Jury Duty . . . and Lawyer Jokes!

[KMG_365]

So, I'm going in for Jury Duty again tomorrow, but I'm going in prepared this time! The last time as the panel was almost done being whittled down by the two attorneys, I was the first person on the other side of the rail and they were questioning the few of us who would have moved into the panel if they dismissed any of the others already sat. This was a case of a lawyer who had been disbarred for being a no-good crook, but he was here being tried for continuing to practice as a no-good crook . . . with no crookery license!

 

When the crook's defending counsel (oh, excuse me: "alleged" crook ) asked me my opinion of lawyers and could I be fair and impartial I quipped 'that I thought Shakespeare had it right in King Henry . . . . Oooh, that was a mistake! (unless I really didn't want to be empaneled) She then proceeded to grill me on my knowledge of the context of the scene of the "famous" quote ("First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!"), and didn't I know that it was actually in praise of lawyers as being the defenders of truth and justice and the American Way . . . or something like that.

 

Now, not being a professional arguer, I definitely found myself holding a knife in a gun fight and had to admit that I hadn't seen the play in quite some time and that my recollection was spotty. I certainly didn't have the feeling even from my "spotty recollection" that it was in praise of lawyers at all, but nonetheless both counsels suddenly waived their remaining challenges and accepted the composition of the panel as presently seated.

 

Frustrated, I came home, got my books off the shelf (and blew the dust off) and read up on the scene. I still didn't get what she was talking about, but a little Googling confirmed my suspicions! (clicky)

 

Maybe I'll print this out to have in my bag in case I get assigned to another lawyer case!

[Joel]

Motorcyclists and cult followers aren't the only ones who drink Kool-Aid.

 

I vaguely recall a list of other myths with which law students are often indoctrinated, but I'm having a hard time jerking that from my gray matter right now. I bet Greg H. has several at the top of his mind.

[ghaverkamp]

I vaguely recall a list of other myths with which law students are often indoctrinated, but I'm having a hard time jerking that from my gray matter right now. I bet Greg H. has several at the top of his mind.

 

Maybe it's because I'm near the end, but the ones that come to mind don't have much to do with the practice of law. "Lots of firms will be interested in someone with your background." "You won't have any problem finding a job." And so on.

 

Of course, I was disabused of those notions by attorneys before I even started school, so it hasn't been a huge shock. But still...

[Burt]

You could have said you were quoting Billy Carter.

[KMG_365]

You could have said you were quoting Billy Carter.

 

 

I guess I'm too young (graduated HS in 1983), I had to Google that one! Could it have been this one?

"Oh, I don't like women lawyers. Tandy done introduced me to thirty lawyers. Anybody knows that many lawyers can't be honest."

 

 

 

 

My favorite quote from my original link above was his summation:

 

As long as there are lawyer, there will be "lawyer jokes". And lawyers will show how those jokes ring true by trying to explain how such lampooning really constitutes praise for their profession, thus by example justifying the jokes more than ever.

 

[Joel]

I vaguely recall a list of other myths with which law students are often indoctrinated, but I'm having a hard time jerking that from my gray matter right now.

 

Here's a start.

[Les is more]

[Burt]

I guess I'm too young (graduated HS in 1983), I had to Google that one!

Thanks, now I really feel old. It was a comment made by Billy Carter, brother of former president Jimmy Carter. I don't remember why he said it, but he made a comment about killing all the lawyers. Its mentioned in the Eagles song "Get Over It".

 

"The more I think about it, old Billy was right

Let's kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight"

[ghaverkamp]

Thanks, now I really feel old. It was a comment made by Billy Carter, brother of former president Jimmy Carter. I don't remember why he said it, but he made a comment about killing all the lawyers. Its mentioned in the Eagles song "Get Over It".

 

"The more I think about it, old Billy was right

Let's kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight"

 

Might that not be Billy Shakespeare?

 

I don't actually know, but Googling Billy Carter on this subject just brings up a common quotation, "Sometimes even lawyers need lawyers."

[KMG_365]

Might that not be Billy Shakespeare?

You're probably right. I'd forgotten about that line.

 

I don't actually know, but Googling Billy Carter on this subject just brings up a common quotation, "Sometimes even lawyers need lawyers."

I suppose if you googled ANY famous personality who ever made over million dollars and was ever involved in the courts for any length of time, you could eventually come up with an attributed quote or two bashing lawyers . . . .

[Burt]

Might that not be Billy Shakespeare?

I remember Carter being quoted as making the comment, but I can't remember why he said it. I'm not sure he was familiar with the writings of Shakespeare, but he might have been. It was a long time ago, and I might have gotten it screwed up. The Eagles song may have been referring to Shakespeare, but I've read on a couple of sites they thought it was referring to Carter.

[DavidEBSmith]

Frustrated, I came home, got my books off the shelf (and blew the dust off) and read up on the scene. I still didn't get what she was talking about, but a little Googling confirmed my suspicions! (clicky)

 

Yeah, the same guy wrote Libertarianism Makes You Stupid.

 

And has a fairly uninformed essay about the meaning of "militia" in the Constitution here

 

And while he is a recipient of an EFF Pioneer Award, is described here as "a deeply deranged nutcase, a net-loon if you will, with a serious and untreated personality disorder, who nevertheless can come off as reasonable on first contact. . . .[with] the same personality type as John Hinckley"

 

All of which qualifies him as a Shakespearean scholar.

[KMG_365]

All of which qualifies him as a Shakespearean scholar.

I thought that just qualified him as a legal scholar!

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

This whole thread is very timely. I'm due for Jury Duty again next week. I am determined to not be empanelled this time.

[ghaverkamp]

This whole thread is very timely. I'm due for Jury Duty again next week. I am determined to not be empanelled this time.

 

"I could not vote for the death penalty under any circumstances."

 

As opposed to, "I believe all convicted criminals should be put to death immediately and painfully," which is not sufficient to force your exclusion from a death penalty jury.

 

Of course, if it's not a death penalty case, all bets are off.

[MattS]

Of course, if it's not a death penalty case, all bets are off.

"My chest is west GIGGLES can't you see? The judge has HORNS!"

 

Will suffice even if it isn't a capital case.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

This whole thread is very timely. I'm due for Jury Duty again next week. I am determined to not be empanelled this time.

 

"I could not vote for the death penalty under any circumstances."

 

As opposed to, "I believe all convicted criminals should be put to death immediately and painfully," which is not sufficient to force your exclusion from a death penalty jury.

 

Of course, if it's not a death penalty case, all bets are off.

 

I have the best thing going for me... I was on a deadlocked jury, 11-1, in the past. Other than that, I can always call my union director and ask him to come to courtroom 'x', he moonlights as a bailiff. (fingers crossed.)

 

Not to mention that I've treated/transported in an ambulance many, many people accused of crimes- they all lied to me. Pretty much, they all lie. Even under oath.

[frogger]

You guys should live here, just received my third jury duty notice in about 14 months today. 1st time I ended up being jury foreman on a DWI case in the city I was an officer in. Second time around I was picked again, apparently being an ex-cop does not exclude you automatically. When I called the court today to inquire why I was picked so often I was told it's totally random by computor. Sure wish the slot machines in Vegas were that random. Wonder what will happen this time?

[SANTA]

if i every get polled for jury duty, my answer will be "ah the guy's guilty as hell you can see it all over his face..."

 

that should get me thrown out...

[DavidEBSmith]

"I could not vote for the death penalty under any circumstances."

 

As opposed to, "I believe all convicted criminals should be put to death immediately and painfully," which is not sufficient to force your exclusion from a death penalty jury.

 

Of course, if it's not a death penalty case, all bets are off.

 

Well, if it's not a death penalty case, insisting "Really, I could vote to impose the death penalty" would probably get you excused.

 

Anyway, speaking of lawyer jokes, I found this great story today, none of which I can quote on this family DB, about a lawyer and his client who were sanctioned $29,000 for obnoxious conduct. How bad does conduct have to be to earn a $29K sanction? Read the judge's opinion here (warning - PDF and really vulgar language). The guy sounds like a habitue of Advrider.

[Twisties]

This whole thread is very timely. I'm due for Jury Duty again next week. I am determined to not be empanelled this time.

 

Why?

[KMG_365]

Well, I sat there all day and they never called ANYONE! They claimed to be the third busiest court in the Nation, but all the court rooms either had juries still working or were not to the calling the jury phase. Fortunately, I had my PowerBook and my trusty Treo with me so I had internet access and a LOT of emails and reading I had to do! I got caught up on a LOT of work I've been too swamped (and distracted) to get to! I found a quiet corner to work in with power near by, things were humming along nicely and I was happily ensconced there in the jury lounge, when . . . irony of ironies . . . they decided they needed to pick today to conduct a FIRE DRILL!!

 

So the bells go off and they march all of us out of the building. We wait out front for 20 minutes, until the Deputy tells us the "pre-designated meeting place" is a few blocks away so we all dutifully walk the few blocks and stand around milling about in a parking lot downtown for another hour and a half waiting for the "all clear" so we could finally go back to the lounge to check out for the day. Fortunately again it was a beautiful sunny day in the low 70's and I could still check my email on my Treo and call "1bmwfan" to razz him about whether or not he was really going to show up tomorrow for the "Dances_With_Wiener_Dogs" party or not.

 

I'm actually sorry I didn't get to serve. Contrary to my sarcastic tone beginning this post, I really (used to) believe in our judicial system--until most recently anyway--well, at least it still works at the local level for the most part! At the San Diego Hall of Justice they have a judge who has served for 35+ years give an absolutely wonderful and inspiring welcoming speech in the morning to set the day's tone for all the prospective jurors. I think it should be required of every school kid in this country to hear in order to graduate High School, but it seems like due to budget cuts they're barely teaching Civics anymore.

 

Hey Boney! The news cameras were out front during the fire drill and I was wearing your "Share the Lane" T-Shirt proudly and I think I might have gotten on the evening news! I wore it 'cause last year I got hassled by some SDPD Motors guys in front of a bunch of cagers at a stop light trying to make it look like I was doing something illegal! I never did get an answer to my pointed email to the City's new Police Chief at the time. They know it's legal, but the old Chief had an "informal, in-house policy" to try to hassle splitting bikers and pull them over then write them for some other infraction (since so many of the squids have any number of things a LEO could cite them for). It's total BS, but they won't publicly come out and admit it's legal for fear of turning the hoards stunt bikers loose on the clogged rush hour freeways.

 

**(Whew!)** [/rant]

[Bullett]

I try not to be a prig, really. But I was talking with a colleague who practices in a small town here in Utah today who told me that in his town the courts are having trouble empaneling juries because about a third of the citizens summoned simply don't show up for jury duty.

 

A few years ago on election day, I asked the checker at the grocery store whether she had voted. She told me she wasn't registered to vote because she didn't want to be called for jury duty.

 

The constitutional right to trial by jury is intended to protect those accused of crime from oppression by the government. It was felt that a jury of citizens would use their common sense to detemine the truth of the accusations against the defendant based on the evidence provided at trial.

 

I represent parties before a state agency where the person who finds the facts gets to also apply the law. I used to be the “factfinder” myself. I can say from experience that such a system is easy to manipulate to a predetermined result.

 

Although I agree that it is a pain to have to go to jury duty, jury duty is a small price to pay for protection against government oppression in any form.

[kooshbal]

A young cowboy from Wyoming goes off to college, but half way through

the semester, he has foolishly squandered all his money. He calls home.

 

"Dad," he says, "You won't believe what modern education is developing!

They actually have a program here in Laramie that will teach our dog, ol'

Blue how to talk!"

 

"That's amazing," his Dad says. "How do I get Ol' Blue in that program?"

 

"Just send him down here with $1,000" the young cowboy says. "I'll get him

in the course."

 

So, his father sends the dog and $1,000.

 

About two-thirds through the semester, the money again runs out. The boy

calls home.

 

"So how's Ol' Blue doing, son," his father asks.

 

"Awesome, Dad, he's talking up a storm," he says, "but you just won't

believe this they've had such good results they have started to teach the

animals how to read!"

 

"Read!"says his father, "No kidding! How do we get Blue in that program?"

 

"Just send $2,500, I'll get him in the class."

 

The money promptly arrives.

 

But our hero has a problem. At the end of the year, his father will find

out the dog can neither talk, nor read.

 

So he shoots the dog.

 

When he arrives home at the end of the year, his father is all excited.

 

"Where's Ol' Blue? I just can't wait to see him read something and talk!"

 

"Dad," the boy says, "I have some grim news. Yesterday morning, just

before we left to drive home, Ol' Blue was in the living room, kicked back

in

the recliner, reading the Wall Street Journal, like he usually does.

 

Then he turned to me and asked, 'So, is your daddy still messing' around

with that little redhead who lives in town?"

 

The father exclaimed, "I hope you shot that son of a bitch before he talks

to your Mother!"

 

"I sure did, Dad!"

 

"That's my boy!"

 

The kid went onto be a successful lawyer .

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

This whole thread is very timely. I'm due for Jury Duty again next week. I am determined to not be empanelled this time.

 

Why?

 

Well, let see. Last time I was empaneled it was because a guy hit his neighbor. Neighbor calls cops. Paperwork is filed. Perp refuses any deal. Neighbor and Perp make up. County won't drop charges because of priors. Neighbor takes stand and lies- "it didn't really happen that way" referring to written report by deputy and quotes of Neighbor on said report, accompanied by signed statement from Neighbor stating the same as reprot.

 

So the court has arraignments in the morning. They always ran over, meaning we, the jurors, stood in the hallway for an hour after court was supposed to start. Then we'd march in and out for another hour while they discussed things in court we weren't supposed to hear. Then we'd hear 10 minutes of testimony- that's if the witness could be bothered to come to court. Otherwise we'd go to lunch early- it the witness did show up, then we'd hear 10 minutes of testimony, and go to lunch early. When we came back from lunch, someone would always be late, so we'd spend another 15-20 minutes standing around the hallways waiting. Then, we'd hear another 10 minutes of testimony, again, if the witness decided they could be bothered to come to court that day, and go home early.

 

After 6 days of this COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME, covering an actual 6 hours of courtroom time (I kept track) we hit the jury room to discuss the information provided to us, and one of the jurors, whom I will not stereotype (even though it would super easy to do) "could not bring herself to make a judgement that might effect someone else's life!" What in the holy house of dog was she doing in there in the first place?! AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGG!

 

Justice? No- it was injustice- to the jurors. It's 7 days of my life I will never get back, and not one person is better off because of it.

 

Picking my nose is more productive. Seriously.

[Twisties]

Thanks for the explanation.

 

what in the holy house of dog

 

 

I don't know. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing myself. I guess I think it's the best system anyone's come up with so far, but it needs a lot of work. I just tell myself that it's so important that at least a few people with a brain show up, that I don't worry about going. On the other hand, juries are very unpredictable, and I agree there are real questions about them.

 

My own experience has also, so far, resulted in a waste of time. But I figure that maybe once my service will matter. Have you ever thought about what if you are the hold out on a jury? If, at least in your own mind, you are all that stands between a horrible injustice of some kind? I think about that sort of thing. I must have a lack of faith in my peers. Anyway, I don't think I could refuse.

 

But we each serve society in our own ways.... I don't mean to be judgmental, just talking about myself.

 

See ya,

 

Jan

[Timmer]

I'm with Tom. The last time I was called in to jury duty it was for a felon in possession of a firearm. 4 days of my life wasted listening to the judge and the lawyers ask stupid questions, and then having her honor lecture us like we were all special ed first graders. I was the last guy to get thrown off the panel.

 

In the 15 years I've lived in this County, I've been called 8 times, and picked for a panel 6 times. I'm batting 1000% on being kicked off panels by the lawyers. Makes no difference if it is civil or criminal, I always get thrown off the panel. (There are good reasons in my background for this.) I've gone to the jury commissioner and asked to be removed from the list - its obvious no one wants me on their jury, but the dang fool won't excuse me. I've written letters asking the presiding judge and got a "tough you'd better show up" letter in response.

 

One time, after listening to the same three questions being asked by an attorney questioning the jurors, I answered all three very simple yes/no questions right away when it was my turn. That got me a severe warning from the judge. Then the attorney went: "now let me make certain I understand your answers..." and he repeated all three questions. He was obviously getting paid $400/hour and had all the time in the world to run his clients bill up.

 

Until the folks that run the courts can get their act together, use some common sense, and quit wasting so much of the citizens time, they deserve all the grief they get about showing up for jury duty.

 

If you want potential jurors to respect the judicial system, the system has to show more respect for the potential jurors.

[DavidEBSmith]

Speaking from the perspective of someone who's both been on a jury and who's been a lawyer trying a case to a jury: We in the court system do a lousy job of telling you on the jury what's going on and the value of your presence. It's largely because we're trying to keep you focused on the core of the case and not having to be subjected to a lot of lawyers BSing each other. As much BS as you heard, trust me, there was way more going on behind the scenes, and you should feel lucky you were staring at the walls of the jury room instead of having to listen to us.

 

One of the things that aggravated people on the juries I was on was that on the way to and from lunch, the lawyers on the case would stare at the elevator walls as if we weren't there. Then when I got to be a lawyer, I found out that talking to somebody with a JUROR sticker was just about asking to have your law license pulled. But of course, we can't even talk to you to tell you that we can't talk to you.

 

There's a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes that the jury never knows about. And when you've spent 7 boring days listening to us drone on, we really don't want to take up more of your time to explain ourselves. We figure you want to get on with your lives. Better you should go home frustrated and mystified than to have to listen to me explain my trial strategy for another hour.

 

But I gotta say, when somebody's been wronged and is seeking justice, having the confidence in your case to say "Let's put it to 12 average people" is a powerful tool. That's why cases settle on the courthouse steps - because one lawyer isn't willing to bet that he can BS a jury. That's why there's a lot a waiting around for nothing to happen - because behind the scenes, some lawyer faced with the prospect of putting his case to a jury just blinked and backed down. And if it goes to trial, the lawyers blather on, the judge is wrapped up in legal ticky-tacky details, but the jury can smell a rat, or a liar, or a case that just doesn't hold together, and doesn't get hung up in the legal mumbo-jumbo. And sometimes everybody on the jury doesn't agree. Sometimes one juror is a butthead. As a lawyer, if I can't convince even that butthead, maybe my case just isn't good enough and my side doesn't deserve to win.

 

It is a pain in the butt to be on a jury. But if you were on the other side of the room, if you were the one who was wronged, would you want to leave your fate to a bunch of pettifogging lawyers and some old guy in a black dress, or do you think you'd have a better chance with the collective common sense of 12 average people? We need some people who don't spend all day wrapped up in the legal system to maintain a connection to the real world.

[Timmer]

It is a pain in the butt to be on a jury. But if you were on the other side of the room, if you were the one who was wronged, would you want to leave your fate to a bunch of pettifogging lawyers and some old guy in a black dress, or do you think you'd have a better chance with the collective common sense of 12 average people? We need some people who don't spend all day wrapped up in the legal system to maintain a connection to the real world.

 

EB - My gripe is with the way jurors are treated, not with being tried by a jury. I understand the reasons for some of the non-communication. I guess I just have a low level of tolerance for the inefficient manner in which jurors are picked.

 

Maybe someone can explain to me how it helps the justice system to keep calling me back, when I have a proven track record of being dismissed from jury panels. Its not only a waste of my time, but also the time of the other 50-100 people in the court room...including the lawyers and the judge.

 

Good thing I'm not a judge, I'd hold the jury commissioner in contempt of court for being stupid in public.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

If public stupidity were actionable, there wouldn't be a jail big enough to hold them all. Pretty easy to find a jury of your peers though.

 

I guess you would have to have classes of stupidity.

General dumbass. A civil violation similar to a traffic ticket.

Aggravated dumbass. Misdemeanor, no more than 364 days in jail.

Flagrant dumbass. 20 years to life and no Jerry Springer.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

My gripe is that I, as a juror, is expected- no scratch that- threatened with being held in contempt of court for being late while the lawyers, judges, witnesses, and court's schedules run willy-nilly with no consequences.

 

The expectation that I have 7 days to waste for less than one day of actual courtroom time is completely rediculous. I won't do it again.

[KMG_365]

Its not only a waste of my time, but also the time of the other 50-100 people in the court room...including the lawyers and the judge.

That's just the thing. The legal system moves at a comparatively glacial pace compared to the real world. It's kind of the disconnect that Eebie mentioned above. They are in ABSOLUTELY NO HURRY to solve anything. If you think it's bad in a jury trial, try being in a case where there's no financial incentive and one side can make a case why they need more time to handle some detail or make some contact (that could be done in a day, maybe three) and the judge postpones everything for 90 days EVERY TIME! It took me almost three years to finally get the FIVE MINUTES in front of a judge that it took to settle my case. Meanwhile all the lawyers could do was find ways to pad their time cards with "the system's" full complicity.

[Couchrocket]

Jamie,

 

You should have asked her if she knew the derivation of another famous Shakespeare quote, "Where there's a will, there's a way."

[Hardware]

Old joke...but...I wouldn't feel comfortable being tried by a judge and jury when the jury is comprised of people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty...I mean...a jury acquited O.J....

[Bill_Walker]

But I gotta say, when somebody's been wronged and is seeking justice, having the confidence in your case to say "Let's put it to 12 average people" is a powerful tool.

 

It might be even more powerful if juries were actually composed of 12 average people. I strongly suspect that in reality most juries, particularly on longer cases, are composed primarily of the retired and the unemployed, they being the only ones who have no excuse based on loss of income or other hardships.

 

I think the founding fathers had in mind as "a jury of your peers" men like themselves: landed men with incomes that did not depend on their daily presence.

[DavidEBSmith]

I strongly suspect that in reality most juries, particularly on longer cases, are composed primarily of the retired and the unemployed

 

I was on a jury for three weeks, and most if not all the jurors were employed. Certainly as the expected trial gets longer, it gets harder to pick jurors for whom serving won't be a substantial hardship, but they're not all unemployed, retired or too stupid to get out of jury duty.

[Berkley]

If public stupidity were actionable, there wouldn't be a jail big enough to hold them all. Pretty easy to find a jury of your peers though.

 

I guess you would have to have classes of stupidity.

General dumbass. A civil violation similar to a traffic ticket.

Aggravated dumbass. Misdemeanor, no more than 364 days in jail.

Flagrant dumbass. 20 years to life and no Jerry Springer.

 

But commit a felony while Governor of NY state and you might just walk away from it all.

 

Oh, and your wife supports you in resisting resignation!

 

Lovely role models we have these days

 

[/end hijack]