Unwanted fame

Thinking about the public reaction to the Casey Anthony trial: How would you deal with a public backlash if you were on a jury that delivered an unpopular verdict?

In this case, the judge has the sense not to release the identities of the individual jurors. But, that may not always happen.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-...tes-public-rage

Resolute "no comment" responses.

I don't do social media so ..... no issues with that.

Maybe carry concealed weapon (where legal) for a few months - just in case.

No TV cameras in a criminal jury trial and a 3rd outcome of 'Not Proven' in the Scottish criminal justice system is perhaps something that needs to be considered when jury members are themselves put on trial in the face of public news media sensationalism.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110705150725AAWHQ0O

If you need to ask the original question then something is most definitely broken and needs fixed.

Interesting thought AMLF. In the US I think the trials are public, by law. But I think the camera is at the discretion of the judge.

A lot of times most folks will forget about this when the next big news story hits. If I were forced to quit though, I'd be taking that company to town under "hostile workplace" regulations.

Not to hijack the thread, but -

Criminal jury trials are outdated. Jurors are typically those who want to serve, as those with any excuse are let go. Let a panel of three Judges hear all trials. Judges are less swayed by defense BS theories. All testimony is heard - period. The Judges will then decide what is relevant. No longer is anything kept out of the trial.

Time from indictment to trial - 30 days. No more prosecution or defense delays for BS reasons. Defense is not surprised or ambushed, they get a packet with all evidence at indictment. If they can't figure it out in 30 days, time to change your job to something less stressful.

"Not Proven" needs to be imported to the US. But maintain double jeopardy rules. So the onus is on the prosecution where it should be. Either convict them or let them go. No more TV trials.

Reduce appeals to certain time limits, with no provisions for extensions. You snooze, you lose. Appeals are limited to procedural errors made by the Judge(s) or mistakes in rulings on evidence.

I spent 15 years as a military paralegal. The UCMJ is not perfect, but it's a lot quicker, leaner and easier to use than most civilian criminal courts. Average time from indictment to trial, less than a month. Most trials are Judge alone, with a plea deal in place. The average trial takes a day or less. Plea deals often take about 2 hours, from start to sentence. And the Judge does not know the contents of the deal. The convicted gets the better of the two sentences - either the Judge's sentence or the DA's deal.

Other than the venue and increased visceral emotion, is this really any different than how Monday morning quarterbacks treat a player that does something they think cost a team the game?

Having been on the medias wrong side in some business situations, right, wrong or indifferent, you can't stop the tidal wave of stress (actual or implied) that comes from it. The best you can do is sometimes keep your mouth shut and let the anger play out till the next 'big outrage', call it Dug Syndrome. "Squirrel"

Our legal system is designed as an "Innocence Presumed" institution for a very good reason. A person is either proven guilty or their innocence is maintained; notice I did not say "not guilty". The third option you mention still leaves a considerable cloud of legal suspicion. There is nothing that can be done about the public's perception. The legal system does not need to fuel it. Now, the juries should be afforded protection under the law as shown necessary in this situation. If, in fact, someone lost their employment due to a hostile work environment, then the person has legal recourse against the company for them not providing a safe work place. I do agree with the concept of one or two well-scripted interviews.

NightHiker,

I also would most likely not be picked because I am retired Air Force guy. We are typically viewed as too rigid and therefore "undesirable" in the civilian system of jurisprudence.

JBMat,

The UCMJ still has mandatory panel trials under a General Courts-Martial, as you well know. The charges under a General Courts-Martial are severe enough to demand a panel of peers (loosely defined) in order to keep it aligned with the Constitution.

The third option is not necessary under your very statement of "[e]ither convict them or let them go. Two possible outcomes are all that is required.

Spoken from the standpoint of a retired AF guy with 25-plus years of service. I also had the privilege of performing bailiff duty on judge-only Summary Courts-Martial for a DUI and General Courts-Martial with judge and full panel.

Back to the original question. In today's communication arena not much can be kept secret, unfortunately. People do put two-and-two together and come up with five quite frequently. The "fame" will come regardless of the intent of the wishes of the judicial system.

I have watched and participated in a number of civil jury trials, and been on jury panels for a number of criminal matters, including a special grand jury. At least in my area, there are few excuses from jury service based on attitude or life experience so long as the prospective juror agrees to follow the judge's instructions.

Due to the limited number of challenges available to the lawyers neither side ever gets a "perfect" jury. That means police, military, attorneys, etcetera - all the stereotypes - find themselves serving as jurors.

I have listened to potential juror chatter about getting off by saying this or that to the judge, but, I am amazed and I guess a bit proud to say, almost everyone realizes the importance of being a juror, the opportunity to make a difference, and agrees to step up to their duty.

There are of course hardships that do excuse many potential jurors, especially if a trial is expected to take many weeks or months, relationsips with someone involved in the trial, and other automatic exclusions for cause.

That is a very black or white viewpoint of reality and potentially lessens the evidential standards for a conviction, even it could be argued to the detriment of the accused as lower standards for a conviction may result as it doesn't allow for the grey area between the black and white, which can be caused by purely circumstantial evidence brought to the trial by the prosecutor. The Scottish system also has the same 'Innocence Presumed' and is a public trial also, but it doesn't allow for TV media coverage and has other restrictions which may contiminate the legal process. The main difference though is that the Jury should not be swayed (or even at least partly influenced) by the media speculation and sensationalism of the trial process itself. A conviction must be made beyond a reasonable doubt, so in effect it is a balance of probability based on the evidence at trial not a binary state of truth or false. A third state should be equally plausible.

Not proven

The fact that even the trial jury is even being critised or even individual jury members harassed to the point of losing employment would be quite astounding under the Scottish system of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Comms: What's a "Dug Syndrome"? The only reference I could find was a medical one very much unrelated to notoriety.

MoBOB: I'm also unlikely to be picked. Somehow the phrase "I'm a mechanical engineer" sends defense attornies into panics. Probably has something to do with being an analytical problem solver for a living.

The rest: The US justice system has a third verdict besides "guilty" and "not guilty". It's called "factually innocent", and the criteria seems to be that not only is there a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime, but it is beyond a reasonable doubt the you did not contribute to it.

I don't favor the tribunal approach since a judge has a very different outlook of life then those outside their profession. My paradigm is very different then a retail worker, who has a different outlook then a skilled laborer, who....

Unless I'm missing the point here, there is a third option, that of a hung jury. We require unanimous for guilty and not guilty, but when there is not a unanimous verdict and the jury cannot resolve the conflict, the jury is hung, be it 6:6 or 11:1. A hung jury gives the DA the option of taking it to trial again.

The fact that this jury was unanimous for not guilty speaks volumes to the strength of the prosecution.

Maybe there is a lack of decent films being made by Hollywood with directors such as Sidney Lumet (such as '12 Angry men' and the 'The Hill') at the moment and folks are just left watching 'Fast and Furious' sequels. Perhaps this is a driver for the public appetite for this kind of vicarious murder/mystery sensationalism.

I sat on a first degree murder jury about 15 years or so ago, as well as Foreman of a Grand Jury indicting a first degree subject,, and not the Anthony case, but in general... if you are the defendant there are 13 people evaluating testimony and evidence that

a. believe the States Attorney has enough evidence of your guilt, supported by the fact the Grand Jury brought a True Bill

b. they are FOR the death penalty in the State of Florida

I was also on a jury hearing a high profile murder case. A couple of points....

I thought that I would never be selected because of my law enforcement training and background, as well as EMT experience. But i must have been better than some of the alternatives. It was a lengthy trial (two and one-half months), and as a federal employee, I could serve for an unlimited time, which may explain why.

The trial the jury hears is not the trial that the public hears as it is filtered through the media. i have not been following the Anthony situation, but if the jury went unanimously for acquittal, there was probably a good reason.

Russ,

A hung jury is not a verdict. The trial is not over until there is a verdict. Basically, the same as a mistrial.

The undue fame for the the jurors in a high-profile case has got to be crazy. I am hopeful there is due diligence on the part of law enforcement for these people.

As the cookie monster once said,

'That's show business.'

It depends. I did that and not only was selected for a criminal trial, I ended up as the foreman.



I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms.

The state has practically unlimited resources to find evidence, interview potential witnesses, and explore legal theories. One of the more important reasons that we require a jury of the defendants peers to find him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is to somewhat offset this enormous imbalance of power.



"Not Proven" became part of Scottish law in 1728, so we can take it as given that the Founding Fathers were aware of it. They chose a system that is designed to protect individuals from mistakes and abuse of state power. Frankly, I think "Not Proven" is a cop-out. If you can't prove your case, you shouldn't have brought it, and the defendant shouldn't have to face it all over again.



It was designed this way on purpose. Most criminal justice systems are designed to protect the state. Ours was designed to protect the individual.

In the criminal case where I was foreman, we were morally certain that the defendant committed the acts he was accused of, but we found him not guilty. The state failed to prove their case adequately. I'm entirely comfortable with that decision. No do-overs.



"Factual innocence" is not a verdict. The only verdicts in US criminal trials are "guilty," "not guilty," and in some jurisdictions there is "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "guilty but insane". A hung jury has failed to reach a verdict. "Factual innocence" can be found by a court after a verdict of not guilty. In some jurisdictions one can petition for such a finding in order to clear or offset a record of arrest.

NB: I'm not a lawyer, and nothing I write anywhere should be construed as legal advice.

Correct, it does result in a mistrial, but the judge makes that call, we're discussing the jury's options. wikipedia on Hung jury. The point of my hung jury comment is that the case may be retried. If the DA doesn't retry the case, it doesn't matter if there's no verdict per se, the trial itself is over and the defendant walks.

I was under the impression that the founding fathers who formulated the US constitution based the law on pre US revolutionary English common law. The US founding fathers may have taken on board the philosophy of Scottish enlightenment of Hume and his associates but the day to day pragmatic business of practised law was based on the English system of jurisprudence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven



The not proven ruling introduction into Scottish Law was actually a way of protecting an individual from the state using a 'ancient right' (i.e. probably predating Roman influence, in that the Romans never were able to completely subjugate the northern areas of the island of the British Isles.)



Injustice is in itself a function of the ability to be able to afford or not afford the best representation. i.e. the wealthy are more likely to be set free (less likely to be convicted) than the poor.

It's hard to believe that the state went for Murder One without a better case than they had. And if more evidence comes to light proving that she was guilty, she still walks because of double jeopardy.

Personally, I think she probably did it, but you can't sentence someone to death on 'probably'. She appears to be a chronic liar, and it's hard to get to the truth with people like that, because there are so many layers and diversions.

"Criminal jury trials are outdated." No. Our Supreme Court has shown numerous times how they can be swayed, and if they can, lesser judges could be. If you don't want things hidden, I'm sure you could request a judge trial if you want one. I believe it is an option.

"One of the juror's ID's was discovered by his/her co-workers and she was forced to quit because they were so angry with the ruling."

That person was either fired, or quit. There was no 'forced to quit' simply due to an inability to stand up for yourself. And what of the company itself? They'd better smack down the dissension, or they could get nailed with a lawsuit themselves. And they might.

I believe I saw a reference to the case where a jury member said something like, "I didn't say she was innocent, I said she wasn't guilty". And that is probably the truth of the matter, as much as anything is.

Sue

The Lockerbie Bombing?

More importantly: It's Contempt of Court and direct interference with the JURY and their oath's. Specificly it amounts to detriment with regards to the exercise of a right or duty. What she should do is contact the court and bring it to the attention of the Clark of the Court or The Judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockerbie_bombing



As you would imagine, the wrongful conviction of Al-Megrahi due to the FBIs interference in witness testimony and accusations of the creation of physical evidence would have inevitably led to Al-Megrahi winning his appeal. Releasing Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was basically a fix, to ensure that the appeal did not proceed, to the obvious relief of those who were involved in the evidence fabrication.

Dug is the dog from the movie UP. His thoughts are transmitted to a collar around his neck so people hear him. Dug is very thoughtful and inquisitive...for about 5 seconds. Then he gets distracted. While we generally don't how he loses his train of thought, usually mid sentence of a thoughtful conversation he looks away quickly and says, "Squirrel!".

YOUTUBE VIDEO

In the context of my original comment, people will armchair quarterback Casey Anthony only until the next innocent looking young female goes missing is blasted on the national news.

Yes and no.

Keeping in mind that I'm an IT consultant (not a historian, Constitutional law scholar, or attorney), my understanding is that the Founding Fathers wanted to retain English Common Law in general, but with a shift in the balance more towards defendants. The Constitution was the paramount instrument of that objective. English Common Law has no written constitution, the Magna Carta notwithstanding.



That's a useful clarification, thank you. Since the current version of "not proven" permits a retrial, I still think we're better off without it in the US.



There's no doubt that the US justice system has room for improvement, and I agree that this is one of the biggest problems.

Thanx,I owe you a Pint o' yeaster!-Rich attempting to pigmentate Gray matter to Frothy gold!

Everyone in this thread has been very civil. One of the things I treasure about ETS is our ability to air strongly-held conflicting opinions about emotional topics without unpleasantness. Thank you all for that.

And more importantly, the sheriff approves of everyone's conduct.
Thanks for keeping it civil.

-Blast

I am not trying to be a dope by what I say next. I think we would all be better served focusing on the unwanted fame aspect of the original post just to stay on point. However, we can always start a new discussion on the merits/history of our system of jurisprudence. It has been a GREAT conversation with excellent framing of arguments and opinions. I really appreciate the viewpoint of the citizens of other nations as they weigh in on this. Thanks everyone for an outstanding discussion.

Just me.

I feel really sorry for the jurors in the case. Jury service is not only a civic obligation but a legal one. Short of sabotaging yourself during jury selection there's no legal way out of it. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. Beyond that, one would think the jury saw more evidence than those watching the news did.

The mania surrounding this case both baffles and astounds me. I'm no psychologist but I'm curious as to how so many people across the world have managed to invest so much emotion in this thing. The child was cute, the crime was horrible and the behavior of the mother was bizarre...I "get" that those are compelling plot points. But few to none of the people tweeting death threats could have possibly known any of the main characters in this twisted drama. Why does anyone care? I wonder how many other children were murdered around the world in the span of time that this case was flogged by the cable news media?

Did anyone here follow the case? I'm aware of just the main points- the child was found dead in the woods, cause of death unknown. The mother failed to report the child missing for over a month. But I don't know anything about the case that I couldn't glean from the first paragraph of any news story.

Well, the names were just released and the jurors are nowhere to be found. An excellent idea on their part.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45029137/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Now, sit back and see how long the media storm lasts.

Sure I will submit to an interview, right after you place some unholy amount of money into my hand. Highest bidder gets me. Call me a [censored], won't make me feel bad. I'd keep maybe 25% of the cash and donate the rest to charities. Interview only happens after check clears.

Then, I answer in short, usually one word if I can, sentences. Ask me the same question twice, I say "asked and answered". That drives reporters crazy btw. And I'd liberally sprinkle the interview with nonsense answers. "Why did you...?" "Did you know jellyfish and pancakes have no bones?" "Did you walk to school as a child or carry your lunch?" The looks you get are priceless.

Guaranteed, there will not be a second request for an interview.

Maybe I can get one of the jurors to let me substitute for him.

My spouse and I get called for jury duty and serve almost annually. Frankly, we've already done our part.

I have been interviewed for lengthy trials where the judge, in response to people saying that their employer only pays a few days salary for jury service, says to them, "Well, what vacation time do you have coming? You can use that time to serve on the jury."

Frankly, I don't feel very civil when I am, as part of the serving process, threatened with fines and imprisonment because I'm tired of being kidnapped from my job and other daily activities and held prisoner in a jury room to serve as an audience for too many attorneys trying to make too many big bucks off of too many lawsuits.

There, I feel a little bit more civil now. Thank you ETS. ;-)

While I have no advice for you on getting out of being selected for jury duty, it's pretty easy to not be selected for long trials. Just state an honest opinion that you hold that one of the attorney's doesn't want to see on the jury. If you post to ETS, there has to be something you can say that will be scrupulously honest but horrifying to a plaintiff's or defendant's attorney.

What opinion, for example? "I wouldn't buy a used car from that guy" or something else?

Thanks.

You might be looking at jury duty from the wrong end of the telescope...

I recently received a brochure (copyright free) from the Fully Informed Jury Association:

"Juror nullification is your right to refuse to enforce bad laws and bad prosecutions.

"Nullification is your personal veto against bad laws.

"Nullification is your right to veto corrupt laws from corrupt politicians.

"Until the 1800s, judges told the jurors of their right to refuse to enforce any law... Today ... Judges and lawyers complain that jurors 'undermine the rule of law and the uniformity of justice,' when jurors veto bad laws. Jurors always have the right to refuse to enforce bad laws.

"When jurors are threatened if they try to judge the law, we have trial by government."

As one ETS member once said, "We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system".

If you want to make your jury duty count, get some info from the FIJA.

If you want a guaranteed way to get out of jury duty, tell the judge you will NOT obey his directions. Judicial instructions and oaths are designed to bully jurors and protect political power.

Pity, though. America needs more jurors who are capable of thinking, rather than the ones who simply don't have anything better to do. If you were accused of a crime, which kind of juror would you want?

Sue

I was in peril of being impaneled as a juror in a week+ product liability case featuring a drunk redneck[*] as the plaintiff. I told the plaintiff's attorney that I had forbidden my children from riding skateboards, which was the offending implement.


[* - I am also a person of red of neck]

What ever happened to answering questions straight up, and doing your duty as a citizen, if selected? The chances are that you won't be selected, without any particular effort, one way or another, on your part.

Even if selected, you are not in court all that much. In my jurisdiction, court was in session on a long day from 9AM to 3PM. There were frequent day long recesses for one reason or another. Serving for a trial that lasted for ten weeks, I was able to keep up with critical aspects of my job. I also had the satisfaction of doing my duty as a citizen. Frankly, I was impressed with my fellow jurors (one of whom was an attorney, by the way). They were diligent, attentive, and thoughtful, and we done good!

Our choices in the jury room were first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter. There was nothing in the case we decided that inclined me toward nullification of those statutes.

I've never heard it used for homicide, which doesn't mean anything. But those trials tend to be scrutinized very closely, and they're very expensive, esp if the defendant isn't wealthy.

The biggest jury nullification situation that I know of produced the Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the repeal of prohibition.

But Americans weren't so ignorant then. The people didn't like Prohibition, didn't think it was a good law, and frequently found the moonshiners not guilty. Toward the end, the courts just about couldn't get a conviction at all.

But there are things today where the same thing could happen if people weren't schooled to be so ignorant about the Constitution and law in general, and schooled to be so obedient (for some things, anyway ).

The War on Drugs is generally considered to be an expensive farce, but it's making a lot of money for a lot of people, not just the drug producers.

Prostitution doesn't really have unwilling victims unless they're under-age (which is a totally separate issue).

One of the reasons why the current search/seizure methods now in use never go to court is because the Constitution is very clear that it is strictly illegal. Also most of the pseudo-laws like the red-light camera fines will probably never go to court.

Abortion is a tricky one, too, since in reality, the matter should be strictly decided between a woman and her doctor, not involving political and religious zealots.

There are lots of things that could fall into the possibility of nullification. And the ones that do are the ones where, with current state/county economic conditions, are the ones that should be turned loose. But, of course, the ones that they're threatening to turn loose are the clearly criminal ones.

Sue

You have a nice job, I've (and I trust most other people) never had one that if I were absent from 9 to 3 and still can be done. And if I were gone for 10 weeks I probably won't need to go back to it.

Same here, jzmtl!

And we couldn't afford the loss of pay anyway. Ten weeks w/o a paycheck and I would be living in my old car under a bridge.

Sue

In my case, a lot of people were in circumstances where they could not take more than a few days off, usually because of their job situation or family circumstances. They were routinely excused.

I was called once for Federal jury service. This would have involved a daily trip of something like fifty miles. I wasn't selected, but between the pay and the per diem involved, as well as the fact that I could have taken mass transit instead of driving, all of which would not have been taxed, I would not have minded at all being selected. Situations vary.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Could you clarify? The law enforcement training I received went into exquisite detail about the types of searches that were permitted under the Fourth Amendment and subsequent case law, an area which is continually evolving. The Fourth prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches.

I learned more about the Constitution in LE than I ever did in school.

Unfortunately I am sure you can cite some instances of police misconduct, which does happen. But that doesn't appear to be what you are referring to...

I believe in civic duty, and that jury service is one of the more important ones. At the time I was in the jury pool, I couldn't have taken off two weeks from work without a SERIOUS impact on my business and my income. After not being selected for the drunken redneck case, I was selected for a criminal traffic case that took a couple of days.

In my experience, explaining that situation to the court would have excused you from lengthy service without having to concoct artful answers during voir dire. You did your duty anyway. Good!

In my county, I get called about every three years. Most of the time I just spend a day in the jury room and do not get on a jury. There are separate, semi-private areas with internet connections for those who need to do business (or log onto ETS).

The judge for the drunk redneck case explained at the beginning that nobody would be excused for any business or personal reason.

I've lived in my house for over eleven years, and I'm on all of the lists that are typically harvested for potential jurors (I'm a licensed driver, a registered voter, and I pay property taxes). I've only been called once.

You need a better court system. That judge is amazing.

One thing that enters into selection is being sure that your name is exactly the same on all those lists. If your driver's license reads John Samuel Doe and your voter registration reads John S. Doe, the computer programs we use will recognize two separate individuals, thus doubling your chances of selection.

Oddly, until I moved to my present county from Arizona, I had never been called for jury service. I was registered, owned a home, etc. for fifteen years. California must be suit-happy.

I don't know if it was an actual on-the-books law, or the name, or the number.

It started when Clinton was president, and he got the blame. But I don't know if it was a distortion of the Court-Orderless Search & Seizure Law, localized police corruption or something else. It was rampant 10-15 years ago, but I haven't heard much about it lately. Here's how it went (supposedly):

Citizen A called local police to inform them that he thought his neighbor (Citizen B) was dealing drugs, based on considerable traffic to the really nice house, the boat, multiple expensive cars, etc.

Police would search the house and grounds, find a little pot (or plant it), and then confiscated the cars, boats and bank accounts. The local police dept. got half the take and the rest went somewhere else. Citizen B was never formally charged, never went to court, was never found guilty, and never got his stuff back.

From the clippings a friend sent from CA, protesters were pointing out that these 'attacks' were never perpetrated on people/properties that had minimal value, just the ones with considerable assets that could be turned to cash.

At the time, it was being passed off as legal, where it might not have been. And there were areas of the country where it was rampant, other places it didn't seem to happen. It was happening a lot in SoCal. There was some indication later on that if the police were getting warrants, they were 'distorting the truth' (lying) to the warrant judge about what they actually knew, or how well they really knew the informant.

I know more about the high-profile case in Las Vegas in 1991, since I was there at the time:

A known prostitute was jailed after arrest for soliciting. The police took the keys to her home and entered it. A man, Charles Bush, was asleep in the bedroom, and when he came out and asked what they were doing, one of the officers put him in a choke hold. When he was released, he was dead. A reporter got to a rookie officer and asked if they often entered the homes of arrested people, and the officer said, "oh, yes, all the time".

It was front-page fodder for quite a while. Odd that none of the newspapers still have much on the incident. Tidying up the image of Las Vegas, I guess.

If this was illegal, the law knew it was illegal, and not only didn't stop it, but they assisted. And if it was illegal, that was why the victims weren't prosecuted, because any first-year attorney could take care of it.

Sue

Frankly, this is pretty vague stuff. Searching or entering premises without a warrant is, of course, contrary to the 4A. Misstating the reason for probable cause in order to obtain a warrant is a felony offense in most jurisdictions, to say nothing of planting evidence. As for the rest of it - citizen B would only need a half way competent lawyer to set things right.

Again, no warrant in the Las Vegas case? Probable cause? Hookers need attorneys too, and again a decent lawyer would have a field day with this one.

I certainly am not naive enough to contend that all police officers behave legally all the time, indeed, recently the LA Times has run a spate of stories that would appear to document improper practices. But it is not hard to fight back and obtain proper legal recourse. That is why there is such abundant case law in this area.

Fortunately, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights still works for us, nearly all the time

This strikes home for me because I have been taking training in this area to work for a local park system. Your cases sound like no brainer violations of due process and all that. Did the p[people involved even try to obtain counsel? I would think an attorney would jump at the chance to get a case like this, even pro bono...

Susan, you have the right to remain silent. If you speak, anything you say can be used against you in an ETS forum

This is more an example of bad (very bad) police work, than any violation of constitutional rights. But the officers were just trying to follow their instruction from the Academy - always conduct in depth investigations.

It sounds like you're talking about abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws. Under criminal forfeiture, you have to be found guilty to have your assets seized. However, under civil forfeiture, you don't even have to be charged with a crime to have your cash, car, house and other property seized. And in this situation, you're guilty until you can prove those assets were acquired legally.

The agencies can sell it all off and use the proceeds to pad their own agency budgets.

Police don't even have to lie to talk you into incriminating yourself. Anyone pulled over while driving? What is often the first thing the LEO says?

"Do you know why I pulled you over?" or "Do you know how fast you were going?" More often than not, you'll blurt out something incriminating, which the officer will dutifully record in their notes, in case you ever contest the citation in court.

"How many drinks have you had tonight, sir?" is another way to get yourself into trouble.

You do not have to answer any question asked of you. You do have to identify yourself- provide ID or something similar. Other than that you can respectfully remain silent and state that you will discuss things when an attorney is present. Obviously, this is hardly worthwhile unless the situation is fairly serious.

When asked, I always state that I was going at the posted speed limit.

Careful, jury nullification cuts both ways. Back when lynchings were common, the most blatant, egregious, racist acts of violence by whites against blacks were given a pass by white juries who refused to convict fellow whites.

Today, there are minority jurors who refuse to convict minority plaintiffs accused of certain crimes like drug possesion as a protest against laws which they feel unduly penalize minorities and minority communities.

Jury nullification at work.

Thank you, Arney! That's exactly what it was!

"Forfeiture laws have become increasingly popular with state and federal law enforcement officials during the last 10 years.... forfeiture has quickly become the darling of law enforcement. Since 1985, for example, the total value of federal asset seizures has increased over 1,500 percent--to over $2.4 billion,(1) including over $643 million for the Department of Justice in FY 1991 alone.(2) This bonanza for law enforcement officials, however, has become a Kafkaesque nightmare for some property owners, who have found themselves caught up in a world of bizarre legal doctrine, sometimes without the assets even to defend themselves."

My point is that IF these cases went to court, jury nullification would be the perfect way to eliminate it. And that's probably WHY these cases don't go to court. But since they don't, the government continues to do it.



Of course! So name something that doesn't!



Do you think it would be better or worse if you left race out of it? There are WHITE jurors who refuse to convict MINORITIES for drug possession, because they think it is a stupid law. How do you feel about that?

Many people think that the current drug laws mimic the previous Prohibition Law, and they don't (another fallacy perpetuated by Hollywood). When alcohol was the Dreaded Evil of the day, only the makers and sellers were charged, NOT the drinkers.

How much of your tax money subsidizes this crap?

Sue

In the Las Vegas case, the hooker was pregnant by the guy the cops killed. With a case like that, she had no problem finding an attorney, and they DID have a field day! So did the media. It was front-page news for weeks. I believe the ACLU was also involved. The settlement was a million dollars for the child. I think chief of police stepped down, but I doubt they found him guilty of anything, as mostly they don't in those cases. Esp in a city like LV.



When the law confiscates your assets, it can limit how much you can fight. How do you pay your attorney? And since no criminal charges are filed against the citizen, I believe he is the one who has to instigate the charges -- it's not a defense case, so is he entitled to a court-appointed attorney? And if the judge (the cops don't act alone, you know) limits what can be offered as evidence, and gives specific instructions to the jury as to what they can and cannot do/think/ask/decide, do you think there would be a guaranteed outcome?



And it's an uphill battle all the way! We have a government that has been 'interpreting', re-interpreting, debating, twisting, choking, complicating, evading and circumventing the meaning of a very simple, very straightforeward document. I heard somewhere that Abraham Lincoln was one of the first to do this, and he was followed by a stampeding herd who thought it was a great idea.

Hikermor, I truly wish it was more like you see it. And I wish more people in law enforcement saw it the same way.

Sue

How was it said? "A government that can give you anything you want,Is Powerful enough to take everything you've got!"

I can guarantee you that all this reinterpretation works very much to protect citizens - take Miranda warnings as an example. Police must be very careful in their actions during investigations and subsequent actions. The usual consequence of, say, an unlawful search, is exclusion from the prosecution of whatever evidence was obtained - to the great benefit of the defense. And case law working out the precise actions allowable under the Bill of Rights started well before Lincoln and will continue indefinitely. You might be referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended the protections of the BOR more broadly.

We certainly aren't perfect, and our legal system isn't perfect - one obvious flaw is the necessity of large amounts of money to realistically have a chance at truly equal justice - but can you name another existing system which is better?

Was just reading up a bit on this. Actually, it was under Clinton's watch that the Federal law was reformed to address civil asset forfeiture abuse. According to this site:



Apparently that's why you don't hear much about these outrageous forfeiture cases anymore. I remember watching the TV show Miami Vice back in the day, and Crockett and Tubbs would drive around in the Ferrari and the Scarab speedboat--courtesy of forfeiture laws. To be fair, we don't know if seized in criminal or civil forfeiture suits but I think the show was reflecting what was going on in the real world at the time in terms of the police keeping the flashiest stuff for themselves.

Among the changes is that the government must show evidence that the assets are subject to forfeiture before taking possesion of the assets, and also doing away with the "cost bond" (usually a 10% non-refundable bond to the court just to fight to get your assets back). It's still a pain to fight in court, but at least the odds are not as lopsided as before towards the government.

We may not know that things are "serious" until it's too late to keep our mouths shut.

A chain of small, seemingly innocuous statements could turn a simple traffic stop from being let go for a warning to something much, much worse, especially if there's a bit of bad luck involved. There's a huge amount of officer discretion involved, but if the officer is ambitious or under pressure to meet certain performance goals, it can be easy to take advantage of opportunities that your words open up. This is a totally worst case hypothetical, of course, but imagine a traffic stop conversation like this:

cop: Do you know why I pulled you over, sir?

you: Well...yeah, I know I was speeding back there, officer. I'm really sorry. But it's downhill there, y'know. (you just admitted to speeding). (You're pretty nervous and you get talkative when you're nervous) But look, it's halftime for the Super Bowl and we ran out of beer so I was in a rush to go on a beer run and get back in time for the second half. It was just a quick drive to the store.

cop: Yeah, I can't believe our team is in the Super Bowl either. So, how many drinks have you had, sir?

you: Oh, just a couple, officer. I'm a real lightweight. I can't drink a case of beers each like some of my buddies (you just confirmed you've had alcohol and low alcohol tolerance)

cop: Sir, would you mind stepping out of the car. I would like to perform what's called a field sobriety test. It's just routine.

you: Really? Oh, OK, officer.(You can't be forced to do the sobriety test in your hypothetical state, although other consequences are triggered automatically by refusal)

You were never the coordinated, Dancing With the Stars type anyway, but with a couple beers in you, you fumble with one of the tests. You're really nervous now and that just makes you tense up and fumble even more, but you get through it OK after a couple tries. (You think you're safe because you finally passed the test cleanly, but the fumbling was caught on the cruiser video camera in case you're charged with DUI)

cop: Sir, I'd like to take quick look in your vehicle. That would be all right, wouldn't it? I mean, you don't have anything illegal, right?

you: Oh...well...

cop: Look, we can get this over with quickly or we can stand out here in 30-degree weather for an hour while I call out the K9 unit. You're going to miss the rest of the Super Bowl.

you: Oh...uh...OK. It's not like I'm hiding anything, officer. (you just gave consent to a search of your car)

So the officer proceeds to look in your car and finds a small bag of marijuana on the passenger side floor. "Darn it, that dumb pot smoking brother of yours must've dropped it when you gave him a ride yesterday!" you curse under your breath.

He proceeds to look in the trunk and sees the handgun case. You totally forgot you still had that in the there.

You were target shooting at your friend's farm just over the state line from your house last weekend where it's legal to have a loaded weapon in the trunk--but not here. You inherited that gun from your late father when he passed away a few years ago. Guns don't need to be registered in his state but they do in yours but you were lazy and never got around to registering it. So now the officer is looking at an illegally loaded, unregistered handgun in your car.

cop: Sir! Put your hands on the hood of the car. I'm placing you under arrest for...

Sounds fantastic, I'm sure, but any one of these slips of the tongue could get anyone into a jam they might've avoided, and they do happen to someone out there every day, I'm sure. As I was remarking about Izzy's statement, police don't have to lie to get you to incriminate yourself. We are often our own worst enemies, legally speaking.

I don't mean to write this as a bash on police. Look, to the officer, he has a case that you're some drunk driving, pot smoking douche bag that drives recklessly fast around town with a loaded, unregistered gun. You need to be taken off the streets before you kill someone with that car or that gun!

Geez, looking at this post I just wrote, I sound like an ACLU lawyer...

Okay, way too much political ranting in this thread. All y'all should know better than to mess up Doug's knife rights and corporate/government safety work with this sort of stuff.

If you want to play with nice things you need to respect it's owner.

-Blast