The driver who hit me is taking it to court.

On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:
"Bob" wrote: You say this as if no one is looking for solutions to problems

that everyone knows exist. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Over two hundred years, and no one has solved these problems? In that time
we have traveled to outer space, built multipurpose dams with a power grid
that covers the continent, gone from minstrel shows to color TV and DVD and
the internet. Let's have a show of hands. How many think the best minds in
the country have not been able to solve this problem? How many think it
would be solved if the right people tried?

Off the top of my head, I'll propose a solution to the wasted time problem
in jury selection. Don't fill the courtroom corridors with prospective
jurors, waiting for hours for the courtroom to open. Don't fill the
courtroom with prospective jurors, most of whom spend additional hours only
to be sent home. Instead, schedule appointments, where counsel from both
sides meet with the prospective jurors individually, or in small groups.
They could pre-screen them, or do the actual jury selection.

We did all those things yet we still have crime. Is that because the
best minds don't care about murder, rape, and robbery or is it because
human nature isn't amenable to change?

As for jury service, I'll go you one better. Don't allow anyone to be
excused from jury service for any reason and don't allow any
challenges to jurors. You get called, you serve. End of story. Some
defendants will walk that shouldn't and some will be convicted that
probably shouldn't but it would all even out in the end. Of course
those defendants that get convicted when they shouldn't and those
victims that see their attackers/exploiters set free might not think
things were quite so even but you can't please everyone. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- Jurors that sit in a jury assembly room all day long and never
sit on a jury serve a vital purpose. Many defendants decide at the
last minute to take a plea bargain and "the last minute" means when a
jury is ready to hear their case. Call it what you will, fear that a
jury will rightfully convict them of the more serious charge or the
system extorting guilty pleas, it only works because those bored
prospective jurors are *there*.

"R Brickston" rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:22:34 GMT, "Blair Maynard"
wrote:


"Gooserider" wrote in message
.. .

"Bob" wrote in message
ups.com...

It's worse than that. When I called earlier in the week to find out
which
courtroom I needed to find, the clerk told me Courtroom A with Judge X.
She then asked me if I was injured, and I told her yes. When I went to
court on Friday, Courtroom A was empty. So I ended up talking to the
same
clerk I spoke to on the phone---and she said "I should have called you.
Because there was an injury your case has to be seen by Judge X, not Mr.
Y
in traffic court.". HUH? So I was originally scheduled to see Judge X
but
the case was continued because I have to see Judge X. Not efficient.
So you arrived and nobody else was there? Then the offender doesn't know
you
are going to show up?

I would guess the person fighting the ticket is banking on the belief that
you are not going to show up to testify.

If you can notify the defendant's counsel that you will be showing up,
they
may decide not to contest the charge and you won't have to show up.

That's not a very good idea. That attorney could attempt to make it
sound like intimidation. This system allows one to contest any charge,
you have let the driver have his day in court if that what he chooses.
He could come out better or worse. The witness should do his best to
appear as many times as it take.


The attorney could TRY to make it sound like intimidation. But he would
have to explain how the appearance of an eyewitness to an event is
"intimidating." That might be interesting. I can just hear defendant's
counsel asking the court to dismiss the charge because his client was
unfairly indimidated by a witness informing him of the high likelihood of
said witness' actual appearance at trial. Maybe he could seek intentional
infliction of emotional distress too.

But I would agree that there is probably be something improper about a
witness contacting a defendant's attorney. Hopefully the prosecutor will do
this communicating before the next trial.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:42:32 GMT, "Blair Maynard"
wrote:


"R Brickston" rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:22:34 GMT, "Blair Maynard"
wrote:


"Gooserider" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob" wrote in message
ups.com...

It's worse than that. When I called earlier in the week to find out
which
courtroom I needed to find, the clerk told me Courtroom A with Judge X.
She then asked me if I was injured, and I told her yes. When I went to
court on Friday, Courtroom A was empty. So I ended up talking to the
same
clerk I spoke to on the phone---and she said "I should have called you.
Because there was an injury your case has to be seen by Judge X, not Mr.
Y
in traffic court.". HUH? So I was originally scheduled to see Judge X
but
the case was continued because I have to see Judge X. Not efficient.
So you arrived and nobody else was there? Then the offender doesn't know
you
are going to show up?

I would guess the person fighting the ticket is banking on the belief that
you are not going to show up to testify.

If you can notify the defendant's counsel that you will be showing up,
they
may decide not to contest the charge and you won't have to show up.

That's not a very good idea. That attorney could attempt to make it
sound like intimidation. This system allows one to contest any charge,
you have let the driver have his day in court if that what he chooses.
He could come out better or worse. The witness should do his best to
appear as many times as it take.


The attorney could TRY to make it sound like intimidation. But he would
have to explain how the appearance of an eyewitness to an event is
"intimidating." That might be interesting. I can just hear defendant's
counsel asking the court to dismiss the charge because his client was
unfairly indimidated by a witness informing him of the high likelihood of
said witness' actual appearance at trial. Maybe he could seek intentional
infliction of emotional distress too.

But I would agree that there is probably be something improper about a
witness contacting a defendant's attorney. Hopefully the prosecutor will do
this communicating before the next trial.


I think the court may tend to view it as a threat to cause the
defendant to give up his right to due process; a big no-no in the
court system. That said, I'm not saying it would benefit the defendant
necessarily, but that it could cause the otherwise innocent witness a
problem.

"Bob" wrote: in message
ups.com...
On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:
"Bob" wrote: You say this as if no one is looking for solutions to
problems

that everyone knows exist. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Over two hundred years, and no one has solved these problems? In that
time
we have traveled to outer space, built multipurpose dams with a power
grid
that covers the continent, gone from minstrel shows to color TV and DVD
and
the internet. Let's have a show of hands. How many think the best minds
in
the country have not been able to solve this problem? How many think it
would be solved if the right people tried?

Off the top of my head, I'll propose a solution to the wasted time
problem
in jury selection. Don't fill the courtroom corridors with prospective
jurors, waiting for hours for the courtroom to open. Don't fill the
courtroom with prospective jurors, most of whom spend additional hours
only
to be sent home. Instead, schedule appointments, where counsel from both
sides meet with the prospective jurors individually, or in small groups.
They could pre-screen them, or do the actual jury selection.

We did all those things yet we still have crime. Is that because the
best minds don't care about murder, rape, and robbery or is it because
human nature isn't amenable to change?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think it is because human nature is not amenable to change. So are you
saying that the inefficiencies in our court system are in the same
category--that there is no way to effect change? I think you're wrong, and
I hope you're wrong. Permit me to borrow a line from one of your earlier
posts: "We disagree on that and it's obvious neither of us will be
convinced by further discussion."


(clip) As for jury service, I'll go you one better. Don't allow anyone to
be excused from jury service for any reason and don't allow any challenges
to jurors. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is the classic "straw man" argument.
You get called, you serve. End of story. Some
defendants will walk that shouldn't and some will be convicted that
probably shouldn't but it would all even out in the end. Of course
those defendants that get convicted when they shouldn't and those
victims that see their attackers/exploiters set free might not think
things were quite so even but you can't please everyone. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- Jurors that sit in a jury assembly room all day long and never
sit on a jury serve a vital purpose. Many defendants decide at the
last minute to take a plea bargain and "the last minute" means when a
jury is ready to hear their case. Call it what you will, fear that a
jury will rightfully convict them of the more serious charge or the
system extorting guilty pleas, it only works because those bored
prospective jurors are *there*.

On Jun 4, 2:11 am, "Leo Lichtman" wrote:
"Bob" wrote: in message

ups.com...



On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:
"Bob" wrote: You say this as if no one is looking for solutions to
problems

that everyone knows exist. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Over two hundred years, and no one has solved these problems? In that
time
we have traveled to outer space, built multipurpose dams with a power
grid
that covers the continent, gone from minstrel shows to color TV and DVD
and
the internet. Let's have a show of hands. How many think the best minds
in
the country have not been able to solve this problem? How many think it
would be solved if the right people tried?

Off the top of my head, I'll propose a solution to the wasted time
problem
in jury selection. Don't fill the courtroom corridors with prospective
jurors, waiting for hours for the courtroom to open. Don't fill the
courtroom with prospective jurors, most of whom spend additional hours
only
to be sent home. Instead, schedule appointments, where counsel from both
sides meet with the prospective jurors individually, or in small groups.
They could pre-screen them, or do the actual jury selection.

We did all those things yet we still have crime. Is that because the
best minds don't care about murder, rape, and robbery or is it because
human nature isn't amenable to change?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think it is because human nature is not amenable to change. So are you
saying that the inefficiencies in our court system are in the same
category--that there is no way to effect change? I think you're wrong, and
I hope you're wrong. Permit me to borrow a line from one of your earlier
posts: "We disagree on that and it's obvious neither of us will be
convinced by further discussion."



(clip) As for jury service, I'll go you one better. Don't allow anyone to
be excused from jury service for any reason and don't allow any challenges
to jurors. (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is the classic "straw man" argument.

It's not at all a straw man argument because I am quite serious. Not
letting people tapdance their way out of performing jury duty and
disallowing challenges (by either side) would streamline the system
enormously *and* result in more reasoned verdicts.
Perhaps you thought I was making a straw man argument because I made
light of the inevitable miscarriages of justice but miscarriages of
justice are inevitable no matter who is serving on juries. People make
mistakes. Smart people make fewer ones though and the most widely used
jury selection procedures don't as a rule get the best or smartest
jurors- although good smart people do sometimes get chosen for
service- but simply those most available. There's at least a grain of
truth in the definition of a jury I once heard, "A jury is a group of
people designated as triers of fact that is made up of 12 people who
weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Jun 4, 9:53 pm, Bob wrote:
It's not at all a straw man argument because I am quite serious. Not
letting people tapdance their way out of performing jury duty

This I agree with...

and
disallowing challenges (by either side) would streamline the system
enormously *and* result in more reasoned verdicts.

Be careful about challenges. When a judge rules out a juror, ("the
defendant's lawyer is my brother") he's streamlining the challenge
process. However, I would limit challenges to those *with cause*, and
define that term by law.

There's at least a grain of
truth in the definition of a jury I once heard, "A jury is a group of
people designated as triers of fact that is made up of 12 people who
weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."

When I lived in Massachusetts, the Governor once sat on a jury. I was
called three times, but "got out of it" once by moving out of the
county, and once by moving out of the state. Would you have me fly
1500 miles to serve on your DWI jury? Clue: I don't give a rip if you
were having an insulin reaction, you are guilty.

Austin

"Bob", "We disagree on that and it's obvious neither of us will be convinced
by further discussion."