Runaway Juries and Jury Nullification

[~ Typhøid Mary ~]

Verdict's in on juries that run their own way
Juror actions, from reading the Bible to going online, can end in justice
unserved

By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News
April 15, 2005

When prospective jurors for the trial of Timothy McVeigh were asked what
they were reading in April 1997, a noticeable number of them named John
Grisham's then-best seller, The Runaway Jury.

Mention of the title never failed to send smiles across the courtroom where
McVeigh's jury was being selected.

"We tease a little bit about the title," prosecutor Larry Mackey told one
prospective juror who said she had read the book. "But as you sit there now,
you know that if you were sworn as a juror, you have no freedom to run away;
you would be bound to follow the court's instructions?"
"Yes, definitely," the woman answered.

But the response is not always as definitive.

Eight years after the high-profile Oklahoma City bomber trial, some jurors
still disregard the court's rules. The dilemma has divided the legal
community, with some thinking jurors should get better explanations of the
rules to make it less likely they'll run amok and others arguing the system
should trust jurors to use good judgment.

When things go wrong, the effect can be substantial.

Runaway jurors in Colorado have read improperly to their fellow jurors from
the Bible during deliberations, resulting in a Colorado Supreme Court
announcement March 28 that convicted murderer Robert Harlan will serve life
in prison instead of being executed as the jury had intended.

Other runaways have done their own research into arcane legal subjects, as
one juror did at the Denver Public Library during a six-week federal civil
trial involving securities law. The result was a mistrial.

A runaway jury in Colorado Springs, specifically told by the judge that it
could not consult a copy of the Physicians Desk Reference about uses of the
drug Paxil, defiantly consulted the online version and agreed not to let
anyone know what it had done. But two of them had second thoughts and later
confessed to the judge, who questioned the juror who led the revolt. The man
was unrepentant.

"The letter of the law," he conceded to the judge, "but, geez."

The result: A new trial was ordered for a woman accused of killing her
4-month-old stepgrandson.

Working on reforms

Donna Wheeler, of Denver, who served nine weeks - two of them sequestered -
on the jury that convicted murderer Kevin Fears in 1993, advocates spelling
out the rules more clearly for jurors. She also thinks they should be warned
about the consequences of running off in their own directions.

Wheeler serves on a Colorado Supreme Court committee that has been working
for several years on jury reform.

Wheeler said nobody on her jury broke any rules, but the jurors never knew
what might have happened if they had.

"I found out after I was a juror that there were things I could have said or
done that could have jeopardized the verdict," Wheeler said. "I think people
should be aware of the damage they can do," she said.

Adams County District Judge Philip Roan, presiding over the Robert Harlan
trial in 1995, repeatedly warned jurors to avoid outside influences. They
were to base their decision on the evidence in the case and "nothing else
whatsoever," he said.

They were not to discuss the case with anyone; they were to avoid televised
reports by turning off the television or leaving the room; they were not to
follow the O.J. Simpson trial, then in progress in California; and they were
not to watch Court TV. They also were to have someone screen their
newspapers for reports on anything about the criminal justice system and
remove those sections.

"Even if you disagree with or don't understand the reasons for some of these
rules, you must follow them," Roan said.

But jurors consulted the Bible the night before they condemned Harlan to
die, and at least one Bible was in the deliberation room when they reached
that decision.

It's not clear if the jurors understood that consulting the Bible - just
like reading newspaper reports or following the O.J. Simpson trial on TV -
was against the rules.

"For some people, the Bible is such a part of their lives that they would
probably have to be specifically told that - and not only told that, but to
be told what the ramifications were," Wheeler said.

And who didn't have a teacher who insisted that students use the dictionary
to look up words they didn't understand?

"If the judge doesn't specifically say 'dictionary,' doesn't it sound like
the most obvious thing, if somebody uses a word and you're on this jury
where someone's life or money is at stake - how could anybody object to you
understanding the words that are being used?" Wheeler said.

A Colorado jury did exactly that in the 1980s, however. During a burglary
trial, it looked up the word "burglary" in a dictionary. The definition
jurors found there differed from the legal definition they were supposed to
consider.

Different from a TV show

Wheeler said the jury reform committee is designing notebooks to be given to
jurors and wants them to include glossaries, agreed upon by the judge and
lawyers in each case, of terms that will be used in the trial. That, she
said, would help jurors focus on doing their jobs better.

"Jurors have what I call courtroom-induced attention deficit disorder,"
Wheeler said. "Most jurors are not familiar with the court system, with who
the players are, with what's going to happen. It's a little different from
watching Law and Order.

"They hear someone say something they're unfamiliar with, and they start
thinking about that, and then realize they've missed the last 30 seconds of
testimony. And then they miss five minutes more while they worry about it,"
she said.

Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane said he has never had a runaway jury,
and he believes that's because he spends time explaining to jurors what the
rules are, why they are that way and what the consequences for breaking them
can be.

"I explain to them what a mistrial is and how jury misconduct can cause a
mistrial," Kane said.

A mistrial is declared if jurors are hopelessly deadlocked or if something
goes so wrong during a trial that it wouldn't be fair to go on with it. A
new trial must be held, starting all over with different jurors.

Kane said mistrials are expensive, including lawyers' fees, witnesses' fees
and travel expenses, as well as the time spent by the judge and the court
staff.

"It's all for naught," he said.

He said he explains to jurors that independently consulting outside
materials or doing their own research isn't fair because, if the lawyers
don't know about it, they can't challenge it or argue about it.

"Fairness requires that we all play from the same page. So whatever they're
going to decide in there, it has to be done on the basis of what these
people on both sides prepared," Kane said.

"How can you have fairness when you're blindsiding people?" he asks jurors.

He said it's not enough for a judge to simply order jurors not to consult
outside materials.

"It requires something more on the part of a judge," he said.

Former Denver District Judge Connie Peterson, now in private law practice,
disagrees.

"I think the courts are doing fine the way it is," she said. "The courts are
making it very clear to jurors. This (the Harlan jury mistake in consulting
the Bible) was the responsibility of the jurors."

Keeping things fair for all parties

Jefferson County District Judge Leland Anderson said he spends extra time
explaining to jurors how to be fair.

"I don't say, 'No Bibles,' " Anderson said. "If I said 'No Bibles,' would I
have say 'No Torah'?

"But from the get-go one of the first things they're going to hear out of my
mouth is that, no matter what the results are in this trial, the thing that
should keep them awake at night 20 years from now if they're stewing about
any decision is whether they crossed the boundary and violated the rule of
law."

That means that the law - from the U.S. Constitution to statutes enacted by
elected officials to the rules that must be followed in court - should
prevail over personal feelings and all other considerations. It's meant to
keep things fair.

These days, Anderson uses the example of Iraq. "That is what a country looks
like that is devoid of rule of law," he tells jurors, "and that we have
young men and women who are risking their lives to establish rule of law in
a country on the far side of the world."

"The least that we can do in response to their sacrifices," Anderson says,
"is to apply the same significance and import to the rule of law in our
courts."

If they flout it, he tells jurors, he'll likely hear about it and have to
conduct an investigation - bringing them in one by one to be questioned
about what they did and what other jurors did.

Once, Anderson fired a jury for not following the rules. The jurors had
talked among themselves about a drug case before they were supposed to start
deliberating. Anderson declared a mistrial.

"It probably cost the state many, many thousands of dollars," he said.

He said he understands why people sitting as jurors in a difficult trial,
seeing depictions of horrible events, feel a need to talk about it. He said
he also understands why some people, in their enthusiasm for their jury
service, launch their own investigations.

Anderson also sits on the Colorado Supreme Court's jury reform committee,
where he and others successfully urged Colorado's courts to let jurors ask
questions during civil trials. Privately, Anderson believes they also should
be able to ask questions during criminal trials, but that isn't allowed yet.

When jurors want to ask questions during criminal trials where he is
presiding, Anderson doesn't let them.

"I follow the rule of law," he said. "I tell jurors I expect no less of
them."

Across the country

Jurors dismissed over the issue of having outside materials

.. A juror was dismissed during deliberations in November in the Scott
Peterson murder trial in Redwood City, Calif., reportedly for doing her own
research, which was in violation of trial rules. Judge Alfred Delucchi then
reminded remaining jurors to consider only the facts and law that had been
presented to them "and no other source." An alternate replaced the juror.
Peterson was convicted of his pregnant wife's murder.

.. Also in California, a juror studying to be a paralegal brought a textbook
into the jury room, where jurors used its definition of entrapment instead
of the legal definition given to them. Result: A new trial was ordered for
the convicted defendant.

.. Another California jury, deliberating in the courtroom because of a space
shortage, borrowed the judge's copy of the state penal code from the bench
and scoured it for answers to questions that arose during their
deliberations.

.. In Louisiana, a juror was dismissed during deliberations in the corruption
trial of former Gov. Edwin Edwards. Court records state that the juror
brought a dictionary, a thesaurus and other "outside materials" into the
deliberation room.

.. In New Hampshire, a man convicted of molesting a 7-year-old girl was set
free after serving little more than one year in prison because a juror
consulted her son, a lawyer, and reported the conversation to other jurors.
The defendant had been sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison.

.. In Connecticut, a juror was arrested and charged with criminal contempt
after an inquiry into allegations that she initiated premature conversations
about a murder case with fellow jurors and sought their help in doing
Internet research on the case. A mistrial was declared and the defendant
pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

.. In Washington state, an exasperated judge dismissed all 63 prospective
jurors from deciding whether a confessed triple killer should be executed.
Some had looked up information about the defendant online and discussed the
findings among themselves. Others had discussed their intention - without
hearing any evidence - to vote for execution. The judge and lawyers in the
case had spent two months questioning more than 200 people for the final
panel of 12 jurors and six alternates. They had to start over.

The Oath of Jurors in Colorado

.. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that you and each of
you will well and truly try the matter at issue between the People of the
State of Colorado and ____ , the defendant, and render a true verdict,
according to the evidence?


--
The cautious seldom err.
--Confucius

[Charles L]

"~ Typhøid Mary ~" <typhoid@mary.va> wrote in message
news:1518e.32$AI4.2600@news.uswest.net...

Verdict's in on juries that run their own way Juror actions, from reading the Bible to going online, can end in justice unserved By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News April 15, 2005 When prospective jurors for the trial of Timothy McVeigh were asked what they were reading in April 1997, a noticeable number of them named John Grisham's then-best seller, The Runaway Jury. Mention of the title never failed to send smiles across the courtroom

where

McVeigh's jury was being selected. "We tease a little bit about the title," prosecutor Larry Mackey told one prospective juror who said she had read the book. "But as you sit there

now,

you know that if you were sworn as a juror, you have no freedom to run

away;

you would be bound to follow the court's instructions?" "Yes, definitely," the woman answered. But the response is not always as definitive. Eight years after the high-profile Oklahoma City bomber trial, some jurors still disregard the court's rules. The dilemma has divided the legal community, with some thinking jurors should get better explanations of the rules to make it less likely they'll run amok and others arguing the

system

should trust jurors to use good judgment. When things go wrong, the effect can be substantial. Runaway jurors in Colorado have read improperly to their fellow jurors

from

the Bible during deliberations, resulting in a Colorado Supreme Court announcement March 28 that convicted murderer Robert Harlan will serve

life

in prison instead of being executed as the jury had intended. Other runaways have done their own research into arcane legal subjects, as one juror did at the Denver Public Library during a six-week federal civil trial involving securities law. The result was a mistrial. A runaway jury in Colorado Springs, specifically told by the judge that it could not consult a copy of the Physicians Desk Reference about uses of

the

drug Paxil, defiantly consulted the online version and agreed not to let anyone know what it had done. But two of them had second thoughts and

later

confessed to the judge, who questioned the juror who led the revolt. The

man

was unrepentant. "The letter of the law," he conceded to the judge, "but, geez." The result: A new trial was ordered for a woman accused of killing her 4-month-old stepgrandson. Working on reforms Donna Wheeler, of Denver, who served nine weeks - two of them

sequestered -

on the jury that convicted murderer Kevin Fears in 1993, advocates

spelling

out the rules more clearly for jurors. She also thinks they should be

warned

about the consequences of running off in their own directions. Wheeler serves on a Colorado Supreme Court committee that has been working for several years on jury reform. Wheeler said nobody on her jury broke any rules, but the jurors never knew what might have happened if they had. "I found out after I was a juror that there were things I could have said

or

done that could have jeopardized the verdict," Wheeler said. "I think

people

should be aware of the damage they can do," she said. Adams County District Judge Philip Roan, presiding over the Robert Harlan trial in 1995, repeatedly warned jurors to avoid outside influences. They were to base their decision on the evidence in the case and "nothing else whatsoever," he said. They were not to discuss the case with anyone; they were to avoid

televised

reports by turning off the television or leaving the room; they were not

to

follow the O.J. Simpson trial, then in progress in California; and they

were

not to watch Court TV. They also were to have someone screen their newspapers for reports on anything about the criminal justice system and remove those sections. "Even if you disagree with or don't understand the reasons for some of

these

rules, you must follow them," Roan said. But jurors consulted the Bible the night before they condemned Harlan to die, and at least one Bible was in the deliberation room when they reached that decision. It's not clear if the jurors understood that consulting the Bible - just like reading newspaper reports or following the O.J. Simpson trial on TV - was against the rules. "For some people, the Bible is such a part of their lives that they would probably have to be specifically told that - and not only told that, but

to

be told what the ramifications were," Wheeler said. And who didn't have a teacher who insisted that students use the

dictionary

to look up words they didn't understand? "If the judge doesn't specifically say 'dictionary,' doesn't it sound like the most obvious thing, if somebody uses a word and you're on this jury where someone's life or money is at stake - how could anybody object to

you

understanding the words that are being used?" Wheeler said. A Colorado jury did exactly that in the 1980s, however. During a burglary trial, it looked up the word "burglary" in a dictionary. The definition jurors found there differed from the legal definition they were supposed

to

consider. Different from a TV show Wheeler said the jury reform committee is designing notebooks to be given

to

jurors and wants them to include glossaries, agreed upon by the judge and lawyers in each case, of terms that will be used in the trial. That, she said, would help jurors focus on doing their jobs better. "Jurors have what I call courtroom-induced attention deficit disorder," Wheeler said. "Most jurors are not familiar with the court system, with

who

the players are, with what's going to happen. It's a little different from watching Law and Order. "They hear someone say something they're unfamiliar with, and they start thinking about that, and then realize they've missed the last 30 seconds

of

testimony. And then they miss five minutes more while they worry about

it,"

she said. Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane said he has never had a runaway

jury,

and he believes that's because he spends time explaining to jurors what

the

rules are, why they are that way and what the consequences for breaking

them

can be. "I explain to them what a mistrial is and how jury misconduct can cause a mistrial," Kane said. A mistrial is declared if jurors are hopelessly deadlocked or if something goes so wrong during a trial that it wouldn't be fair to go on with it. A new trial must be held, starting all over with different jurors. Kane said mistrials are expensive, including lawyers' fees, witnesses'

fees

and travel expenses, as well as the time spent by the judge and the court staff. "It's all for naught," he said. He said he explains to jurors that independently consulting outside materials or doing their own research isn't fair because, if the lawyers don't know about it, they can't challenge it or argue about it. "Fairness requires that we all play from the same page. So whatever

they're

going to decide in there, it has to be done on the basis of what these people on both sides prepared," Kane said. "How can you have fairness when you're blindsiding people?" he asks

jurors.

He said it's not enough for a judge to simply order jurors not to consult outside materials. "It requires something more on the part of a judge," he said. Former Denver District Judge Connie Peterson, now in private law practice, disagrees. "I think the courts are doing fine the way it is," she said. "The courts

are

making it very clear to jurors. This (the Harlan jury mistake in

consulting

the Bible) was the responsibility of the jurors." Keeping things fair for all parties Jefferson County District Judge Leland Anderson said he spends extra time explaining to jurors how to be fair. "I don't say, 'No Bibles,' " Anderson said. "If I said 'No Bibles,' would

I

have say 'No Torah'? "But from the get-go one of the first things they're going to hear out of

my

mouth is that, no matter what the results are in this trial, the thing

that

should keep them awake at night 20 years from now if they're stewing about any decision is whether they crossed the boundary and violated the rule of law." That means that the law - from the U.S. Constitution to statutes enacted

by

elected officials to the rules that must be followed in court - should prevail over personal feelings and all other considerations. It's meant to keep things fair. These days, Anderson uses the example of Iraq. "That is what a country

looks

like that is devoid of rule of law," he tells jurors, "and that we have young men and women who are risking their lives to establish rule of law

in

a country on the far side of the world." "The least that we can do in response to their sacrifices," Anderson says, "is to apply the same significance and import to the rule of law in our courts." If they flout it, he tells jurors, he'll likely hear about it and have to conduct an investigation - bringing them in one by one to be questioned about what they did and what other jurors did. Once, Anderson fired a jury for not following the rules. The jurors had talked among themselves about a drug case before they were supposed to

start

deliberating. Anderson declared a mistrial. "It probably cost the state many, many thousands of dollars," he said. He said he understands why people sitting as jurors in a difficult trial, seeing depictions of horrible events, feel a need to talk about it. He

said

he also understands why some people, in their enthusiasm for their jury service, launch their own investigations. Anderson also sits on the Colorado Supreme Court's jury reform committee, where he and others successfully urged Colorado's courts to let jurors ask questions during civil trials. Privately, Anderson believes they also

should

be able to ask questions during criminal trials, but that isn't allowed

yet.

When jurors want to ask questions during criminal trials where he is presiding, Anderson doesn't let them. "I follow the rule of law," he said. "I tell jurors I expect no less of them." Across the country Jurors dismissed over the issue of having outside materials . A juror was dismissed during deliberations in November in the Scott Peterson murder trial in Redwood City, Calif., reportedly for doing her

own

research, which was in violation of trial rules. Judge Alfred Delucchi

then

reminded remaining jurors to consider only the facts and law that had been presented to them "and no other source." An alternate replaced the juror. Peterson was convicted of his pregnant wife's murder. . Also in California, a juror studying to be a paralegal brought a

textbook

into the jury room, where jurors used its definition of entrapment instead of the legal definition given to them. Result: A new trial was ordered for the convicted defendant. . Another California jury, deliberating in the courtroom because of a

space

shortage, borrowed the judge's copy of the state penal code from the bench and scoured it for answers to questions that arose during their deliberations. . In Louisiana, a juror was dismissed during deliberations in the

corruption

trial of former Gov. Edwin Edwards. Court records state that the juror brought a dictionary, a thesaurus and other "outside materials" into the deliberation room. . In New Hampshire, a man convicted of molesting a 7-year-old girl was set free after serving little more than one year in prison because a juror consulted her son, a lawyer, and reported the conversation to other

jurors.

The defendant had been sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison. . In Connecticut, a juror was arrested and charged with criminal contempt after an inquiry into allegations that she initiated premature

conversations

about a murder case with fellow jurors and sought their help in doing Internet research on the case. A mistrial was declared and the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. . In Washington state, an exasperated judge dismissed all 63 prospective jurors from deciding whether a confessed triple killer should be executed. Some had looked up information about the defendant online and discussed

the

findings among themselves. Others had discussed their intention - without hearing any evidence - to vote for execution. The judge and lawyers in the case had spent two months questioning more than 200 people for the final panel of 12 jurors and six alternates. They had to start over. The Oath of Jurors in Colorado . Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that you and each

of

you will well and truly try the matter at issue between the People of the State of Colorado and ____ , the defendant, and render a true verdict, according to the evidence?

Sounds like prosecutors whinging again because juries happen to acquit
sometimes.

Charles L

[RHR]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:07:04 -0600, "~ Typhøid Mary ~"
<typhoid@mary.va> wrote:

In Connecticut, a juror was arrested and charged with criminal contemptafter an inquiry into allegations that she initiated premature conversationsabout a murder case with fellow jurors and sought their help in doingInternet research on the case. A mistrial was declared and the defendantpleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

The American system is set up to maximize the gain of the shysters who
make money or obtain political capital from legal proceedings. It
would be much fairer to let the jurors take an active part in the
trial by having as much ability to ask questions of the lawyers,
witnesses, the judge, and each other as students have to ask their
teachers, the Internet, and fellow students during and after a class.
That way, any misconceptions they have about the evidence could be
taken care of. The shysters, who dominate the legislatures who make
the rules, will not allow that since that would shift the emphasis to
the facts of the matter and diminish the huge windfalls that can be
obtained from the practice of pettifoggery.

RHR

[chainsaw]

Jon Beaver wrote:

it is "set up," for the most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary person.

That's utter CRAP!

[Chas]

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

.....The American legal system is NOT set up to maximize gain for lawyers.

I assume you mean that you could set it up to make even more money, further
maximizing the gains for lawyers.

On the contrary, it is "set up," for the most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary person. You're just wrong. Almost everywhere else, lawyers are paid by the losing side. Not in U. S. That's why they call it the "American Rule."

Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be that
there are ways to maximize your take even more?

Chas

[Jon Beaver]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:24:55 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:

Jon Beaver wrote:

That's utter CRAP!

Very well reasoned. I suppose where perception is the issue, the
truth is irrelevant. However, may I invite you to cite a law or rule
that you think is "set up" to profit lawyers? I'd be surprised, since
the American system pretty much requires lawyers to look to their
clients for compensation. Because of that, I'm surprised that anyone
except that client would have standing, or feel the need, to complain.
Unless, of course, they are really complaining about something else.

- Jon Beaver

[chainsaw]

Jon Beaver wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:24:55 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:

Very well reasoned.

Yup.

I suppose where perception is the issue, the truth is irrelevant. However, may I invite you to cite a law or rule that you think is "set up" to profit lawyers?

Why?

You said lawyers are discouraged from representing "ordinary people" -
so PROVE it!

If not, STFU.

[Larry]

In article <56OdnfzcfqtqGvzfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

I assume you mean that you could set it up to make even more money, further maximizing the gains for lawyers.

Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be that there are ways to maximize your take even more?

You sound like you're complaining that lawyers get paid for their work.

Though I must say, the settlement over the RNC case in NYC strikes me as
an example of lawyers run amuck.... $150.00 per person in the class, and
over $200,000 in lawyer's fees.

[Jon Beaver]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:47:40 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

I assume you mean that you could set it up to make even more money, furthermaximizing the gains for lawyers.

Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be thatthere are ways to maximize your take even more?

Okay, assuming that is true, for argument's sake. So what? What
would you change? Got an idea? Regulate lawyers' fees? Eliminate
the right to counsel?

- Jon Beaver

[Jon Beaver]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:04:14 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:

Jon Beaver wrote:

Yup.

Why?You said lawyers are discouraged from representing "ordinary people" -so PROVE it!

Well, first, let me ask whether you actually think ordinary people can
afford to hire lawyers to protect their rights or that lawyers can
afford to charge a fee that ordinary people can afford? Let's get our
question straight between us and I don't think any "proof" will be
necessary.

- Jon Beaver

[chainsaw]

Jon Beaver wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:04:14 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:

Well, first, let me ask whether you actually think ordinary people can afford to hire lawyers to protect their rights or that lawyers can afford to charge a fee that ordinary people can afford?

Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor people
can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aid
and public defenders.

So don't answer, typical..

[Jon Beaver]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:57:00 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:

Jon Beaver wrote:

Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor people can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aidand public defenders.

Ah, "poor people" don't count. How do ordinary people have access to
legal aid and "Legal aid" and "public defenders" is your idea of
lawyers who "profit" from the way the "legal system" is "set up?"
What part of the "legal system" is "set up" to make lawyers "profit"
from contingent fees? How do contingent fees help someone with a
legal problem where money damages isn't the issue. Tail, not
elephant.

- Jon Beaver

[Chas]

"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote

Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be that there are ways to maximize your take even more? You sound like you're complaining that lawyers get paid for their work.

no, mostly it's about the 'closed shop' atmosphere- the widening of the
scope of work restricted to attorneys- the UPL and it's application.
I've been watching the expansion of paralegals and 'clericals' into the
practice of law- and it's pretty uniformly a good idea. It's amusing to see
attorneys get all bent out of shape over will preparation and that sort of
thing.
It's also pretty funny that they're losing so often. I think of the 'We the
People' suit here in Denver.

Chas

[Chas]

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

Okay, assuming that is true, for argument's sake. So what? What would you change? Got an idea? Regulate lawyers' fees? Eliminate the right to counsel?

Free market- like it was set up to be originally.

Chas

[Jon Beaver]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:23:46 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:

"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote

no, mostly it's about the 'closed shop' atmosphere- the widening of thescope of work restricted to attorneys- the UPL and it's application.I've been watching the expansion of paralegals and 'clericals' into thepractice of law- and it's pretty uniformly a good idea. It's amusing to seeattorneys get all bent out of shape over will preparation and that sort ofthing.
It's also pretty funny that they're losing so often. I think of the 'We thePeople' suit here in Denver.

Widgets used to cost $1 but your great grandfather thought widget
quality was bad because everybody and his dog were making them. Your
great grandfather thought they ought to be regulated. So he got a law
passed that says you have to take a real hard widget test to make a
widget. Now widgets cost $10 and you're having self-esteem issues
because the licensed widget makers aren't treating you like an equal.
There is professional help for that.

- Jon Beaver

[Jon Beaver]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:40:25 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

Free market

I'd vote for that. Where do I sign? What would that law say? Gimme
some words.

- like it was set up to be originally.

Passive voice. Hmnn, Nobody did it. It was just "was set up" that
way, huh? You are misinformed. But never mind. Tell me what law you
want.



- Jon Beaver

[Chas]

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

Free market I'd vote for that. Where do I sign? What would that law say? Gimme some words.

No law about it at all.
The first amendment freedom to petition the government for redress of
grievance and the subsequent guarantees of due process would seem
sufficient.
If you want to advertise as a specialist in something; feel free.

Chas

[Jon Beaver]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:59:39 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

No law about it at all.The first amendment freedom to petition the government for redress ofgrievance and the subsequent guarantees of due process would seemsufficient.If you want to advertise as a specialist in something; feel free.

But you've been complaining about the lack of effective disciplinary
action against attorneys. You said you "researched it." What gives?
Do you want regulation of the practice of law or not?

- Jon Beaver

[Larry]

In article <570561ljr1oklmsp37f8tt4cckvvmsfh5o@4ax.com>,
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:40:25 -0600, "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:

I'd vote for that. Where do I sign? What would that law say? Gimme some words.

Most people complain there are too many lawyers, and Chas complains
there isn't enough of market for them?

If somone in any major city, or even decent-sized suburban town needs a
lawyer, you can hardly walk down the street without tripping over a few.
I've never seen someone forced to retain one specific lawyer because
there just weren't any others around.

[Larry]

In article <apednTcJfJd4Gv_fRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

No law about it at all. The first amendment freedom to petition the government for redress of grievance and the subsequent guarantees of due process would seem sufficient. If you want to advertise as a specialist in something; feel free.

You can petition the government for redress of any greivances YOU have.
YOU can always represent YOURSELF in a civil suit. But YOU can't
redress the government about someone else's greivances unless you're a
lawyer. It's called standing, and it actually exists to protect the
other guy.

[chainsaw]

Jon Beaver wrote:

Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor people can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aidand public defenders. Ah, "poor people" don't count. How do ordinary people have access to legal aid and "Legal aid" and "public defenders" is your idea of lawyers who "profit" from the way the "legal system" is "set up?"

Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning.

Basta!

[Chas]

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

But you've been complaining about the lack of effective disciplinary action against attorneys.

yes.

You said you "researched it."

Yes.

What gives?

What gives what?

Do you want regulation of the practice of law or not?

Theoretically?
nah- let'em work for a living.

Chas

[Chas]

"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote

You can petition the government for redress of any greivances YOU have. YOU can always represent YOURSELF in a civil suit.

If you can pass the Literacy Test that qualifies you for exercising your
Constitutional Right.
The scariest thing in the world for the Courthouse Enterprise is the
internet solving many of the library science problems. I notice that they're
still trying to keep services like L/N closed from laymen's access.

But YOU can't redress the government about someone else's greivances unless you're a lawyer. It's called standing, and it actually exists to protect the other guy.

Yup- comparable to the Literacy Test for the exercise of other
Constitutional Rights. There is no reason whatsoever to restrict the
practice of law to attorneys. It isn't necessary for a judge/magistrate to
be a lawyer before sitting, no need for someone to have to pass some
scrutiny before being able to step up and make their play.

Chas

[PTRAVEL]

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:L6ednfBD19NKKv_fRVn-vg@comcast.com...

"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote

If you can pass the Literacy Test that qualifies you for exercising your Constitutional Right. The scariest thing in the world for the Courthouse Enterprise is the internet solving many of the library science problems. I notice that they're still trying to keep services like L/N closed from laymen's access.

Lexis/Nexis, and Westlaw, are open to anyone. These are private, commercial
on-line services -- anyone, whether or not they are a lawyer, can pay the
access fee and research published cases to their heart's content.

Yup- comparable to the Literacy Test for the exercise of other Constitutional Rights. There is no reason whatsoever to restrict the practice of law to attorneys.

Really? Is there any reason to restrict the practice of medicine to
licensed physicians? How about restricting the practicy of pharmacology to
licensed druggists?

What do you tell the "client" of an unlicensed, non-lawyer, who loses his
case because of the non-lawyer's incompetence?

It isn't necessary for a judge/magistrate to be a lawyer before sitting,

Practically speaking, it is. In any event, judges and magistrates have
appellate courts looking over their shoulder.

no need for someone to have to pass some scrutiny before being able to step up and make their play.

Anyone can represent themselves, if they think that's a good idea -- they're
the only ones who will reap the consequences of their decision. The line is
drawn when it comes to representing someone else.

Chas

[Jon Beaver]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:48:30 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:

Jon Beaver wrote:

Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning.

Sorry you can't read.

- Jon Beaver

[Jon Beaver]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:24:13 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:

"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote

If you can pass the Literacy Test that qualifies you for exercising yourConstitutional Right.The scariest thing in the world for the Courthouse Enterprise is theinternet solving many of the library science problems. I notice that they'restill trying to keep services like L/N closed from laymen's access.

What's this? "It ain't fair 'cause you're smart and I'm dumb."
Unbelievable.

But YOU can't redress the government about someone else's greivances unless you're a lawyer. It's called standing, and it actually exists to protect the other guy.Yup- comparable to the Literacy Test for the exercise of otherConstitutional Rights. There is no reason whatsoever to restrict thepractice of law to attorneys. It isn't necessary for a judge/magistrate tobe a lawyer before sitting, no need for someone to have to pass somescrutiny before being able to step up and make their play.

I'm sorry if life is too complicated for you. But I don't quite like
your solution of requiring everybody else to act stupid.

- Jon Beaver

[Chas]

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote

Really? Is there any reason to restrict the practice of medicine to licensed physicians? How about restricting the practicy of pharmacology to licensed druggists?

You're comparing the practice of law with an actual science?
how droll.

What do you tell the "client" of an unlicensed, non-lawyer, who loses his case because of the non-lawyer's incompetence?

Same thing you tell them now- pound sand.
You get no guarantees from an attorney- including the strategy on your case.

Anyone can represent themselves, if they think that's a good idea -- they're the only ones who will reap the consequences of their decision. The line is drawn when it comes to representing someone else.

And there's no need- except to secure the sinecure for lawyers. You can
always hire a 'specialist' for any sort of work- the market should be open.
And it is opening- the 'We the People' decisions have shown that.

Chas

[chainsaw]

Jon Beaver wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:48:30 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:

Sorry you can't read. - Jon Beaver

Sorry you can't make a cogent point.

[David Nicholson]

"chainsaw" and Jon Beaver wrote:

Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning. Sorry you can't read. Sorry you can't make a cogent point.

___________________

Sorry you felt the need to cross-post this puerile interchange around the
world.

David Nicholson ____

[PTRAVEL]

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z-udnQzlVuQuR__fRVn-qg@comcast.com...

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote

You're comparing the practice of law with an actual science? how droll.

I'm comparing the practice of law to any profession which involves a
considerable amount of specialized knowledge to understand.

Same thing you tell them now- pound sand.

First of all, the whole idea of licensing is to minimize the likelihood of
malpractice -- among other reasons, that's why even barbers are licensed.
However, under the current system, you don't tell them "pound sound." You
tell them, "sue for malpractice" and the attorney, by virtue of meeting
licensing requirements, will have malpractice insurance to cover the
judgment.

You get no guarantees from an attorney- including the strategy on your case.

I'm not sure what you mean by "strategy," in this context. However,
licensing, as well as Martindale ratings, firm membership, and vitae are all
indicia of competence to be considered when selecting counsel.

And there's no need- except to secure the sinecure for lawyers.

Completely incorrect. Licensing guarantees a threshhold level of
competence. If the intent of licensing was to thin out competition, the
number of lawyers licensed would be limited. As it is, there are many more
lawyers around than good positions for them.

You can always hire a 'specialist' for any sort of work- the market should be open. And it is opening- the 'We the People' decisions have shown that.

There are no decisions which permit the practice of law without a license.

Chas