• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

RChildress107 said:
That a correct interpretation of the Constitution includes a right to a "jury of your peers" in the way Ph defined it.
Click to expand...


So you believe the Constitution affords every criminal defendant the right to be tried by persons of "the same age, status, or ability" as the defendant? How would that work, as a practical matter? How are "status" and "ability" determined?
 
ugh, can't we just agree that it's a little strange that they'd exclude jury members solely for being similar in age to the defendant?

#lawyersgonnalawyer
 
deac29 said:
So you believe the Constitution affords every criminal defendant the right to be tried by persons of "the same age, status, or ability" as the defendant? How would that work, as a practical matter? How are "status" and "ability" determined?
Click to expand...

No. I believe the Constitution affords every criminal defendant the right to be tried by a representative, impartial jury regardless of age, status or ability. That would work, as a practical matter, by preventing the exclusion of jurors based on age, status or ability.
 
I don't understand why there are peremptory challenges at all. I don't know the history of them admittedly but don't see why every challenge shouldn't require cause.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't understand why there are peremptory challenges at all. I don't know the history of them admittedly but don't see why every challenge shouldn't require cause.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? How many juries have you actually picked?

Also, the "race neutral" reasons provided in that case are absurd. I don't think those would've been upheld in a lot of jurisdictions, but that's pure speculation. It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does here.

Also, depending on the case, I've seen peremptory challenges range from 3 to 10 a side.
 
haven't picked any. I was thinking about it from a general perspective not solely a legal perspective - what's rationale for being able to remove people for any reason?

I believe murder cases up here get 12 generally.
 
Last edited:
Picking a jury is probably the most important part of trial practice. I've done it several times. I think voir dire should be more restricted, and fewer peremptory challenges allowed, and maybe even eliminated. At a minimum, the process should be greatly modified in NC.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
haven't picked any. I was thinking about it from a general perspective not solely a legal perspective - what's rationale for being able to remove people for any reason?

I believe murder cases up here get 12 generally.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the rationale is, but I can tell you what mine is - most jurors are full of shit. There's always people on the panel who are clearly biased, but they say everything "right" to avoid a cause challenge. Also, there are people who should be stricken for cause, but the judge is a complete idiot and doesn't grant your challenge. In both instances, it's nice to have peremptory challenges.
 
Granted I'm fairly early in the law school process, but it seems that it makes sense as a matter of fairness that you should be able to remove a juror who seems biased against you when the court requires a unanimous verdict since all it takes is one holdout.

Yes, maybe they could be challenged for cause, but that depends on the discretion of the judge, and judges are not infallible
 
MysteryMen said:
Granted I'm fairly early in the law school process, but it seems that it makes sense as a matter of fairness that you should be able to remove a juror who seems biased against you when the court requires a unanimous verdict since all it takes is one holdout.

Yes, maybe they could be challenged for cause, but that depends on the discretion of the judge, and judges are not infallible
Click to expand...

Assuming you decide to litigate, you will one day come to realize that trial by jury is grossly flawed. Peremptory challenges, in my opinion, do more harm than good. They do, however, shed some light on which side has the better lawyer, and it is very important to utilize them effectively. Of course, the same is largely true of the rules of evidence, general courtroom procedure, etc. Very little of it is utilized to ensure "fairness" or "justice".
 
Looking at it a certain way, the SC are responsible for the Islamic invasion of Europe.

Luckily America is designed to be isolationist when necessary.
 
Yikes. I get what he's saying, that sending someone who isn't ready for it to a tougher school can actually do more damage than help. I'm pretty sure not every major at UT is rocket science though. And even if he were right, doesn't that same argument apply to the 10% policy that no one seems to have a problem with, including the plaintiff?
 
ABCDeac said:
Assuming you decide to litigate, you will one day come to realize that trial by jury is grossly flawed. Peremptory challenges, in my opinion, do more harm than good. They do, however, shed some light on which side has the better lawyer, and it is very important to utilize them effectively. Of course, the same is largely true of the rules of evidence, general courtroom procedure, etc. Very little of it is utilized to ensure "fairness" or "justice".
Click to expand...

Huh? So with what would you replace the rules of evidence and procedure? The adversary system is the best ever devised. Maybe you would like to go back to Theodoric of York. Or draw lots?
 
simosfrostyone said:
Huh? So with what would you replace the rules of evidence and procedure? The adversary system is the best ever devised. Maybe you would like to go back to Theodoric of York. Or draw lots?
Click to expand...

Meh. I think our justice system, at the trial level, could be greatly improved by giving the judges more independent investigative power in certain types of cases instead of having them just act as theoretically impartial referees. It would also help if we actually funded our court system at a level commensurate with its status as the third coequal branch of government. Instead what we get is endless procedural delaying tactics, scorched earth litigation tactics, and a criminal justice system where the wealthy pay for leniency and the poor get hammered because the adversarial system only works if both sides can afford a quality advocate.
 
Yeah I'm not knocking on him because a lot of justice's quotes are taken out of context in the current media setting - I was just pointing out that the excerpt wasn't a specific question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top