however, is, and swearing an oath to make judgments according to the law, AFAIK, is under penalty of perjury.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Everybody uses emotional pleas.

In which case the "analytical" engineer will ignore both sides and focus on the facts and evidence, right?

Besides, if one side really does have a clear advantage of evidence then the thing will probably be settled before trial anyway.

Tell that to O. J., Robert Blake, and Phil Spector ...

The vast majority of cases are settled or plead out before trial. Of those that remain, however, the majority do have an imbalance of facts and evidence, on one side or the other. And that's obviously no guarantee of winning. (But maybe it would be, if juries were more analytical!)

 

[Mark]

Then it makes very little sense for "nobody" to want engineers. In the vast majority of jury trials, one side is going to have the advantage of facts and evidence. (There's even an aphorism on it: "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law.") If engineers are "analytical and pay attention to the evidence," why wouldn't the side with those advantages want engineers?

Unless one side feels they have a lot of evidence but maybe not an air-tight case, thus needing to be able to appeal emotionally while the other side feels they have almost nothing but the emotional appeal. I'd have to imagine that most air-tight cases do not make it to a jury, thus most would rely on some amount of convincing from one side or the other. So, perhaps, both sides would then feel they need people on juries who will at least listen beyond the evidence to emotional appeals.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

... a dress shirt, suit and tie... and a PHB...

So I should show up dressed as myself? Keen! Shall I also brandish my Engineering degree in one hand and wear a button that says "Proud to be an ex-cop and a teacher!"?

-TRRW

 

[Gentlegamer]

Bah. You selectively quoted Wikipedia. From exactly the same article (and quoting authorities substantially more recent than Justice John Jay in 1794 ... ):

I do not question that modern statists seek to discredit the duty of the jury to judge the justice of the act under which prosecution is sought. Attempting to discredit this essential jury power is in line with their goal of subjugating the people to tyranny in the guise of "law." That reinforces why juries must be vigilant to judge the act as well as the defendant.

I'll take my advice on such things from the likes of John Jay and John Adams, as well as our English forebearers over modern statists. Their Ministry of Truth will not disarm the people from protecting their liberty and upholding justice.

I was, however, a little imprecise. Jury nullification, per se, is not illegal. (As Wikipedia says, it is a de facto power (but not a right).) Perjury, however, is, and swearing an oath to make judgments according to the law, AFAIK, is under penalty of perjury.

An unjust act of the legislature is not a law and has no legal or moral force. If the act is not a law, the defendant cannot be guilty of a criminal offense and therefore may go free. There is no contradiction or violation of an oath to uphold the law in this situation. Laws will be upheld; unjust acts of the legislature will have no force to convict the defendant.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I do not question that modern statists seek [...]

Uh ... okay. In other words, you're arguing philosophy. My comment was grounded in modern reality. There's really no conflict.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Unless one side feels they have a lot of evidence but maybe not an air-tight case, [and] would then feel they need people on juries who will at least listen beyond the evidence to emotional appeals.

Sure, maybe that happens. But often enough to explain why "nobody wants engineers"? Doesn't seem likely.

 

[hong]

I do not question that modern statists seek to discredit the duty of the jury to judge the justice of the act under which prosecution is sought. Attempting to discredit this essential jury power is in line with their goal of subjugating the people to tyranny in the guise of "law." That reinforces why juries must be vigilant to judge the act as well as the defendant.

I'll take my advice on such things from the likes of John Jay and John Adams, as well as our English forebearers over modern statists. Their Ministry of Truth will not disarm the people from protecting their liberty and upholding justice.
An unjust act of the legislature is not a law and has no legal or moral force. If the act is not a law, the defendant cannot be guilty of a criminal offense and therefore may go free. There is no contradiction or violation of an oath to uphold the law in this situation. Laws will be upheld; unjust acts of the legislature will have no force to convict the defendant.

 

[Wraith Form]

Now D&D players...well, we're all thought to be anarchical freaks with tenuous grasps on reality.

And devil-worshippers.

Don't forget devil-worshippers.