🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Wise <nospam@no.spam> wrote in
news:nospam-3F6FD3.15322511082002@news.easynews.com: 

> In article <Xns926783DCF46BFwikdpacbellnet@216.168.3.30>,
>  Gandalf  Parker <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> 
>> >> Really? I was told that defense lawyers usually tossed military in
>> >> the first round. Something about the attitides. >> 
>> That wasnt what I said.
>> Im talking about cases where the person IS proven 
>> guilty
> 
> Really? That's the first you've mentioned it. In any case, in what 
> universe is it that the defendent is proven guilty before the trial
> even starts...or are we talking about Liberia or something?

Please see the original post where I said "you cant get them to feel sorry 
for someone who is guilty". Who is guilty. Im sorry you missed that or 
misread it. And Im not talking about them being guilty beforehand. If you 
feel that both lawyers are operating completely on the attitude that the 
person is innocent then Im glad you still feel that way.

>> (or expected to be) and the defense attorney wants to plead for 
>> leniancy due to harsh upbringing or something.
> 
> Cases don't go to trial is the defense expects their client to proven 
> guilty. If it's clear the defense doesn't stand a chance, the
> defendent will plead guilty 99.9% of the time...and probably get a
> lighter sentence than if he/she had taken it to trial. In such cases
> no juror ever sees any aspect of the case.

There are plenty of times that cases go to court where the defense attorney 
at least CONSIDERS the posibility of losing his case. And is forced to act 
in his clients best interest by trying for the lightest senteance he can 
get him. Not all plea bargaining is automatically accepted also.

>> Long time mil service seems 
>> to give personel a kindof "do the crime, do the time" attitude toward
>> crime and punishment.
> 
> Says who? That may be how you feel, but it certainly isn't how I 
> feel...and there are plenty of active duty and former military members
> whose notion of criminal justice isn't guilty until proven innocent.
> I'm not sure if you presume to speak for vets with respect to this or
> if you're believing what somebody else says about it. Whatever the
> case, it's not true.

That isnt what I said. That isnt what I meant. And that isnt what I want 
you to try and read into what I said. IF someone is judged guilty then MOST 
of the military personel I know would tend to consider punishment to be 
automatic. Not some variable based on his rough childhood or emotional 
stress at the time of the crime.

>> Guilty/not-guilty with no greys.
> 
> That's right...no greys....and just because somebody has been charged 
> with something does not make them guilty of it. A fair trial is what's
> necessary to get rid of those "greys" and determining guilty-not
> guilty. 

Of course. We are talking about the USA after all.

>> When I heard this I thought 
>> about it and considered that as a general rule for attorneys to
>> operate on its probably true enough.
> 
> I doubt it.

I tell you what. You make an effort not to insult me and I will do the same 
for you.

>> > Even so, there's nothing to identify a prospective juror as
>> > ex-military. So unless he/she is expressly asked during jury
>> > selection, how is either attorney to know?
>> 
>> Maybe because my job says "military retired"?
> 
> So when you are calledc for jury duty, you bring resumes with you to 
> present to the judge as well as counsel?? I'm sorry, one's job is not 
> listed on their jury summons.

You think they have no information on you? What do you think your selection 
is based on? Why do you get the letter? Does it come to "occupant" or 
something?

> If you're not currently in the military,
> saying that you once were is not relevant to the question of what your
> current occupation may be.

Quite true. But my census information says that my present emplyment is 
retired (military). If yours does not then it makes sense for it not to be 
a factor in the first round.

> I doubt my getting dismissed had anything to do with my military
> service period. 

That might be true.

> I think it had more to do with both sides weeding out 
> prospective jurors who were educated and articulate (apart from the 
> jurors dismissed for obvious real or feigned biases). After this last 
> (civil trial) the defense attorney told me that both side try to get 
> not-so-smart juries for criminal trials (so they can manipulate them 
> better) and smarter ones for civil trials.

Hmmm that sounds reasonable also. Of course they both have a limited number 
of blackballs to use so much of the process is done before anyone gets to 
the questioning. And this really only applies to retired mils anyway. In 
most places active duty are exempt from jury duty.

I did find one reference to the types of questions usually asked for a 
jury. military is specifically mentioned although it doesnt say why.
http://members.aol.com/jtf1952/newsjqs1.htm


Gandalf  Parker