ron@hpfcmt.UUCP (ron) (01/08/85)
Justice ????????? I had the experience of sitting on a jury panel for potential jurors in a damage suit involving a light aircraft and the local utility company. I gathered from the attorneys' questions of the potential jurors that this involved an encounter between a 4 place Cessna and some utility lines 8 years ago resulting in brain damage to one of the aircraft occupants. What I wanted to post was not the facts of the case (which I don't know) but the look at the "justice" process which I received as I was removed from the list of potential jurors. The first few questions included "Is there anyone on the prospective juror panel who is a pilot ?" Later, "Mr. Miller, it says here you are an engineer.... what was your undergraduate degree in ? (EE I said) Then do you know about power transmission etc ?" The impression I received was that anyone with knowledge of : piloting an aircraft, aircraft maintenance, machinery maintenance, medical understanding of the brain, knowledge of cross-country power transmission, and property rental experience..... would be eliminated. The end result being that the jury would have absolutely no experience or knowledge relevant to the subject of the case outside what the lawyers would present in court. The little old ladies who said they wouldn't ride in a lightplane even if given the chance were left to decide the case. I am really beginning to understand how easy it is to manipulate the system to the point where each new aircraft carries almost $ 10 k in its price for product liability. I am also concerned that the attorneys think they can come up to speed on the subject areas so quickly as to be able to train the jury sufficiently to make a reasonable decision. ( i.e. I wonder if the NTSB report will come out in the above trial.......) I don't know what the verdict will be but I suspect that the utility will pay regardless of the circumstances of the accident. "But your honor, I was just practicing my nap-of-the-earth technique in my 172 when the wires reached up and grabbed me" Ron Miller Hewlett-Packard Co Ft. Collins, Co. (hplabs!hpfcla!ron-m)
dwl@hou4b.UUCP (D Levenson) (01/14/85)
From my experience as a juror and as a witness, the events described in the original article are not uncommon. The technique of deliberately removing from the jury anyone with any special knowlege of the facts of the case or of the general subject is common in legal proceedings. The intent is for the jury to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant based SOLELY on what is heard and seen in the court. Testimony from witnesses. Testimony from expert witnesses, if there are technicalities. But never the juror's own background or experience, except in areas of ordinary day to day life such as all humans may reasonably expect to have had. In short, jurors should be interchangeable without altering the decision. The job of the lawyer, in a courtroom, is to convince a jury of the peers of the defendant. If a technical understanding of power transmission or aerodynamics is germaine to the case, then an expert witness is called, and all jurors learn together. -Dave Levenson AT&T, Holmdel
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/16/85)
> From my experience as a juror and as a witness, the events described > in the original article are not uncommon. ... > The job of the lawyer, in a courtroom, is to convince a > jury of the peers of the defendant. If a technical understanding of > power transmission or aerodynamics is germaine to the case, then an > expert witness is called, and all jurors learn together. > > -Dave Levenson Originally, the idea of a "jury of your peers" was that the jury should be of the same class as, and thus as sympathetic as was reasonable to, the defendant. A proper modern analog would persons of the same profession or whatever. Maybe we should move this to net.legal. --JoSH