On 25-3-2009 1:07, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote: 
> BTW, fictional TV shows about court cases are much more exciting than 
> the real thing. :-) Don't judge what happens based on what you see on 
> american TV.

We have them here also dumped on us in large quantities, but I don't 
watch them.

>> But they are not the same organization, at least here (and are 
>> appointed and not elected). But this is indeed the weak point for some 
>> countries.
> 
> You get the facts judged by the judge, yes? And doesn't the government 
> pay the judge?

That's your American background kicking in again ;) You won't believe 
how often the government here will fund two (or more) parties with 
opposite goals, just to get a balance. If e.g. the public TV channels 
would not do its job of criticizing the government enough, I guess they 
would change the law to make sure they do.
It is probably a good way to get a judge angry when you meet him in 
private to suggest that because they are paid by the government that 
they will do what the government wants. Most likely you will get a 
speech on how the politics is failing to make decisions and leaves the 
difficult problems to the judges.

>>> The standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the cop 
>>> says you did it, and you say you didn't, and the cop can show that 
>>> you've lied, 
>>
>> If you lied about something relevant, I agree with you. If it is about 
>> general lying I think I don't agree. That comes very soon too close to 
>> character assassination.
> 
> No. You don't get to go into "general lying" in the courtroom. That's 
> "Objection: relevance."

I am sorry but most of the examples that were used in the video were 
about irrelevant remarks IMO.

> Now, sometimes it happens anyway, of course. Some lady gets raped, and 
> the prosecution asks "what were you wearing at the time?" and tries to 
> make a case that she was "asking for it."  But there are few situations 
> where you can actually support that sort of thing, and of course the 
> defense is going to cut that argument to shreds.
> 
>> I think normally they don't work against the people here, I think. I 
>> don't have much experience but usually they try to find a reason not 
>> to have to intervene.
> 
> That would be cool.

Well, it makes it very hard to get rid of a group of youths that 
continuously make noise in front of your house. Or off that big truck 
that is parked in front of your house for years. Comment of the police 
when we asked them if they could do something about it as the neighbour 
(about 5 house around the corner) refused to place it somewhere else: 
'we know it is illegal, but as long as the council has not appointed a 
place for him to park we won't do anything about it. Anyway I don't 
think it takes up a relevant part of your view on the river from where 
you live and no I am not going inside to see myself.'

>>>> The suggestion in the video is that the police does not need real 
>>>> evidence but can get convictions by twisting someones words into 
>>>> "evidence".
>>>
>>> Admitting you committed the crime is, indeed, evidence. How much they 
>>> have to "twist" the words is something determined by the jury.
>>
>> Who are not professionally trained to weight the evidence.
> 
> This is true. On the other hand, if the evidence isn't valid, the judge 
> doesn't let the jury see it, either. In theory, at least. I think you're 
> underestimating how savvy people are, too.

I just go by the opinion of this law professor and the police officer 
that did the second part of the lecture.

>> possible suspect. He could hear him scream through the walls.
> 
> And again, that's the police and not the courts. 

It was only a (partly unrelated, I knew) story, that is all.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/projects/staple/
> 
>   "Of course, if Alice got a warrant, then she could probably force Bob
> to reveal the contents of the archive."
> 
>   I have always wondered about this. To what extent can authorities,
> legally, pressure a suspect to reveal information that only he knows,
> when this information would prove his guilt?

Under the US Constitution, the answer is quite clearly "never."  A 
defendant in a trial cannot be forced to testify against himself.

A corporation, on the other hand, has fewer rights than a person; a 
corporation's records are subject to subpoena, and records thus obtained 
can be admitted as evidence against the company.

Regards,
John
(who is not a lawyer)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> I thought it was the other way around - that the basis of our legal 
>> system was "Innocent until proven guilty?"
> 
> Sorry. Braino. You're right of course.
> 

Heh, that was a Freudian slip if I ever saw one ...




-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

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.

> Other than that I agree, I think I would have liked to do it if we had
> had a system with juries, which we don't.

Interesting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> You get the facts judged by the judge, yes? And doesn't the government 
>> pay the judge?
> 
> That's your American background kicking in again ;) You won't believe 
> how often the government here will fund two (or more) parties with 
> opposite goals, just to get a balance.

We do here too. The government pays the judge and both the prosecution and 
defense lawyers in many cases.  The government doesn't pay the juries.

If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the legislature, 
they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the accused goes free 
and the jury isn't in any trouble. That's the primary reason for having a 
jury. They, in theory, get to overthrow bad laws by simply refusing to 
convict anyone.

> It is probably a good way to get a judge angry when you meet him in 
> private to suggest that because they are paid by the government that 
> they will do what the government wants.

So, if you accused the judge of upholding the law because that's what he's 
paid for, he'd be upset?  Do you have judges that refuse to enforce certain 
laws because they don't think the laws are good laws?

Incidentally, you *do* understand that every[1] court case gets to be heard 
by a judge only, if the accused wants it that way?  It's a right to have a 
jury,not a requirement.


[1] AFAIK. Maybe stuff like death penalty cases, you *have* to have a jury 
or something, but it's going to be a rare situation.

> Most likely you will get a 
> speech on how the politics is failing to make decisions and leaves the 
> difficult problems to the judges.

Of course they do. We do that here too. The judges don't have to justify 
their decisions to keep their jobs.

> I am sorry but most of the examples that were used in the video were 
> about irrelevant remarks IMO.

I'd probably have to watch the video to continue discussing the specifics.

> Well, it makes it very hard to get rid of a group of youths that 
> continuously make noise in front of your house.

I'd rather have to solve that in a neighborly way than to have the abuse 
going on in the USA right now. :-)  And yes, I have some rather loud neighbors.

The funniest one was when the brother and sister were out on the street 
arguing. Apparently Dad took away Sister's car for getting a ticket, and 
Sister was complaining and Brother was saying it makes sense. The funny 
thing was that I never before realized you could actually composes sentences 
with more than 50% of the words being variations on the word "fuck". It was 
rather amusing to listen to.

A month later, I hear someone walking past in the evening chatting 
pleasantly about the fucking bitch who mouthed off at that cocksucker at 
work who... you get the idea. I look out the window, and it's the parents 
taking their dog for a walk.

> 'we know it is illegal, but as long as the council has not appointed a 
> place for him to park we won't do anything about it. 

I'd think you'd need some civil way (as in, not involving the police) to 
enforce that sort of thing, then.

>> This is true. On the other hand, if the evidence isn't valid, the 
>> judge doesn't let the jury see it, either. In theory, at least. I 
>> think you're underestimating how savvy people are, too.
> 
> I just go by the opinion of this law professor and the police officer 
> that did the second part of the lecture.

You're also reading PC Magazine's comparison of the performance of Windows 
to OSX. They're telling you the horror stories that go wrong and all the 
ways it can get you in trouble. If they stress all the ways it can go wrong, 
then you're in the best possible shape.

>> And again, that's the police and not the courts. 
> It was only a (partly unrelated, I knew) story, that is all.

Understood. :-) The police have been known to be pretty awful here, too.

I'm not sure why they don't just videotape everything that happens. Well, I 
know, I mean, I'm not sure it's a bad idea to require that. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:07:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> We do here too. The government pays the judge and both the prosecution
> and defense lawyers in many cases.  The government doesn't pay the
> juries.

Um, actually (at least here in Utah), they do.  It's something like $20/
day, but the government does pay the jury.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> In the appeals process, bench trials are standard operating 
> procedure, again as I understand it - because the judge is responsible 
> for deciding if the lower court made a reversible error.

Right. In the appeals case, there's no jury, because the jury already saw 
all the facts. The appeal is checking that the legal system did the right 
thing, not arguing that it came to the wrong conclusion.

In other words, if you're guilty and everyone followed the rules, you won't 
correctly go free by appealing the case.

Appeals aren't "I didn't do it."  Appeals are "the judge allowed the wrong 
evidence" or "the judge miscalculated how much I owe" or even "the judge 
shouldn't have been allowed to take the case in the first place."

If the jury believed the prosecution witness and not the defense witness, 
you're not going to get out of that with an appeal.

> But in normal circumstances in the US, the judge interprets the law for 
> the jury, the jury determines the facts, and decides if the facts support 
> the charge based on the law or laws that the defendant is accused of 
> breaking were in fact broken.

And the judge tries to convince the jury to obey the law, and to convict 
even if they think it's a bad law, but there's no actual requirement to do 
so, and indeed the founders of the country explicitly put into their 
writings that the jury was there to keep the new rulers from passing bad laws.

Not that *that* worked out too well... :-)

> The prosecution and the defense put together a packet for the jury, 
> though, that outlines different perspectives on the law.  The packets 
> from both sides are given to the jury to read and often you can't tell 
> which comes from who (they're not identified in my experience).

I didn't get one of those. But then, it was just breaking into a car. A 
pretty straightforward crime.

> I think it's a shame people try to get out of jury duty; it's actually 
> quite fascinating, at least I think so.

It can be annoying for busy people to take three to five days off work 
without pay in order to listen to some low-life who broke into a car trying 
to get out of the punishment. :-)

It might have been more interesting in cases where there was more to it, 
like the one where the father was accused of mishandling the baby, or where 
the sailor was accused of rape (along with "breaking and entering with grave 
bodily harm") six months after the fact because he followed the two ladies 
into their house and was invited to sleep with both of them at once.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> judicial system is a review by a jury of your peers, 

No, it's not. That's England's system.

And "peer" doesn't mean what you think it means there. :-)

Ours is a jury from the same jurisdiction.

> At this point, however, you're leaving it to the courts to ensure that 
> innocent people do not get convicted.  Here, we leave it to the public, 
> in the form of a public jury.

We do both. Appeals are a check on misoperation of the legal system.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Um, actually (at least here in Utah), they do.  It's something like $20/
> day, but the government does pay the jury.

Well, yes, and something like $6 here. For a day. That's not pay, that's 
parking reimbursement. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Also, neither side wants an expert on the jury, as the others might give his 
opinion more weight than their own. If you have a case about someone's 
injuries, you're not going to have a doctor on the jury, because the rest of 
the jury would just defer to the doctor on the opinion of whether (say) the 
defendant was strong enough to cause that kind of injury.

They want you looking at the evidence presented, not the evidence someone 
else learned in school. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Um, actually (at least here in Utah), they do.  It's something like $20/
>> day, but the government does pay the jury.
> 
> Well, yes, and something like $6 here. For a day. That's not pay, that's 
> parking reimbursement. :-)

More specifically, you get paid whether you follow the government's laws or 
not, and you can't get fired from the position for deciding "wrongly".

-- 
   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 25-3-2009 17:07, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

> If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the 
> legislature, they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the 
> accused goes free and the jury isn't in any trouble. That's the primary 
> reason for having a jury. They, in theory, get to overthrow bad laws by 
> simply refusing to convict anyone.

Is that anything more than a theory? Is something being a bad law 
discussed as such within the jury? How many juries refuse to convict 
someone who smoked or sold small quantities of marijuana because that 
would actually increase future crimes in a neighbourhood or some similar 
line of though?
BTW overthrowing bad laws is very difficult here. Judges are not allowed 
to test laws against the constitution. In the end they often find a more 
subtle way.

>> It is probably a good way to get a judge angry when you meet him in 
>> private to suggest that because they are paid by the government that 
>> they will do what the government wants.
> 
> So, if you accused the judge of upholding the law because that's what 
> he's paid for, he'd be upset? 

I was more thinking of convicting based on weak evidence or sentencing 
harder because the politicians demand a firmer stand.

> Do you have judges that refuse to enforce 
> certain laws because they don't think the laws are good laws?

No, they can't. At least not individually. It should not matter if you 
get judge A or judge B. If two judges or groups of judges in different 
parts of the country differ to much, that is a reason for an investigation.

> Incidentally, you *do* understand that every[1] court case gets to be 
> heard by a judge only, if the accused wants it that way?  It's a right 
> to have a jury,not a requirement.

yes.

> [1] AFAIK. Maybe stuff like death penalty cases, you *have* to have a 
> jury or something, but it's going to be a rare situation.
> 
>> Most likely you will get a speech on how the politics is failing to 
>> make decisions and leaves the difficult problems to the judges.
> 
> Of course they do. We do that here too. The judges don't have to justify 
> their decisions to keep their jobs.

I though that also judges were elected or am I mistaken?

>> Well, it makes it very hard to get rid of a group of youths that 
>> continuously make noise in front of your house.
> 
> I'd rather have to solve that in a neighborly way than to have the abuse 
> going on in the USA right now. :-)  And yes, I have some rather loud 
> neighbors.

They were not from this neighbourhood, just hanging around here. We 
tried the neighbourly way. Which did not work and only resulted in some 
mild vandalism on properties of those complaining. So we asked the 
police to have a chat with them. Which they didn't for some months and 
then did it in a friendly way. At first refusing to talk to the 
neighbours that were complaining and then by e.g asking our 90+yo 
neighbour if she had problems with this group when a couple of them were 
standing by and listening. So the police could safely report back that 
there was actually no problem.

> The funniest one was when the brother and sister were out on the street 
> arguing. Apparently Dad took away Sister's car for getting a ticket, and 
> Sister was complaining and Brother was saying it makes sense. The funny 
> thing was that I never before realized you could actually composes 
> sentences with more than 50% of the words being variations on the word 
> "fuck". It was rather amusing to listen to.
> 
> A month later, I hear someone walking past in the evening chatting 
> pleasantly about the fucking bitch who mouthed off at that cocksucker at 
> work who... you get the idea. I look out the window, and it's the 
> parents taking their dog for a walk.

At least you now knew where they learned to talk like that.

>> 'we know it is illegal, but as long as the council has not appointed a 
>> place for him to park we won't do anything about it. 
> 
> I'd think you'd need some civil way (as in, not involving the police) to 
> enforce that sort of thing, then.

Our police is very civil. It is the normal next step to prevent 
something like this to escalate.

>>> And again, that's the police and not the courts. 
>> It was only a (partly unrelated, I knew) story, that is all.
> 
> Understood. :-) The police have been known to be pretty awful here, too.
> 
> I'm not sure why they don't just videotape everything that happens. 
> Well, I know, I mean, I'm not sure it's a bad idea to require that. :-)

And you get a number of funny programs of everything that went wrong as 
a bonus. It might even make a small profit for the police departments if 
they sell it at the right prize.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the legislature, 
> they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the accused goes free 
> and the jury isn't in any trouble.

  Isn't that a case of mistrial? Is the procedure in case of mistrial
really letting the accused go free, rather than setting up a new trial?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Is that anything more than a theory? Is something being a bad law 
> discussed as such within the jury?

Yes. Not often, mind. Mostly drug stuff, or things like interracial marriage 
being illegal. There was probably more of it back in the early days, or 
during times of great upheaval and unpopular laws.

> BTW overthrowing bad laws is very difficult here. Judges are not allowed 
> to test laws against the constitution. In the end they often find a more 
> subtle way.

Yeah. There's nothing in our constitution that says the judges can declare 
something unconstitutional either. On the other hand, it's those judges 
making the decision, too. :-)

>>> It is probably a good way to get a judge angry when you meet him in 
>>> private to suggest that because they are paid by the government that 
>>> they will do what the government wants.
>>
>> So, if you accused the judge of upholding the law because that's what 
>> he's paid for, he'd be upset? 
> 
> I was more thinking of convicting based on weak evidence or sentencing 
> harder because the politicians demand a firmer stand.

Yeah. That's something you don't have to worry about with a jury.

>> Do you have judges that refuse to enforce certain laws because they 
>> don't think the laws are good laws?
> 
> No, they can't. At least not individually.

That's one of the reasons we have juries here. Not that it always works, but 
if you look at the writings of the people writing the constitution, they put 
juries on the list as a balance against the government's power to convict 
people based on bad laws.

> It should not matter if you 
> get judge A or judge B. If two judges or groups of judges in different 
> parts of the country differ to much, that is a reason for an investigation.

Same here.  If two peer judges disagree about how a law should be enforced, 
it gets bumped up to the next level. That's where you see things about "the 
ninth federal circuit passing cases to the supreme court" kind of thing.

>> Of course they do. We do that here too. The judges don't have to 
>> justify their decisions to keep their jobs.
> 
> I though that also judges were elected or am I mistaken?

Some are, some aren't. The federal supreme court judges are appointed for 
life by the president of the USA. State judges are all over. Usually trial 
judges are just hired by the appropriate part of the government, I think. 
It's only the judges that make binding precidents that get elected, if at 
all.  (For example, I voted for one judge in the last election here, so some 
get elected, but clearly not all.)

Note that laws don't change meaning here unless an appeal is filed.  If you 
get off for crime X in the first trial, it means nothing for me going into a 
trial for the same crime. But if you appeal something, and the appeal judge 
makes a decision, every trial judge that appeals to the same judge is 
supposed to follow that same decisions. That's the precident. Which I'm 
spelling wrong. :-)

> So the police could safely report back that 
> there was actually no problem.

I'd *still* rather have that than having the chief of police say "Oh, we 
stop and question all black teenagers we see, because we want them to be 
afraid of us." :-)

> At least you now knew where they learned to talk like that.

Exactly. It was the whole casualness of the stream of cusswords that was 
amusing. Not that it bothers me in the least, but it was amusing.

>>> 'we know it is illegal, but as long as the council has not appointed 
>>> a place for him to park we won't do anything about it. 
>>
>> I'd think you'd need some civil way (as in, not involving the police) 
>> to enforce that sort of thing, then.
> 
> Our police is very civil. It is the normal next step to prevent 
> something like this to escalate.

Sorry. The word "civil" in legal situations here doesn't mean "nice", it 
means "person to person."  So if the police arrest you, it's "criminal." If 
you sue someone for slander, it's "civil".

> And you get a number of funny programs of everything that went wrong as 
> a bonus. It might even make a small profit for the police departments if 
> they sell it at the right prize.

Heh!

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the legislature, 
>> they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the accused goes free 
>> and the jury isn't in any trouble.
> 
>   Isn't that a case of mistrial? Is the procedure in case of mistrial
> really letting the accused go free, rather than setting up a new trial?

You mean if the jury doesn't follow the laws? Well, there's two.

If you mean "the jury talks to someone they shouldn't" or "the jury is 
bribed to vote one way or the other", yes, that's a mistrial.

What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain laws that 
are valid laws, because the jury disagrees.  Like, in the days when the USA 
still had slavery, the law was that a slave who escaped and went to an area 
where there wasn't slavery still had to be sent back if he got caught. Many 
juries refused to enforce this law, since they saw slavery as immoral even 
if legal.

I could also see if (say) abortion were made unconditionally illegal and the 
punishment was 20 years in jail for the mother, I could easily see juries 
simply saying "Nope, the mother is innocent" even if every piece of evidence 
including videotapes and confessions by the doctors was presented, yes?

For that, you can't punish the jury. I meant by "the jury not following the 
laws", I meant the laws that say "you should convict someone if the evidence 
is overwhelming."

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain laws that 
> are valid laws, because the jury disagrees.

  Can't the judge overrule the jury's veredict in some cases? Or is this
just Hollywood mythology?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain laws that 
>> are valid laws, because the jury disagrees.
> 
>   Can't the judge overrule the jury's veredict in some cases? Or is this
> just Hollywood mythology?

Only for innocence, not for guilt.

I.e., the jury can come back and say "he's guilty", and the judge can say 
"since no evidence was supplied at all, *I* say he's innocent."

But if the jury says "innocent", that's it, you're done. *And* they don't 
get to try again.  (Appeals by prosecution notwithstanding.)

In theory, once the first witness is called and asked a question, the trial 
has begun and if that jury says you're innocent, you're finished.

In practice, there are multiple jurisdictions with the same laws (so you 
might get tried for both state drug laws and federal drug laws for the same 
bag of drugs), and an appeal can drag out the process, and a mistrial can 
start it over. Stuff like mistrials are rare enough to make the news, tho.

-- 
   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 09:26:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Also, neither side wants an expert on the jury, as the others might give
> his opinion more weight than their own. If you have a case about
> someone's injuries, you're not going to have a doctor on the jury,
> because the rest of the jury would just defer to the doctor on the
> opinion of whether (say) the defendant was strong enough to cause that
> kind of injury.
> 
> They want you looking at the evidence presented, not the evidence
> someone else learned in school. :-)

Yep, that's certainly true, too.

It can be risky to play the odds if the jury has an expert on it; if you 
(as the prosecution or the defense) can convince the expert, then that 
can work to your side's favour.

In order to get through the vetting process, both sides would have to 
think they had strong enough evidence to convince the expert they were 
correct.  That's going to be a pretty rare occurrence - and you can't 
really get to know someone's full depth of experience during voir dire, 
either - it's not a long process.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:18:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> In the appeals process, bench trials are standard operating procedure,
>> again as I understand it - because the judge is responsible for
>> deciding if the lower court made a reversible error.
> 
> Right. In the appeals case, there's no jury, because the jury already
> saw all the facts. The appeal is checking that the legal system did the
> right thing, not arguing that it came to the wrong conclusion.

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. :-)

> In other words, if you're guilty and everyone followed the rules, you
> won't correctly go free by appealing the case.
> 
> Appeals aren't "I didn't do it."  Appeals are "the judge allowed the
> wrong evidence" or "the judge miscalculated how much I owe" or even "the
> judge shouldn't have been allowed to take the case in the first place."

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.

> If the jury believed the prosecution witness and not the defense
> witness, you're not going to get out of that with an appeal.

Yep.

>> But in normal circumstances in the US, the judge interprets the law for
>> the jury, the jury determines the facts, and decides if the facts
>> support the charge based on the law or laws that the defendant is
>> accused of breaking were in fact broken.
> 
> And the judge tries to convince the jury to obey the law, and to convict
> even if they think it's a bad law, but there's no actual requirement to
> do so, and indeed the founders of the country explicitly put into their
> writings that the jury was there to keep the new rulers from passing bad
> laws.

Yep, that's true as well.  Activist juries are everywhere! ;-)

> Not that *that* worked out too well... :-)

LOL, too true...too true.

>> The prosecution and the defense put together a packet for the jury,
>> though, that outlines different perspectives on the law.  The packets
>> from both sides are given to the jury to read and often you can't tell
>> which comes from who (they're not identified in my experience).
> 
> I didn't get one of those. But then, it was just breaking into a car. A
> pretty straightforward crime.

Yeah, I suppose it might vary from locale to locale or depend on the case.

>> I think it's a shame people try to get out of jury duty; it's actually
>> quite fascinating, at least I think so.
> 
> It can be annoying for busy people to take three to five days off work
> without pay in order to listen to some low-life who broke into a car
> trying to get out of the punishment. :-)

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.  I've been fortunate, I guess - 
the companies I've worked for paid me for absence because I've been 
called up for jury duty.

> It might have been more interesting in cases where there was more to it,
> like the one where the father was accused of mishandling the baby, or
> where the sailor was accused of rape (along with "breaking and entering
> with grave bodily harm") six months after the fact because he followed
> the two ladies into their house and was invited to sleep with both of
> them at once.

Yeah.  Now my wife was called up about a year ago for the federal court 
here in Salt Lake City.  She actually wanted to sit it, but couldn't 
because the circumstances of the case closely resembled her ex's family 
situation and the subject matter was personally distressing for her as a 
result.

Something like that I can completely understand.  It's a shame, though, 
because if it had been something else, she probably would've enjoyed 
participating.

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).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:23:43 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Um, actually (at least here in Utah), they do.  It's something like
>> $20/ day, but the government does pay the jury.
> 
> Well, yes, and something like $6 here. For a day. That's not pay, that's
> parking reimbursement. :-)

Yeah, it's not a lot.  Enough to pay for lunch and parking.

Well, here, the parking at the courthouse is at no cost.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:53:02 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the
>> legislature, they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the
>> accused goes free and the jury isn't in any trouble. That's the primary
>> reason for having a jury. They, in theory, get to overthrow bad laws by
>> simply refusing to convict anyone.
> 
> Is that anything more than a theory?

It depends on the jury.  If it's a bunch of people who "couldn't get out 
of jury duty", then it probably won't happen.

But if there's one person on the jury who makes a point of something 
that's not right, then it can happen.

The drug case I sat in on (which I mentioned earlier), there was 
documentation stating that possession of drug paraphernalia required a 
demonstration of intent to use it.  That wasn't something that was 
addressed at all by the prosecution in the case.

In our initial vote, everyone but me voted that he was guilty of the 
charges.  I didn't vote that way because of that one stipulation.  That 
sparked discussion, and ultimately I agreed that the case history was 
more of an exception than a precedent, so I also voted him guilty.

But that point is what prompted my discussion with the judge after the 
case was over, too.

The thing that stuck with me the most was how much respect the court 
showed the jury - including both the prosecution and defense attorneys.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:33:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> What I was talking about is if the jury refuses to enforce certain
>>> laws that are valid laws, because the jury disagrees.
>> 
>>   Can't the judge overrule the jury's veredict in some cases? Or is
>>   this
>> just Hollywood mythology?
> 
> Only for innocence, not for guilt.

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".

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25-3-2009 22:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:26:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
> In order to get through the vetting process, both sides would have to 
> think they had strong enough evidence to convince the expert they were 
> correct.  That's going to be a pretty rare occurrence - and you can't 
> really get to know someone's full depth of experience during voir dire, 
> either - it's not a long process.

That seems to imply that it is important information that either side 
rejected someone who might be an expert. So I assume this is information 
that is not passed on to the final jury.

Post a reply to this message

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. :-)

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

-- 
   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

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, ....

> 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.

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.

-- 
   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

andrel wrote:
> That seems to imply that it is important information that either side 
> rejected someone who might be an expert. So I assume this is information 
> that is not passed on to the final jury.

IME, all the potential jurors are sitting in the room while this goes on. 
It's usually not surprising. Most of the questions are "do you know anyone 
in the room?"   "Has something like this happened to you?"   And so on.

If it's a medical malpractice case involving (say) someone's eyes, and 
prosecution says "Are you a opthamologist?" I don't think it's prejudicial 
to dismiss that guy by either side. Usually the judge will dismiss him 
before it gets to the lawyers.

I.e., the judge asks some questions, and if the judge accepts, the lawyers 
get to ask. Usually the judge will kick out anyone like that first.

-- 
   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

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.

> 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, 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.

> 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.

-- 
   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 23:19:11 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 25-3-2009 22:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:26:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>> In order to get through the vetting process, both sides would have to
>> think they had strong enough evidence to convince the expert they were
>> correct.  That's going to be a pretty rare occurrence - and you can't
>> really get to know someone's full depth of experience during voir dire,
>> either - it's not a long process.
> 
> That seems to imply that it is important information that either side
> rejected someone who might be an expert. So I assume this is information
> that is not passed on to the final jury.

Rejected someone as an expert *on the jury*.  Expert witnesses are an 
entirely different matter.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:12:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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." :-)

Heh.....That's good, I know my cousin (who's a Sheriff's deputy) has lots 
of stories like that.  Best quote from him to date:  "I love my job.  
Where else do I get to shoot guns, drive fast, and mess with people?"

> 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. :-)

Seems reasonable to me....

> [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.
> :-)

Yeah, we have those here as well, though you can buy a tag that lets you 
use it as a single person occupied vehicle.  They also give the tags to 
people who drive hybrids.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, we have those here as well,

That was more a clarification for anyone reading who doesn't come from a 
country with people dumb enough to  clog an 8-lane-each-way highway with 
people driving one to a car. :-)

-- 
   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 20:53:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, we have those here as well,
> 
> That was more a clarification for anyone reading who doesn't come from a
> country with people dumb enough to  clog an 8-lane-each-way highway with
> people driving one to a car. :-)

Oh, right - long day here. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/25/2009 6:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?"
> Is sitting in your running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?

Same thing here in Oregon.  I know a guy who got a DUI conviction 
because he'd been out drinking, decided he was too drunk to drive home 
and went to sleep in his car on the side of the road.

Unfortunately for him, he left the keys in the ignition, so even though 
the car wasn't started the police still wrote him up when they found him.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 26-3-2009 8:26, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/25/2009 6:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?"
>> Is sitting in your running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?
> 
> Same thing here in Oregon.  I know a guy who got a DUI conviction 
> because he'd been out drinking, decided he was too drunk to drive home 
> and went to sleep in his car on the side of the road.
> 
> Unfortunately for him, he left the keys in the ignition, so even though 
> the car wasn't started the police still wrote him up when they found him.

There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might 
argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while 
drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive to 
think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to take 
you home it might just work.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:

> while drinking no
> though was given on how to get home safe.

The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I 
wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done 
that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until I 
was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.

If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely, 
then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not going 
to because it wouldn't be safe".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26-3-2009 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> while drinking no
>> though was given on how to get home safe.
> 
> The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I 
> wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done 
> that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until I 
> was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.

I hope that would mean that you only drunk 2 glasses of beer or 
something like that? You know there is a difference between somebody 
thinking they can safely drive and the legal limit. For good reasons.

> If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely, 
> then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not going 
> to because it wouldn't be safe".

I was of course referring to the time before you started drinking, not 
after.

(BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I 
have never drunk alcohol at all.)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 26-3-2009 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> while drinking no
>>> though was given on how to get home safe.
>> 
>> The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I
>> wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done
>> that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until
>> I was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.
> 
> I hope that would mean that you only drunk 2 glasses of beer or
> something like that? 

A couple of margaritas over the course of a large dinner.  For me that 
normally isn't "too much".  They mixed them stronger than I thought they 
would, and this became apparent when I got up to head back to the hotel.

> You know there is a difference between somebody
> thinking they can safely drive and the legal limit. For good reasons.

Uh, yeah, I do know that.  I don't drink excessively, but I do like a 
drink now and then.  And I tend to be *extremely* aware when I'm too 
inebriated to drive, because, as I said, I made the mistake of driving 
under the influence before and it scared the ever-living-shit out of me 
when I got up the next morning and wasn't sure how I'd gotten home.

Oh, and I've got a cousin who did time in prison for vehicular 
manslaughter as a result of DUI.  I'm *painfully* aware of the 
consequences of making a bad error in judgment about being too impaired  
to drive (for whatever reason, be it drink or sleep deprivation).

>> If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely,
>> then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not
>> going to because it wouldn't be safe".
> 
> I was of course referring to the time before you started drinking, not
> after.

Yeah, well, before I started on my two drinks at the restaurant I knew my 
tolerances and knew that I normally could handle two of that particular 
drink with a large meal and be able to operate the car fine.  After 
having the drinks and realizing that they mixed them about 4x as strong 
as any normal establishment would have done, I opted to not drive until I 
was safely able to.

The fact that I opted to sit in the car with the AC blasting was to keep 
me from falling asleep while the effects of the alcohol wore off.  I 
certainly didn't want to wake up the next morning still in the parking 
lot.

> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I
> have never drunk alcohol at all.)

You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-3-2009 1:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 

>> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I
>> have never drunk alcohol at all.)
> 
> You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)

I knew I knew that, but wasn't sure if you did. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:56:24 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 27-3-2009 1:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as
>>> I have never drunk alcohol at all.)
>> 
>> You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)
> 
> I knew I knew that, but wasn't sure if you did. ;)

LOL, fair enough. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message