Proposed New FL. Law-jurors can't profit from service

[DesSands]

I hope this law passes. The Jury deserve nothing extra than what they get for serving. I saw #3 on the news last night and she has no clue just how stupid she sounds each time she opens her mouth.

She's so busy enjoying the freebies they have all become accustomed to. Dessert Lady, Gourmet food, Special breaks, field trips, Sea Food night, high classed hotels. What they could attain was the only thing on their minds. And yup they ought to be sick to their stomachs. :maddening:

 

[msinformed]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/

TALLAHASSEE — State Rep. Scott Randolph and defense attorney Mark NeJame held a press conference today to unveil a bill that would call for a “cooling off” period before jurors in high-profile cases like the Casey Anthony murder trial could cash in on their experience by getting paid for interviews.

~More @ link

 

[MidAtlanticNative]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/

TALLAHASSEE — State Rep. Scott Randolph and defense attorney Mark NeJame held a press conference today to unveil a bill that would call for a “cooling off” period before jurors in high-profile cases like the Casey Anthony murder trial could cash in on their experience by getting paid for interviews.

~More @ link

What would/will be considered a "high-profile" case? One where jurors were brought in from another district? A case featured on Nancy Grace at least 3x per week for the 2-month period immediately prior to trial? A potential penalty of death? A defendant or victim known to 4 out of 5 dentists?

I don't really want answers to these questions; just using them to illustrate that what sounds like a simple idea easily grows complex.

And for the record, and at the risk of being the least popular kid in class, politicians jumping on the "outrage" bandwagon are no better or worse than anyone else seeking gain in the trial's aftermath. They seek profit in votes instead of cash, that's the only difference.

JMHO, feel free to disagree.

 

[krt]

I started a petition on July 8th re this....on change.org

 

[rotterdam]

What would/will be considered a "high-profile" case? One where jurors were brought in from another district? A case featured on Nancy Grace at least 3x per week for the 2-month period immediately prior to trial? A potential penalty of death? A defendant or victim known to 4 out of 5 dentists?

I don't really want answers to these questions; just using them to illustrate that what sounds like a simple idea easily grows complex.

And for the record, and at the risk of being the least popular kid in class, politicians jumping on the "outrage" bandwagon are no different than anyone else seeking gain in the trial's aftermath. They seek profit in votes instead of cash, that's the only difference.

JMHO, feel free to disagree.

The presser does not mention "high profile" which would be a subjective, hard to measure condition. I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. A cooling off period, only for the jurors?. The jurors who are the lowest paid in this process, not even minimum wages rate. While everybody else could be making money hand over fist? I wish that juror's pay was addressed. I think , it is unrealistic to expect people to serve and not at least get paid an amount equal to their average weekly pay check.
And I agree with politicians jumping on the band wagon. This whole thing is turning into another strategic spin to quiet down the public outrage.

 

[MidAtlanticNative]

The presser does not mention "high profile" which would be a subjective, hard to measure condition. I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. A cooling off period, only for the jurors?. The jurors who are the lowest paid in this process, not even minimum wages rate. While everybody else could be making money hand over fist? I wish that juror's pay was addressed. I think , it is unrealistic to expect people to serve and not at least get paid an amount equal to their average weekly pay check.
And I agree with politicians jumping on the band wagon. This whole thing is turning into another strategic spin to quiet down the public outrage.

Gotcha. I just read the announcement/article mentioning "high-profile"; didn't watch the actual press conference. Another televised meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society - I'll pass.

I feel like the whole campaign is a way for the public to send a message to *this* jury for returning the "wrong" verdict. Which, IMO, is a terrible launching pad for legislation.

 

[rossva]

And should apply to the Judge, the State, amd the Defense team also.

I hope it also means no trips, not paid for rights to any photos, no Disney Trips....

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Not surprising at all to me that defense attorneys would be against this law. I am, however, a little perplexed as to why anyone would be opposed to a baby's name being associated with any legislation.

Some of these lawyer's tweets should really be kept to verbal conversations at their little social gatherings instead of massive public consumption via tweets. I, personally, think it makes them look very unprofessional. I know they are human just like the rest of us but I feel they should hold themselves out to be more professional than what I've seen from quite a few of them.

Everyone can blather all they want on forums, in the media and on facebook (as well as sell t-shirts with pictures of Casey that say "MURDERER" http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/you-too-can-score-off-a/) and you think that a lawyer's freedom of speech should be snuffed out and limited to "little social gatherings?" Wow.

 

[Nefriahaia]

They could call it the "Locking the Barn Door After the Horse was Stolen" Law.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Gotcha. I just read the announcement/article mentioning "high-profile"; didn't watch the actual press conference. Another televised meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society - I'll pass.

I feel like the whole campaign is a way for the public to send a message to *this* jury for returning the "wrong" verdict. Which, IMO, is a terrible launching pad for legislation.

I absolutely agree.

 

[gxm]

The sad thing is that there's even a reason to draft legislation such as this. You'd think most folks would instinctively shun blood money from a child's murder.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

They need the same law for lawyers. No money for telling their story for 9 months.

Keep the lawyers from getting up in a trial from saying outlandish stuff just to sex up the trial for tv and get the big money deals when it is over.

 

[rotterdam]

They need the same law for lawyers. No money for telling their story for 9 months.

Keep the lawyers from getting up in a trial from saying outlandish stuff just to sex up the trial for tv and get the big money deals when it is over.

Now, now let us not get carried away. The pot of gold after/during a high profile trial, regardless of the outcome, allows common ordinary mortals to obtain sometimes a high priced defense. The system is already slanted enough with the have-nots vs the haves. If you want to stop this lucrative business of crime in the news, you have to destroy the consumer market. And good luck with that, there is an insatiable appetite by the general public for freak/non standard people like in the Anthony trial. It is much better than fiction.

 

[DesSands]

I'm praying that this goes into effect immediately and it is retroactive. This no hard evidence jury might start telling what really happened and learn that a few bucks gained was not worth letting a very dangerous person off. :maddening:

 

[DesSands]

They need the same law for lawyers. No money for telling their story for 9 months.

Keep the lawyers from getting up in a trial from saying outlandish stuff just to sex up the trial for tv and get the big money deals when it is over.

This law should cover everyone involved with a case. That one with the hair that looks she stuck her finger in an electrical socket and jumps up and down when under the influence couldn't even answer the question, "Would you let KC babysit your children or grandchildren." :maddening:

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

Hey MN,

Please, please add to this law the following:

No media outlet will be allowed to have a "packet" prepared and/or left for any juror upon their release from their civic duty!

This is not the Grammy Awards where each star gets a "gift bag"... Just sayin

 

[Omachka]

Gosh, in the business world most public companies are very strict on their employees regarding any type of gifts, cash, vacations . It seems the government run agencies should be ultra strict on this type of compensation. Time for change.

Printed Jury Instructions with teaching guides on how to comprehend the law. From what I have been told only oral instructions were given, no printed matter was supplied to the Jury. they should have recieved daily transcripts ,photos etc to their hotel rooms. We want a big job from lay people. The system is looking very weak IMHO

I agree with you 100% but just wanted to let you know that in Florida jury instructions are printed and are in the jury deliberation room with them. The judge is also available and willing to answer questions they may have. Casey's jury never asked a question nor did they review the evidence. I am not sure what could be done to be sure they understand. Obviously they won't ask questions if the think they know the answers. I'm not sure allowing them to deliberate in their hotel rooms before all the evidence and testimony is finished. That could make them miss something in a rush to judgment. It's kind of a catch 22 but there must be something that can be done to help. Maybe a jury instruction saying that TV isn't real and CSI shouldn't be considered? :banghead:

 

[Omachka]

Richard Hornsby already has a problem w/ it:

RichardHornsby Richard Hornsby
@MarkNeJame Well, there is nothing illegal about passing an unconstitutional law...
2 hours ago


Mark NeJame's reply:

MarkNeJame Mark NeJame
@RichardHornsby Have researched. Proposed law allows comment, just not paid for few months.No restriction on speech, just profit & temporary
2 hours ago

Oh dear! I think I'd have to go with Mr. NeJame here... he isn't proposing keeping them from voicing their opinion. I don't think the constitution covers making profit from your free speech. :twocents:

 

[Nova24]

I don't know why anyone would have a prob with a child's name becoming part of a new law. That has happened several times before so it would be far form a first if it happened with Caylee as well. I think it is a beautiful legacy to leave behind.

 

[MidAtlanticNative]

I don't know why anyone would have a prob with a child's name becoming part of a new law. That has happened several times before so it would be far form a first if it happened with Caylee as well. I think it is a beautiful legacy to leave behind.

I think the concern is that a less-than-carefully crafted piece of legislation will be pushed through too quickly simply because it's called "Caylee's Law".

My solution would be to give working titles to proposed laws like this one and then officially (perhaps even ceremoniously) name them once they're passed.

In this case, all the back and forth detail hammering could be done under a draft title of "Child Welfare Reporting Act" (for instance) which IMO is much more likely to result in productive fine tuning. Who is going to want to publicly dissent or question something called "Caylee's Law"? In this PR driven world, no one.

And it's no service to Caylee or anyone else to attach their name to a hastily-enacted law that's not well thought out.

My .0002; hope it made sense.