Why the Jury System Sucks...

[Arvon]

Not My Fault

A jury concluded in February that Lonnie W. Hinton Jr., father of a 2-year-old girl who was severely injured when she fell into a swimming pool at an apartment complex in Hollywood, Fla., was responsible for only 1 percent of the incident, with the complex responsible for 99 percent because the gate to the pool area was broken. According to trial testimony, the faulty gate was fairly common knowledge among the residents, and Hinton had left the girl alone near the gate while he took barbecued food upstairs to the family's apartment. Far from being censured for his lax parenting, Hinton and his wife were awarded $10 million for their own pain and suffering resulting from the girl's injuries. [National Law Journal, 2-10-03]

[Kakero]

nothing strange about that decision. such lawsuits happens over here as well.

[Timber Loftis]

I'd have to see the opinion. How can you say juries suck? What fairer system is there than each side presenting evidence before a group of citizens? Not flaiming, just asking. If 12 people can come to an agreement on a case, don't you think we ought at least give them some deference? For all the bad-mouthing I hear about these big jury verdicts, we still keep seeing them. Seems like everyone thinks they're stupid to give out big verdicts until it's their turn to sit on a panel and hear the evidence.

Seriously - I've heard no one support big jur verdicts, but we keep seeing them. Well, where do these big-award-givers come from? I've never met any.

[Arvon]

Now TL would you really want anything about your life decided by 12 people too dumb to get off jury duty? (J/K). Actually my rail is with the trial lawyers and civil cases, not criminal cases. (Although the OJ case may instill some doubt). In this case this case this is all I have on it. But for dad to leave a toddler unattended then sue for pain and suffering? BS!!!! Both parents should have been jailed for child neglect.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, let's not look at the amount for the moment and only consider "lax parenting." He took food upstairs in the Apt. complex. Now, how many of us leave our kids outside playing and only check in every 10-30 mins.?? MOST of us, I would say. You simply cannot watch the tikes every little moment of the day. And, running food inside from a BBQ grill seems harmless enough. Likely dad took it in to give to mom so she can put burgers together - possible even to bring outside and eat.

My aunt hopped out of her car to run something in to a friend's house. Literally a 1 minute departure. She put the emergency brake on. Well, it failed and the car rolled backwards, down a steep hill for about 100-200 yds. before hitting a tree stump that kept it from falling into a ravine. Totalled the car. My cousins, ages 12, 5, and 3 were in the car. A broken leg and collar bone and lots of bruising resulted. Was that bad parenting? Do we put a strict liability (meaning, any harm = fault assumed) on parents? To be sure, my aunt blamed herself, but should we?

[Thorfinn]

I would agree with Timber, more or less. The citizen jury represents one of the last peaceful checks on government power. The problem I see with the jury system as it currently stands is that jurors are told they have to obey the judge's instructions, and can be held in contempt for refusing to convict under laws they don't agree with. That was one of the complaints about King George's system, that the jurors could be coerced into convicting colonists, and it was one of the reasons the FF argued over the level of gov't involvement in courts.

[Gangrell]

There's nothing strange about that Arvon, I've heard things like a thief breaking into a house, getting injured and sued the owners that he was going to rob and succeded. Now that is screwed up [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: I would agree with Timber, more or less. The citizen jury represents one of the last peaceful checks on government power. The problem I see with the jury system as it currently stands is that jurors are told they have to obey the judge's instructions, and can be held in contempt for refusing to convict under laws they don't agree with. That was one of the complaints about King George's system, that the jurors could be coerced into convicting colonists, and it was one of the reasons the FF argued over the level of gov't involvement in courts.

Well, the jury in a civil case is limited. It is the FACT-FINDER only. So, the judge may give the jury a list of questions and demand it answer them. Verdicts in civil cases are rarely so simple as "We find for the defendant." Once the judge has the jury resolve contested facts (such as: did he behave reasonably?), it will often apply the law (or the case can be reversed on appeal for a misapplication of the law).

In criminal cases, it's a different story. The jury gets final say - and a "not guilty" verdict is hugely strong. Note that in criminal cases prosecutors generally cannot appeal. Anyway, the "disagree with the law" thing Torfinn is referring to is called "jury nullification."

That mean: get the jury to hold you innocent not because you did not violate the law, but because the law is stupid/not valid/ etc. For instance, rather than arguing you were not smoking pot, instead arguing it isn't worth society's efforts to prosecute pot-smokers, and you should therefore be let go because the law is stupid. You *cannot argue* jury nullification - and most judges won't let you. The legislature said smoking pot is illegal, and we're not going to turn juries into legislators (though, tort reform seeks to do just that).

Now, you can *hint* at jury nullification - and if the jury holds you "not guilty" because they agree that anti-pot laws are stupid, it will be upheld (so long as they do not openly admit that's their reasoning). But, you cannot go around arguing the law should be overturned by a jury.

Just some FYI.

[Seraph]

My big problem with the jury trial is that the vast majority of the time, the Lawyers try dumb down the jurys. It would vastly increase my confidence if every person I knew who was on a jury wasn't a moron.

[antryg]

Originally posted by Seraph: My big problem with the jury trial is that the vast majority of the time, the Lawyers try dumb down the jurys. It would vastly increase my confidence if every person I knew who was on a jury wasn't a moron.

Since I end up on a jury about once per year for the last 15 years (I never try to get out of it, civic duty and all that) I guess I'll just say thank you and go hide under Lionesses couch in the cafe.