|
Orientation day of grand jury duty is finished. Ugh what a hassle. I really wish I had learned that this was going to be a month-long commitment because my boss doesn't know I'm not coming in tomorrow, and I think she's going to be pretty pissed with me. For all you leftist, radical crit law people, grand jury duty is a fascinating and irritating experience. The prosecutor was explaining how we the jurors are supposed to be fair and impartial and do our very best to be objective and use common sense when determining whether there is probable cause for an indictment. Nevermind that the only witnesses and evidence we see has been selected by the prosecutor :\ Nevermind that we'll have cases in which our entire probable cause determination rests on the testimony of one law enforcement officer. The orientation materials all stressed that we are "not deciding innocence or guilt." I found this particular annoying because that's exactly what we ARE doing - just to a lesser degree than a trial court. We, the grand jury, are making a probabilistic determination of innocence or guilt. We aren't the final arbiters of this issue, of course, but we are certainly doing the same analysis. Also, there was no discussion of the fact that once a defendant has been indicted, they are pretty screwed. Most can't afford private counsel, the public defenders have huge dockets, and there will be intense pressure to plea out. We the grand jury are actually going to have a huge effect on these defendants, and nowhere did the orientation materials mention this. All of our contact people are employees of the US Attorney's office, except for our scheduling person, who works for the court. Many of our witnesses will be victims and cops - groups of people with well-researched testimony bias problems. And let's not forget about my fellow jurors - four of us are lawyers, though not criminal defense attorneys, and the rest are not. A handful (3 or 4) of my fellows were napping during much of the orientation stuff. Several people seemed of dubious intellectual capacity. Never have I been more certain that our criminal justice system is based on smoke and mirrors. /and this will be my last word on the subject since I am not supposed to be talking about it at all.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Nullify! That said, this is federal, so your worried about public defenders is a bit misplaced. The federal defenders are excellent. Still, nullify!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
time to smoke a lot of weed in dc, knowing that my rights are protected by Forums Poster entris ps: you're not just a great juror, you're grand
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:time to smoke a lot of weed in dc, knowing that my rights are protected by Forums Poster entris So did you brave the TERRIBLE WEATHER and go into the office today, or did you telecommute?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
nm posted:Nullify! no this is a state level grand jury. I just explained the situation to my boss. She is not happy. Oh god I'm going to lose my job over this I just know it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
entris posted:no this is a state level grand jury.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
I'm almost 30 and I've never done jury duty. I'm gonna miss you "check here if you are a student" box. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
entris posted:no this is a state level grand jury. But it's still the U.S. Attorney doing the prosecuting because you're in D.C. Which means federal public defenders, no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
nm posted:Nullify! But only if it's a drug case and the defendant is black. See Paul Butler, Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System, 105 Yale L.J. 677 (1995-1996). Or at least especially if that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
entris posted:Oh god I'm going to lose my job over this I just know it. There must be some kind of law against that
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
Just to be clear, I think it's actually illegal to fire someone because they had jury duty. But in this case, she would be firing me because I didn't have the maturity to alert her to this 5 week obligation in advance - when I spoke to other jurors on our panel, they had alerted their employers about this back in December. They all had their work schedules adjusted well in advance and the workflow for their job was planned accordingly. I just told my boss tonight So I think she has a valid reason to want to get rid of me - it's pretty unprofessional not to plan ahead for something of this magnitude. But! When I called her, I began by saying "Well, I had my first day of jury duty today" and she interrupted by saying "Let me guess, you actually got empanelled for a trial?" So she was also completely oblivious to the difference between grand jury duty and petit jury duty. That makes me feel a little better, because at least we both made the same bad assumption. But we're a small firm - she really can't afford to pay my salary while I'm out for 5 weeks, especially if I'm not working during that time. I think my best option is to work nights and weekends and just tough it out, but she doesn't like that because I'll be constantly exhausted when I do her work, which will result in poor quality work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
entris posted:But we're a small firm - she really can't afford to pay my salary while I'm out for 5 weeks, especially if I'm not working during that time. I think my best option is to work nights and weekends and just tough it out, but she doesn't like that because I'll be constantly exhausted when I do her work, which will result in poor quality work. Seems like she should give you a shot before determining what your mental state will be!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:So did you brave the TERRIBLE WEATHER and go into the office today, or did you telecommute? I work from home every day so uh
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Download single-chapter copies of the MPEP from here, go through the exam questions at mypatentbar.com, get familiar with what information is in which chapter and develop a CTRL+F strategy to find the answer within that chapter fast. Then take and pass the exam. Your best bet is to just pick out a word or phrase from the answer that's likely to be unique to it, like "deceased" for this one. Also, if it is practical, he should look into taking the test sooner rather than later. The test will be changing in April for the first time in a few years - generally they change the test when the pass rates are getting too high, and then the rates drop again for a while until the study guides can rebuild their question databases and the new questions get posted all over the web.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:See, the thing is, legal academics don't have to, they basically show up less than their students. And get to just make poo poo up all the goddamn time http://volokh.com/2011/02/15/asteroid-defense-and-libertarianism/ quote:I agree with Jonathan below that the Constitution (through the spending power) allows Congress to spend tax money to protect the Earth from an asteroid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
Petey posted:And get to just make poo poo up all the goddamn time I know I'm just a crazy statist but doesn't the implied logic behind that post suggest that taxing people to fund fire departments is an illegitimate function of government from a moral perspective? Because I don't see any qualifiers like "federal" in that quoted bit. And then I went to the web site and checked out the full text and didn't see any qualifiers either. But I did see that I can now get an LL.M. in taxation from NYU without ever setting foot in New York. This is oddly tempting, although I can't imagine that an LL.M. is something that will make even the smallest bit of difference in my career.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
Man, I'm a little bummed out that I never got a crack at jury duty. Lawyers are excluded here in Alberta. Seems like the sort of thing that everyone should do once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
MaximumBob posted:But I did see that I can now get an LL.M. in taxation from NYU without ever setting foot in New York. This is oddly tempting, although I can't imagine that an LL.M. is something that will make even the smallest bit of difference in my career. There's all sorts of poo poo I think is tempting that wouldn't have a difference for me. With a UMich degree (there's like 8 other schools this applies to) I can take the Singapore bar, which would supposedly give me an in with all the Commonwealth countries. And there's a few other territories/republics/federated states out here where I could probably sleepwalk through their bar exams. But all that fancy dressin' is mattering less and less these days, and I've let two of my bar memberships go inactive now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
MaximumBob posted:I know I'm just a crazy statist but doesn't the implied logic behind that post suggest that taxing people to fund fire departments is an illegitimate function of government from a moral perspective? Because I don't see any qualifiers like "federal" in that quoted bit. google Ron Paul
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 07:47
|
|
|
Bathing Jesus posted:But only if it's a drug case and the defendant is black. See Paul Butler, Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System, 105 Yale L.J. 677 (1995-1996). Or at least especially if that's the case. He expands beyond black people. Basically, victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution, etc. Don't nullify on a rape case where the state meets the burden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 08:35
|
|
|
I read the OP from time to time to remind myself how miserable life is going to be and that studying for an Art History exam at 4AM to get that 4.0 is worth it in the long run
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 09:43
|
|
|
Petey posted:Crazy libertarian If I had to give myself a political label it would be "libertarian" but I like to think I am pragmatic about it because I like things like roads, fire departments and the Asteroid Defense Corp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
Proofs of my grad photos came in today and I had a bleak, horrible vision of one them sitting in the back of the Yellow Pages, fighting for YOUR rights. NOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Proofs of my grad photos came in today and I had a bleak, horrible vision of one them sitting in the back of the Yellow Pages, fighting for YOUR rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Proofs of my grad photos came in today and I had a bleak, horrible vision of one them sitting in the back of the Yellow Pages, fighting for YOUR rights. I would gladly put my face in the Yellow Pages if it meant a steady stream of clients.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
I got a contract job with a solo here in town.  Doesn't really pay anything, but it's good work, the guy seems great to work with and now I won't have an enormous gap in my resume to try and excuse away. Bud Manstrong fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Feb 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Grad photos? Yeah, one of them will be in the CLASS OF 1959 collections that hang along the school's walls, and the rest will be sent to family. They let us bring a prop for "fun" photos but I didn't want to drag my cat or guitars with me for a 13-hour commute + school day. Shoulda brought a noose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Why did Brennan and Marshall step down during a Republican presidency? I blame them for everything bad that has happened in the last twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Why did Brennan and Marshall step down during a Republican presidency? Not sure about Brennan, but Marshall was in failing health at the time. He died a little over a year after leaving the court. Brennan was 84 when he retired. Maybe he was tired?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:Not sure about Brennan, but Marshall was in failing health at the time. He died a little over a year after leaving the court. Brennan was 84 when he retired. Maybe he was tired? Marshall died after Clinton took office. He could have just held on until then. We got Thomas for Marshall because he was too much of a wuss to suck it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
Nothing compares to O'Connor giving W an extra appointment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Nothing compares to O'Connor giving W an extra appointment. I dunno, I think her making him president probably ranks up there
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Nothing compares to O'Connor giving W an extra appointment. O'Connor is a Republican so...I think it actually compares to every other justice that stepped down during the presidency of a member of their party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I dunno, I think her making him president probably ranks up there  albeit true
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Currently sitting in class learning about the Rule Against Perpetuities, y'all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Nothing compares to O'Connor giving W an extra appointment. She didn't plan to retire that year. What happened was she planned to retire the next year to care for her husband, however Rhenquist told her he was staying on an extra year, so she should step down then, or wait two years. Rhenquist knew he had terminal cancer and he should have known he wouldn't make it through the year, but didn't mention that part. O'Connor was also a Republican, as mentioned before, and while I doubt she's much of one now I feel she didn't really realize how far behind the current party had left her, until she saw what her replacement was doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:Not sure about Brennan, but Marshall was in failing health at the time. He died a little over a year after leaving the court. Brennan was 84 when he retired. Maybe he was tired?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:She didn't plan to retire that year. What happened was she planned to retire the next year to care for her husband, however Rhenquist told her he was staying on an extra year, so she should step down then, or wait two years. Rhenquist knew he had terminal cancer and he should have known he wouldn't make it through the year, but didn't mention that part. Beyond my general partisan dislike for Rehnquist, I do honestly believe that his refusal to step down when he was clearly incapable of fulfilling his duties--the other justices apparently even asked him to step down--was a terrible dereliction of duty. Admittedly, to be fair, it may have been the case that he was simply so ill he couldn't make a sound decision. I'm not competent to judge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I dunno, I think her making him president probably ranks up there lol at the user name, too
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Plickmann posted:Currently sitting in class learning about the Rule Against Perpetuities, y'all. We're getting to that next week. I can hardly wait. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 00:07
|
|