On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:42:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, the jury in the case of  a jury trial.  Obviously a jury didn't
>> see the facts if the defense opted for a bench trial in the lower
>> court. :-)
> 
> True. I'm not sure how it works in that case.

From my understanding, it works pretty much the same; it's a defense 
tactic (and choice) to opt for a bench trial vs. a jury trial, IMO a 
defendant who is not sympathetic is probably more likely to opt for a 
judge if the impression is that a judge will be able to set aside 
personal feelings better than 12 "peers".

>> Yep - that's what's meant by "reversible error" - it's something the
>> court did wrong procedurally.  That can come down to a dispute over
>> facts of the case, but usually this happens because of a question as to
>> whether evidence should have been admitted or not.
> 
> I've often seen it even for things like "the lady who got burned by hot
> coffee shouldn't get that much compensation", or "you took interest into
> account when you shouldn't have in calculating the fine" or whatever.
> 
> Rare that it goes all the way back to reversing the decision.

Yeah, in the case of Stella (to whom you refer here), the verdict wasn't 
overturned, but the punitive damages awarded by the jury were, as I 
understand it.  That's not a question of changing the verdict, though, 
just the damages - and I was thinking criminal courts, in civil courts 
the procedures are a bit different because the threshold isn't "beyond a 
reasonable doubt", which is why you get things like OJ being acquitted of 
murdering his wife, but being convicted in the wrongful death suit that 
followed.

>> Yeah, but the thing that gets me is the people who seem to wear it as a
>> badge of pride that they got out of it.
> 
> Here, it used to be you sat around for a week waiting to get seated.
> Now, if you don't get a case on the first day, you're done for the year.
> If you get a case, you're done for three years. I think that soothed a
> lot of annoyed people.

That is pretty much the case here as well - they tell you they might call 
you back on the second day (technically, you are supposed to call an 
automated message) but usually if you're not picked on Monday, you won't 
be called up again until your name comes up again.

>> Federal jury duty gets you out of all jury duty for something like 5
>> years, too (longer than the county courts, but I forget the actual
>> amounts of time).
> 
> I would think it depends on the state, really.

I don't think it does, actually - I'll have to ask my wife what she was 
told.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:34:08 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The thing that stuck with me the most was how much respect the court
>> showed the jury - including both the prosecution and defense attorneys.
> 
> *Nobody* wants to piss off the jury. :-)

Very true.  But I found that even after the case was over; the defense 
lawyer came in and talked to us to find out what she could have done 
differently.

We suggested "put your client on the stand rather than trying to imply he 
was covering for his wife or some BS like that", to which she basically 
admitted he was guilty as hell.

> And yeah, I was mostly speaking theory, in terms of juries throwing
> things out.

Yeah, that's what I thought. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:36:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Just to clarify, I think what you're saying here is that the judge can
>> "set aside" a guilty verdict, but not a verdict of "not guilty".
> 
> That is my understanding, yes. Not being a lawyer, ....

Same here, though I do have a fascination with the profession.  If I were 
more motivated, I might have chosen that career.  But there are a couple 
of lawyers in my (not immediate) family - two cousins, actually.

>> IOW, the judge can't unilaterally decide that the jury erred and set a
>> guilty perp free, only that the jury might have convicted someone in
>> spite of the prosecution not actually proving their case.
> 
> Those are saying the same thing?  The judge can certainly say "the
> accused goes free in spite of the evidence."  But that's the sort of
> thing that the appeal (by the prosecution) addresses - the judge's
> misbehavior.

No, actually not the same thing.  As I understand it, a judge can 
determine that even though the jury convicted the defendant the 
prosecution didn't actually make their case and can reverse the verdict.

The judge cannot (again in my understanding) decide that the jury's "not 
guilty" verdict is incorrect and overturn the verdict to "guilty".

I probably phrased it badly the first time around.  Bottom line is the 
judge can only decide that a guilty verdict can be overturned, not a "not 
guilty" verdict.

> If the jury says "there wasn't enough evidence" even if there was, then
> the appeals court can't reverse that, because the appeals court is
> looking at the behavior of the judge and lawyers, not the behavior of
> the jury.

Right.  But if a judge overturns a "guilty" verdict (ie, makes "guilty" 
into "not guilty"), the prosecution can appeal, at least to my 
understanding.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I probably phrased it badly the first time around.  Bottom line is the 
> judge can only decide that a guilty verdict can be overturned, not a "not 
> guilty" verdict.

Right. That just isn't what you *said*. :-)  I think you just got too 
negatives into the sentence. :-)

> Right.  But if a judge overturns a "guilty" verdict (ie, makes "guilty" 
> into "not guilty"), the prosecution can appeal, at least to my 
> understanding.

I would certainly expect so.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:12:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I probably phrased it badly the first time around.  Bottom line is the
>> judge can only decide that a guilty verdict can be overturned, not a
>> "not guilty" verdict.
> 
> Right. That just isn't what you *said*. :-)  I think you just got too
> negatives into the sentence. :-)

Well, I could try to parse it, but I've had a long day trying to fix a 
bunch of contracts that got messed up. :-(

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> From my understanding, it works pretty much the same;

So the facts the trial judge decides are worth aren't overturnable? I guess 
I can see how that works, OK.

>> Rare that it goes all the way back to reversing the decision.
> 
> Yeah, in the case of Stella (to whom you refer here), the verdict wasn't 
> overturned, but the punitive damages awarded by the jury were, as I 
> understand it.  That's not a question of changing the verdict, though, 
> just the damages - and I was thinking criminal courts, in civil courts 
> the procedures are a bit different because the threshold isn't "beyond a 
> reasonable doubt", which is why you get things like OJ being acquitted of 
> murdering his wife, but being convicted in the wrongful death suit that 
> followed.

Right.

> I don't think it does, actually - I'll have to ask my wife what she was 
> told.

Hmmm. OK. Could be. :-)  I would think how soon you can be called back to a 
state trial after doing a federal trial would be up to the states, but maybe 
not.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> We do both. Appeals are a check on misoperation of the legal system.

This is the kind of thing I meant by that, btw:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-drunken-driving-court-0324.artmar24,0,4129048.story

This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?"
Is sitting in your running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:55:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> From my understanding, it works pretty much the same;
> 
> So the facts the trial judge decides are worth aren't overturnable? I
> guess I can see how that works, OK.

Well, appeals aren't based on facts but procedures.  If the judge admits 
evidence that shouldn't be admitted, it'd be the same sort of thing as 
with a jury trial, because it's a reversible error.

>> I don't think it does, actually - I'll have to ask my wife what she was
>> told.
> 
> Hmmm. OK. Could be. :-)  I would think how soon you can be called back
> to a state trial after doing a federal trial would be up to the states,
> but maybe not.

What my wife was told was that she's not eligible to be called for state 
or federal jury duty for 2 years, and she got something to show the state/
county courts that she was called for federal duty.

But I'm not sure (and neither is she) whether that's because Utah has a 2 
year minimum wait between times you're called or if the federal overrides 
the state/county courts.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:12:36 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> We do both. Appeals are a check on misoperation of the legal system.
> 
> This is the kind of thing I meant by that, btw:
> 
> http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-drunken-driving-
court-0324.artmar24,0,4129048.story
> 
> This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?" Is sitting in your
> running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?

Heh, I saw that one come up recently.  Surprising that I'd have been 
guilty of DUI for sitting in the car with the AC blowing to help me 
"sober up" after a good dinner one night, even though I wasn't moving at 
all.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Heh, I saw that one come up recently. 

My brother (a cop) once stopped a guy in a truck for using the commuter 
lane[1] with only one person in the truck. His argument was that since the 
back of the truck held a couple dozen frozen bodies on the way to the 
medical school, he had plenty of people to meet the commuter limit. Judge 
said "We'll let you off this time, but don't do it again." :-)

There was also a case here where a lady got stopped for being alone in the 
commuter lane. She pointed out she's 8 months pregnant, and if she can't 
have an abortion it must be because the "baby" counts.  The judges actually 
agreed with this one. :-)




[1] Special lane on the freeway reserved for cars with multiple people, 
which tends to go faster during rush-hour, because americans are too lazy to 
find neighbors going the same way at the same time to save gas. :-)
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message