Insurance company CEO assassinated in New York

[Spymaster]

Excellent piece on jury selection by a retired Supreme Court judge andysays littlebabyjesus .

My read of that is that the prosecution would be able to ask if potential jurors have been affected by the industry and excuse them for cause if they have.

 

[brogdale]

Excellent piece on jury selection by a retired Supreme Court judge andysays littlebabyjesus .

My read of that is that the prosecution would be able to ask if potential jurors have been affected by the industry and excuse them for cause if they have.

But all US citizens have been affected by the fact that medicine is an "industry" rather than a service.

 

[andysays]

Excellent piece on jury selection by a retired Supreme Court judge andysays littlebabyjesus .

My read of that is that the prosecution would be able to ask if potential jurors have been affected by the industry and excuse them for cause if they have.

Thanks, I'll have a read of that later.

But all US citizens have been affected by the fact that medicine is an "industry" rather than a service.

Yeah, many will have been personally and directly affected by it, as it were, but all are affected in some way.

Looks like it might be difficult to find 12 jurors who the prosecution don't object to.

 

[_Russ_]

The Jury filtering is in place for some good reasons but in reality even though it can safeguard against some inordinate bias it also becomes a way to influence the outcome away from what a pure Random jury might produce.
Ultimately its a procedure that has the side effect of producing extra court time and cash for the stinky lawyers, which is of far more importance than its stated reasons for existing in an ultra-capitalist regime ... it will always be this way.

 

[Spymaster]

But all US citizens have been affected by the fact that medicine is an "industry" rather than a service.

But that doesn't mean they'd be unable to render an unbiased verdict.

Not every American has been negatively affected by the system and many are even supportive of it. The notion that even the majority of those who oppose the current US healthcare model would be supportive of murder to the extent that they'd subvert the rule of law as a juror is daft.

The idea that they won't be able to find a jury is fanciful, at best. Indeed, Mangione's lawyer has already argued the opposite, in that she's proposed that potential jurors might be biased against him because of media reporting.

 

[Spymaster]

The Jury filtering is in place for some good reasons but in reality even though it can safeguard against some inordinate bias it also becomes a way to influence the outcome away from what a pure Random jury might produce.
Ultimately its a procedure that has the side effect of producing extra court time and cash for the stinky lawyers, which is of far more importance than its stated reasons for existing in an ultra-capitalist regime ... it will always be this way.

This is nonsense.

 

[two sheds]

many are even supportive of it.

Juror is biased and I object, m'lud.

 

[Spymaster]

Juror is biased and I object, m'lud.

Your honour.

 

[DotCommunist]

Theres a reasonably good mid period Grisham book, the story is centred on jury selection and the lengths gone to that cross into nobbling. If they call it that in america, it sounds like a very british word.


e2a

The Runaway Jury

 

[Spymaster]

Theres a reasonably good mid period Grisham book, the story is centred on jury selection and the lengths gone to that cross into nobbling. If they call it that in america, it sounds like a very british word.


e2a

The Runaway Jury

Also a great Grisham film, but absurdly OTT.

 

[DotCommunist]

Also a great Grisham film, but absurdly OTT.

Time To Kill ('yes they deserve to die! and I hope they burn in hell!) and Pelican Brief I remember fondly but never caught that adapt

 

[brogdale]

But that doesn't mean they'd be unable to render an unbiased verdict.

Not every American has been negatively affected by the system and many are even supportive of it. The notion that even the majority of those who oppose the current US healthcare model would be supportive of murder to the extent that they'd subvert the rule of law as a juror is daft.

The idea that they won't be able to find a jury is fanciful, at best. Indeed, Mangione's lawyer has already argued the opposite, in that she's proposed that potential jurors might be biased against him because of media reporting.

Don't disagree with that, but everyone carries their own bias into the courtroom.

 

[Spymaster]

Time To Kill ('yes they deserve to die! and I hope they burn in hell!) and Pelican Brief I remember fondly but never caught that adapt

Definitely worth a watch just for John Cusack's character.

It's on Amazon Prime.

 

[kabbes]

The notion of “bias” implies that there is one true objectively correct answer that flawed humans fail to grasp only because they have a systematic misunderstanding of that one true logic. I reject pretty much every step of that argument. People aren’t biased. They have a position in a structured field of power relations that results in their having a particular subjective meaning that they make of the context.

 

[brogdale]

The notion of “bias” implies that there is one true objectively correct answer that flawed humans fail to grasp only because they have a systematic misunderstanding of that one true logic. I reject pretty much every step of that argument. People aren’t biased. They have a position in a structured field of power relations that results in their having a particular subjective meaning that they make of the context.

Thanks, helps me think about the words I use.

 

[philosophical]

In their system what is the threshold for a jury failing to agree? Could it be three of the twelve?
You only need one to acquit because he is America’s boyfriend, one to acquit because of how they regard the health insurance industry, and one to acquit because they have been got at Soprano’s style (I have been reading about the family background of Luigi).
For me I am stuck with the nasty bit about shooting a guy in the back. If Luigi was a made man surely he would have the nerve to face the guy and look him in the eye before shooting him, or do I watch too many films?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Remember the jury selection for Shkreli? Over 200 jurors dismissed before they could find 12 who didn't preconceive him as scum...

'I hate him': Martin Shkreli court transcript reveals struggle for impartial jurors

In choosing a jury for entrepreneur’s fraud trial, the court dealt with anger over his treatment of the Wu-Tang Clan and concerns that he looked like ‘a snake’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Spymaster]

The notion of “bias” implies that there is one true objectively correct answer that flawed humans fail to grasp only because they have a systematic misunderstanding of that one true logic. I reject pretty much every step of that argument. People aren’t biased. They have a position in a structured field of power relations that results in their having a particular subjective meaning that they make of the context.

This is probably all correct, but the notion of bias in the context of the legal system simply refers to someone's propensity to judge the case according to preconceived ideas and prejudices rather than by the evidence, very much in the way that many are doing on this thread.

 

[DotCommunist]

Remember the jury selection for Shkreli? Over 200 jurors dismissed before they could find 12 who didn't preconceive him as scum...

'I hate him': Martin Shkreli court transcript reveals struggle for impartial jurors

In choosing a jury for entrepreneur’s fraud trial, the court dealt with anger over his treatment of the Wu-Tang Clan and concerns that he looked like ‘a snake’

www.theguardian.com

read something similar about a case involving a baltimore police officer, juror after juror recusing themselves because they honestly hated OB for previous fuckery to them or people they know.

 

[emanymton]

But that doesn't mean they'd be unable to render an unbiased verdict.

Not every American has been negatively affected by the system and many are even supportive of it. The notion that even the majority of those who oppose the current US healthcare model would be supportive of murder to the extent that they'd subvert the rule of law as a juror is daft.

The idea that they won't be able to find a jury is fanciful, at best. Indeed, Mangione's lawyer has already argued the opposite, in that she's proposed that potential jurors might be biased against him because of media reporting.

Despite what some on here seem to think, the majority of Americans do in fact oppose murder even in this case. Although apparently support for the killing is much higher with younger people so maybe they should just choose the jury bassed on age.

I should say that opposition to murder is clearly not as strong in this case as most others.

 

[Spymaster]

In their system what is the threshold for a jury failing to agree? Could it be three of the twelve?
You only need one to acquit because he is America’s boyfriend, one to acquit because of how they regard the health insurance industry, and one to acquit because they have been got at Soprano’s style (I have been reading about the family background of Luigi).
For me I am stuck with the nasty bit about shooting a guy in the back. If Luigi was a made man surely he would have the nerve to face the guy and look him in the eye before shooting him, or do I watch too many films?

Any decision has to be unanimous. If they can't reach a unanimous verdict there'll be a retrial.

 

[Yossarian]

Remember the jury selection for Shkreli? Over 200 jurors dismissed before they could find 12 who didn't preconceive him as scum...

'I hate him': Martin Shkreli court transcript reveals struggle for impartial jurors

In choosing a jury for entrepreneur’s fraud trial, the court dealt with anger over his treatment of the Wu-Tang Clan and concerns that he looked like ‘a snake’

www.theguardian.com

The court: “The question is, have you heard anything that would affect your ability to decide this case with an open mind? Can you do that?”

Juror No 144: “I don’t think I can because he kind of looks like a dick.”

They dismissed more than 300 potential jurors but the jury they ended up with still found Shkreli guilty on three out of eight counts

 

[two sheds]

Any decision has to be unanimous. If they can't reach a unanimous verdict there'll be a retrial.

and another retrial if there's no unanimous verdict in that - up to the point where the prosecution decides it's a waste of time and money going for another retrial. Which in this case might take a few retrials.

 

[andysays]

Excellent piece on jury selection by a retired Supreme Court judge andysays littlebabyjesus .

My read of that is that the prosecution would be able to ask if potential jurors have been affected by the industry and excuse them for cause if they have.

So now that I've had a bath and my breakfast, I can come back to this.

According to the author, Phylis Skloot Bamberger, the purpose of the voir dire is to disclose prospective jurors who are unable to fulfill the obligations of a juror or who are not capable of undertaking an impartial evaluation of the evidence and application of the relevant legal rules. Such disclosure leads to excusal of jurors for cause.

So it wouldn't be enough to find that a particular juror had, for example, a mother who had died as a result of the fucked up system of medical insurance in the USA, the prosecution would need to demonstrate that because their mother died as a result of the fucked up system of medical insurance in the USA, the juror wasn't capable of undertaking an impartial evaluation of the evidence and application of the relevant legal rules.

I don't think this will actually mean that they won't be able to put together a jury, but it may make the voir dire process pretty long and interesting if the prosecution decide to go down this road.

 

[Spymaster]

The court: “The question is, have you heard anything that would affect your ability to decide this case with an open mind? Can you do that?”

Juror No 144: “I don’t think I can because he kind of looks like a dick.”

They dismissed more than 300 potential jurors but the jury they ended up with still found Shkreli guilty on three out of eight counts

There was a suggestion that it was people trying to get out of jury service, so the judge ordered that anyone dismissed from serving on that jury went straight back into the jury pool to be considered for the next case, indefinitely until they'd served.

 

[Spymaster]

So now that I've had a bath and my breakfast, I can come back to this.

According to the author, Phylis Skloot Bamberger, the purpose of the voir dire is to disclose prospective jurors who are unable to fulfill the obligations of a juror or who are not capable of undertaking an impartial evaluation of the evidence and application of the relevant legal rules. Such disclosure leads to excusal of jurors for cause.

So it wouldn't be enough to find that a particular juror had, for example, a mother who had died as a result of the fucked up system of medical insurance in the USA, the prosecution would need to demonstrate that because their mother died as a result of the fucked up system of medical insurance in the USA, the juror wasn't capable of undertaking an impartial evaluation of the evidence and application of the relevant legal rules.

I don't think this will actually mean that they won't be able to put together a jury, but it may make the voir dire process pretty long and interesting if the prosecution decide to go down this road.

Absolutely. It can take ages.

 

[andysays]

Absolutely. It can take ages.

And from the above report of the process in another case, it appears that it's all public, so we will potentially hear how many of the potential jurors do have, for example, a mother who had died as a result of the fucked up system of medical insurance in the USA, whether or not they are ultimately selected.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Any decision has to be unanimous. If they can't reach a unanimous verdict there'll be a retrial.

And a juror can acquit for any reason they wish, they can't be compelled to explain why. They may need a diplock court for this chap, which am pretty sure isn't allowed in the US...

 

[two sheds]

In the UK at least though you're not allowed to tell jurors that they can acquit against a judge's recommendation - someone was done (although as I recall it wasn't pursued) for holding a sign up outside an environmentalist's trial saying that.

 

[kabbes]

This is probably all correct, but the notion of bias in the context of the legal system simply refers to someone's propensity to judge the case according to preconceived ideas and prejudices rather than by the evidence, very much in the way that many are doing on this thread.

I know what those responsible for the legal system claim their intent is. But my point is that there is no such thing as an ability to judge a case free from preconceived ideas and prejudices. We effectively are a bag of preconceived ideas and prejudices.

I know it’s easy to dismiss philosophy as somehow separate from day to day life, but this question demonstrates the opposite. Philosophically, those who get to say how the legal system runs have taken a position of mind-body duality — that there is some kind of inner-self that is separate from the world and is capable of an objective and logical chain of reasoning that is free from perspective. However, there is little to support this philosophical stance. Humans rationalise using logics built from embodied, real-world experience. Our whole reasoning system is “prejudicial” from the ground up. Thinking you can avoid that reality through sufficient “objectivity” doesn’t solve the problem, it just hides it behind a firewall of who gets to decide what happens at each moment.