On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:00:49 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 25-3-2009 16:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:57:04 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> On 25-3-2009 5:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:40:00 +0100, andrel wrote: I think it's a
>>>> shame people try to get out of jury duty; it's actually quite
>>>> fascinating, at least I think so.
>>> I talked to one that got out of it yesterday. But he knew the system
>>> anyway, having been sued a couple of times for not so good reasons. He
>>> is a medical doctor and the first couple of hits when you google him
>>> are sites that will provide you with his track record both in clinical
>>> practice as well as in the court room for money. I though that is
>>> quite sad. Somehow I expected to find his homepage at his university
>>> and his outstanding scientific contributions first.
>> 
>> Under those circumstances, he'd probably be dismissed by the
>> prosecution in many cases anyways, since the prosecuting side wouldn't
>> want someone who was angry at "the system" and might be inclined to
>> take their anger about the system out against the prosecutors by being
>> excessively lenient on the defendant.  At the very least, there would
>> likely be a few extra questions during voir dire.
> 
> I don't think he is angry with the system, just with the people that
> sued him for no good reason other than that as a medical doctor he is an
> easy victim.

Oh, no, I wasn't saying he was angry with the system, but that he's been 
sued in court is something the prosecution would be likely to play on 
during voir dire in order to disqualify him.  Particularly if the case 
involves medical elements he may be familiar with if the prosecution has 
a weak case.  His medical expertise could also be a liability to the 
prosecution, so add to that that he's been involved in malpractice suits 
and he would be seen as undesirable in some instances.

That also would tend to be an automatic disqualification from any 
malpractice suit he might sit on a jury for, too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message