Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3

[AZlawyer]

Someone was telling me they don't want attorneys to be on the jury normally. Is this true?

Yes. Attorneys have a lot of trouble following jury instructions; instead, they (we ) are inclined to follow what they think the law actually is. Also, other jurors tend to give attorneys too much power on the jury.

 

[allycat1208]

You are right. It is a summary procedure. The right to counsel in civil contempt cases is a hot legal issue in the United States right now.

I'll anticipate your next question: Could this impact the Anthony criminal trial. Answer: No.

What is a summary procedure? Would that be referring to the potential juror who was in contempt of court for speaking to a reporter?

 

[AZlawyer]

What is a summary procedure? Would that be referring to the potential juror who was in contempt of court for speaking to a reporter?

"Summary procedure" just means you don't have to do the whole "trial thing." Yes, we were talking about the little mini-contempt proceeding with the juror who spoke to the reporter.

 

[kwmred]

My question has to do with peremptory challenges vs. challenges for cause. Can someone explain how this works, and do both sides have equal amount of challenges, etc.

Thanks in advance!

 

[allycat1208]

I read some article regarding George Anthony's attorney, Lippman threatening legal action if the defense tries to portray George as a suspect? What legal action does he mean exactly? Defamation? I thought it would be the job of prosecution in the criminal case against KC to rule out any other suspects other than KC. George, Jesse, Amy or any other name that was implied being responsible has Caylee's death has to take legal action also?

 

[crucibelle]

I have a question about voire dire (sp?). Ok, in the second round of questioning these potential jurors, they will be asked questions about how much they know about the case, etc. After that, I assume the prosecution & defense will decide if they want said potential juror on the jury. What if one side wants a juror, and the other side does not? Does the judge get the final say, or do both the prosecution and defense have to agree on a potential juror before he/she is chosen to serve?

 

[allycat1208]

What are differences between the attorneys on the defense or the prosecution team? Do they all have different expertise areas?

Answer by AZlawyer:

Not in all cases, if that's what you mean. But in this case, I believe there are supposedly different roles for the defense attorneys: CM is the experienced one, DS is the science one, AF is the mitigation one maybe? I forget. JB is, um, the one Casey hired so they have to keep him on the team.

Question:

What do you mean by : JB is the attorney Casey hired? If Casey is considered indigent how did she choose an attorney? You mean she had a choice of court appointed attorneys?

 

[Katprint]

I was wondering why a Paralegal or Jr Attorney could not do this hardship screening? Is it a legal requirement that HHJP do it- it seems like an awful lot of work, multiple repetitive questioning for him to do it alone? They could at least filter out the ones like the guy receiving Chemo for cancer, obvious caregiver responsibilities....

Judges do not have paralegals or associate attorneys. The reason HHJP has to make the decisions is because he's da judge. Also, there are some tough calls to be made, and you can't let anyone go too easily if the defense wants to keep them, for appeal reasons.

Perhaps this varies somewhat by jurisdiction.

I don't know what the jury summons in Florida says, but the ones here in California have a space where the potential juror can explain 1) why they don't qualify for jury service for example, not a U.S. citizen or moved to another county or state, 2) they should be excused from jury service due to undue hardship for example, they won't get paid and cannot afford to serve or they are the primary caretaker of minor children, or 3) they would to reschedule their jury service to some other date within the next six months because the current date is inconvenient for example, they have an elective surgery scheduled or a vacation planned. There is even a website listed on the California jury summons where the potential juror can log in and respond, then receive a prompt confirmation that they have been dismissed/excused/rescheduled.

On the other hand, judges here are notoriously reluctant to excuse or reschedule jurors who are physically present in their courtroom. Perhaps the judges assume that jurors who were TRULY unable to serve would have cared enough to do the paperwork to be excused or reschedule.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[darnudes]

Would any lawyers here want Rosalie Bolin as their mitigation specialist if they had a death penalty case?

 

[sua_sponte]

Yes. Attorneys have a lot of trouble following jury instructions; instead, they (we ) are inclined to follow what they think the law actually is. Also, other jurors tend to give attorneys too much power on the jury.

One anecdote to your answer...my former trial advocacy prof (a practicing defense attorney) actually got on a jury during our semester. He used it as a learning experience as you don't often get to be a fly on the wall in the jury room and see things as they happen organically. He wanted to learn more about how jurors really decide things. He refused to answer any legal questions posed to him and tried his best to forget his legal training during the trial. I know this is the exception and not the norm, for lawyer/jurors, but I thought he used his time well and seemed to handle the ego bit brilliantly.

 

[uklaw]

One anecdote to your answer...my former trial advocacy prof (a practicing defense attorney) actually got on a jury during our semester. He used it as a learning experience as you don't often get to be a fly on the wall in the jury room and see things as they happen organically. He wanted to learn more about how jurors really decide things. He refused to answer any legal questions posed to him and tried his best to forget his legal training during the trial. I know this is the exception and not the norm, for lawyer/jurors, but I thought he used his time well and seemed to handle the ego bit brilliantly.

Did he share any lessons that he learned?

 

[sua_sponte]

Did he share any lessons that he learned?

Yes, quite a bit! His daily jury adventure musings made a nice supplement to the standard curriculum. I would elaborate, but I'm pretty sure this will get deleted for being O/T.

 

[AZlawyer]

My question has to do with peremptory challenges vs. challenges for cause. Can someone explain how this works, and do both sides have equal amount of challenges, etc.

Thanks in advance!

Challenges for cause are the ones we are going through now: challenges for "hardship," for prejudgments about the case that can't be set aside, for unwillingness to ever impose the death penalty, etc. These are unlimited and are decided by the judge.

After all the challenges for cause are finished, each side gets 10 peremptory challenges ("free strikes"), plus maybe a couple extra because there are so many alternates in this case (it's up to HHJP). The parties should get a list of all jurors and pass it back and forth taking turns crossing people off until all the strikes are used. Then the jury will be the first 20 people (12 plus 8 alternates) left on the list.

I read some article regarding George Anthony's attorney, Lippman threatening legal action if the defense tries to portray George as a suspect? What legal action does he mean exactly? Defamation? I thought it would be the job of prosecution in the criminal case against KC to rule out any other suspects other than KC. George, Jesse, Amy or any other name that was implied being responsible has Caylee's death has to take legal action also?

IMO this announcement made very little sense. George could not sue for defamation for something that is said in court as part of a party's case.

I have a question about voire dire (sp?). Ok, in the second round of questioning these potential jurors, they will be asked questions about how much they know about the case, etc. After that, I assume the prosecution & defense will decide if they want said potential juror on the jury. What if one side wants a juror, and the other side does not? Does the judge get the final say, or do both the prosecution and defense have to agree on a potential juror before he/she is chosen to serve?

See above re: peremptory challenges. The parties do not PICK a jury--they UNPICK a jury through these peremptory challenges. Any juror who is especially desirable to EITHER the State or the defense will undoubtedly be stricken by the other party. They will end up with 20 people no one really wants on the jury.

Answer by AZlawyer:

Not in all cases, if that's what you mean. But in this case, I believe there are supposedly different roles for the defense attorneys: CM is the experienced one, DS is the science one, AF is the mitigation one maybe? I forget. JB is, um, the one Casey hired so they have to keep him on the team.

Question:

What do you mean by : JB is the attorney Casey hired? If Casey is considered indigent how did she choose an attorney? You mean she had a choice of court appointed attorneys?

Casey hired JB. He was not appointed by the court. I know--shocking, right? She promised him $4,000 or something as a retainer and paid him out of her imaginary bank account. :floorlaugh:

Would any lawyers here want Rosalie Bolin as their mitigation specialist if they had a death penalty case?

I don't know anything about her, so I couldn't say.

 

[Cher352]

AZ I appreciate all your answers but this one about unpicking a jury especially. No idea it was done like that.

 

[crucibelle]

AZ I appreciate all your answers but this one about unpicking a jury especially. No idea it was done like that.

I had no idea it was don't that way, either!

AZ -- Thank you for the info! :tyou:

 

[zoey]

Challenges for cause are the ones we are going through now: challenges for "hardship," for prejudgments about the case that can't be set aside, for unwillingness to ever impose the death penalty, etc. These are unlimited and are decided by the judge.

After all the challenges for cause are finished, each side gets 10 peremptory challenges ("free strikes"), plus maybe a couple extra because there are so many alternates in this case (it's up to HHJP). The parties should get a list of all jurors and pass it back and forth taking turns crossing people off until all the strikes are used. Then the jury will be the first 20 people (12 plus 8 alternates) left on the list.



IMO this announcement made very little sense. George could not sue for defamation for something that is said in court as part of a party's case.


See above re: peremptory challenges. The parties do not PICK a jury--they UNPICK a jury through these peremptory challenges. Any juror who is especially desirable to EITHER the State or the defense will undoubtedly be stricken by the other party. They will end up with 20 people no one really wants on the jury.



Casey hired JB. He was not appointed by the court. I know--shocking, right? She promised him $4,000 or something as a retainer and paid him out of her imaginary bank account. :floorlaugh:
I don't know anything about her, so I couldn't say.

BBM---don't mean to correct you---BUT after watching Lippman on JVM (?) he more or less backed down from that statement---saying that the defense has every right to go for every angle to save their client (not direct quote -- but pretty much what he said)-he then countered with his client DID NOT murder Caylee or any of the other things---

as for the retainer...IIRC, it was 15,000 in that imaginary bank acct....:seeya:

 

[twall]

Could one be found in contempt if they said thanks but no thanks and walked out of the courtroom during voir dire?

 

[Brattigirle]

Ok, I'll admit I am new to the whole court system and the way this works. With that being said, I have what is possibly a stupid question. I have been watching the Jury selection and today I find myself wondering why Jose is spending so much time grilling the first potential Juror, I thought that if the DT heard something they don't care for about him then at the end they can just simply say....."we do not want him". Why spend 3 plus hours asking irrelevant questions? Can you please tell me how this works?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Could one be found in contempt if they said thanks but no thanks and walked out of the courtroom during voir dire?

A jury summons requires you to be there until dismissed, so if all factors necessary for a finding of contempt are present, then yes.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Ok, I'll admit I am new to the whole court system and the way this works. With that being said, I have what is possibly a stupid question. I have been watching the Jury selection and today I find myself wondering why Jose is spending so much time grilling the first potential Juror, I thought that if the DT heard something they don't care for about him then at the end they can just simply say....."we do not want him". Why spend 3 plus hours asking irrelevant questions? Can you please tell me how this works?

The number of peremptory challenges are limited so they have to be careful how they use them. They cannot just say "we don't want him" for everyone they don't want.