Judges hate juries, because judges think they should have that power.
They see juries as ignorant yokels that need steered down a path to justice, and “justice” is the judges opinion. So if they don’t get the result they want in a jury trial…
They bae the jury for being dumb idiots, and want to know what the need to do to get the next batch of dumb idiots to vote for “justice” next time.
This shit ain’t new, and any expert surprised this is how judges view jury cases is woefully naive.
Even a judge just openly saying it, that’s not new.
The judge can give idiot-level instructions to the jury, warnings to the jury, reprimands to the jury, whatever, as long as the trial is in progress. Once the verdict has been delivered, respect the process and the citizens and STFU. The shocking part is the open disrespect, not the opinion.
Yeah the reason that seems so hard to understand is because it’s a million miles away from anything I thought or said. All I said was that no one is shocked a judge feels that way about juries, they are shocked at the lack of decorum.
Aren’t juries usually ignorant yokels, though? I’m not saying the judges should have the power. Juries are necessary. That doesn’t make them good at what they do. Just better than the alternative.
considering that in about…2/3rds of all US states, judges are elected and have literally 0 actual legal experience requirements…i would probably trust the jury more than judge in alot of cases
The one time I wanted to sit on the jury, they dismissed me because I was a subject matter expert on the specific subject they were trying (and testified regularly before the court on the subject) and they didn’t want me dominating the jury. It was a federal fraud case and I am a better witness than the feds had gotten, just I’m very, very expensive.
But I usually do state superior court. Federal district court? That was exciting. I’m still a little grumpy I didn’t get seated in that one. I was even willing to promise to behave myself (and even willing to keep that promise too, federal court is different than state court)
Weird “legal experts” are shocked about this…
Judges hate juries, because judges think they should have that power.
They see juries as ignorant yokels that need steered down a path to justice, and “justice” is the judges opinion. So if they don’t get the result they want in a jury trial…
They bae the jury for being dumb idiots, and want to know what the need to do to get the next batch of dumb idiots to vote for “justice” next time.
This shit ain’t new, and any expert surprised this is how judges view jury cases is woefully naive.
Even a judge just openly saying it, that’s not new.
Nobody believes in the legal system as strongly as the people who run it.
The judge can give idiot-level instructions to the jury, warnings to the jury, reprimands to the jury, whatever, as long as the trial is in progress. Once the verdict has been delivered, respect the process and the citizens and STFU. The shocking part is the open disrespect, not the opinion.
…
So…
In your head, if someone is t surprised by something, it means they support it?
I just don’t understand how you got confused enough to type that in reply to my comment
Yeah the reason that seems so hard to understand is because it’s a million miles away from anything I thought or said. All I said was that no one is shocked a judge feels that way about juries, they are shocked at the lack of decorum.
Oh ok…
It was that thing where someone just rephrases what they reply to without adding something.
Thanks for verifying! I just like being sure.
Nope, wow, wrong again, and confidently so.
You seemed to think “legal experts” shouldn’t be surprised judges hate juries. And I was saying they aren’t, they’re shocked at the lack of decorum.
Jesus Christ if I have to spell it out for you one more time I’m going to puke. Get it or dont - you’re on your own.
See the Prairieland case for a recent example…
Aren’t juries usually ignorant yokels, though? I’m not saying the judges should have the power. Juries are necessary. That doesn’t make them good at what they do. Just better than the alternative.
considering that in about…2/3rds of all US states, judges are elected and have literally 0 actual legal experience requirements…i would probably trust the jury more than judge in alot of cases
A jury consists of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty.
not all, like voting, some of us take it seriously.
The one time I wanted to sit on the jury, they dismissed me because I was a subject matter expert on the specific subject they were trying (and testified regularly before the court on the subject) and they didn’t want me dominating the jury. It was a federal fraud case and I am a better witness than the feds had gotten, just I’m very, very expensive.
But I usually do state superior court. Federal district court? That was exciting. I’m still a little grumpy I didn’t get seated in that one. I was even willing to promise to behave myself (and even willing to keep that promise too, federal court is different than state court)
“Jury of your peers” aka the common clay as picked through by the legal teams. If memory serves, Marisa Tomei is the hot one in the room.
Marisa Tomei was an expert witness, if I understand your reference.
And would be the hot one in any room.