>^..^< Jury Duty, day 2
Harry Mary Andruschak
to begin the VOIR DIRE. I was #9.
(Depending on who was speaking, it was pronounced either as d-long i-
R, or as d-short i-r. How would the Frence pronounce it?)
It was mostly general questions today, which much explaining from the
Judge on voting strictly according to the law. Also on presumption of
innocence, rights of defense to not submit evidence or testimony, and
discussion of the meaning "reasonable doubt".
We return Monday for the more personal questrioning
@@@ And now for some bad news. Before I left for jury duty, I fed and
watered the cats as usual. Except that Silver would not his is jar of
baby food that he used to be so enthusiastic about. I weighed him, he
was down to 8 pounds.
I took him to the Vet at 7 PM. There he was given fluids, and a blood
sample was drawn. I am to return tomorrow at 11 AM for the results.
$190 for this visit, tests, and fluids. I am not sure how much more I
can afford before considering the alternative.
T Guy
> From the Jury Pool in the courtroom, 19 jurors were selected at random
> to begin the VOIR DIRE. I was #9.
>
> (Depending on who was speaking, it was pronounced either as d-long i-
> R, or as d-short i-r. How would the Frence pronounce it?)
>
> It was mostly general questions today, which much explaining from the
> Judge on voting strictly according to the law. Also on presumption of
> innocence, rights of defense to not submit evidence or testimony, and
> discussion of the meaning "reasonable doubt".
(Tim):
No discussion of jury nullification?
T Guy
David Loewe, Jr.
<adopts...@aol.com> wrote:
>From the Jury Pool in the courtroom, 19 jurors were selected at random
>to begin the VOIR DIRE. I was #9.
>
>(Depending on who was speaking, it was pronounced either as d-long i-
>R, or as d-short i-r. How would the Frence pronounce it?)
No idea, but around here, everyone uses the short-i pronunciation.
>It was mostly general questions today, which much explaining from the
>Judge on voting strictly according to the law. Also on presumption of
>innocence, rights of defense to not submit evidence or testimony, and
>discussion of the meaning "reasonable doubt".
>
>We return Monday for the more personal questrioning
>
>@@@ And now for some bad news. Before I left for jury duty, I fed and
>watered the cats as usual. Except that Silver would not his is jar of
>baby food that he used to be so enthusiastic about. I weighed him, he
>was down to 8 pounds.
>
>I took him to the Vet at 7 PM. There he was given fluids, and a blood
>sample was drawn. I am to return tomorrow at 11 AM for the results.
>$190 for this visit, tests, and fluids. I am not sure how much more I
>can afford before considering the alternative.
--
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
- Yogi Berra explaining how to get to his home
which can be reached regardless of which branch
of the fork you take
cryptoguy
Judges and lawyers prefer to pretend it doesn't exist, and cooperate
to keep the jurors ignorant of it.
If a prospective juror mentions it, they will almost certainly be
thrown off the panel. If they describe it in earshot of the other
prospective jurors, the entire panel may be ditched.
pt
Kip Williams
> @@@ And now for some bad news. Before I left for jury duty, I fed and
> watered the cats as usual. Except that Silver would not his is jar of
> baby food that he used to be so enthusiastic about. I weighed him, he
> was down to 8 pounds.
>
> I took him to the Vet at 7 PM. There he was given fluids, and a blood
> sample was drawn. I am to return tomorrow at 11 AM for the results.
> $190 for this visit, tests, and fluids. I am not sure how much more I
> can afford before considering the alternative.
I'm sorry to hear that. Poor Silver. (And I'm sorry for you too, having
to think about that.)
Kip W
David Friedman
<64be0129-0923-46ae...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
T Guy <Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
I was called up for jury duty a while back. When asked, I told the judge
that I would not be willing to decide according to the law if I thought
the law was clearly wrong--which was true.
A further point, perhaps relevant, was that the charge was carrying a
concealed firearm. I told the judge, also truthfully, that I had been
involved a little in the academic controversy over whether concealed
carry should be legal, and that an ex-student of mine was a central
figure in that controversy.
I was dismissed.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Harry Mary Andruschak
Absolutely not, at least on the part of the Judge and lawyers. And I
have decided to remain mum about it. Reason? Being retired, a 3-4 week
trial (which this may be) is not a financial hardship. For other
jurors, it might be. Better for me to be a juror then them. And the
case dos not look like one where jury nullification would be an issue
Tim McDaniel
>random to begin the VOIR DIRE. I was #9.
>
>(Depending on who was speaking, it was pronounced either as d-long i-
>R, or as d-short i-r. How would the Frence pronounce it?)
In the recent jury duty here, I believe that they pronounced it
"vor dire": "vor" as in -kosigan, "dire" as Americans pronounce the
adjective (like dyer, rhymes with cryer).
Decades-old high-school French suggests the French would say "vwahr
deer", "wah" as in "mwah" (American fake/sarcastic kiss noise).
But whenever I tried to say a simple French sentence in France, they
replied in English, so I'm not a good data point.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Harry Mary Andruschak <adopts...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From the Jury Pool in the courtroom, 19 jurors were selected at
>>random to begin the VOIR DIRE. I was #9.
>>
>>(Depending on who was speaking, it was pronounced either as d-long i-
>>R, or as d-short i-r. How would the Frence pronounce it?)
>
>In the recent jury duty here, I believe that they pronounced it
>"vor dire": "vor" as in -kosigan, "dire" as Americans pronounce the
>adjective (like dyer, rhymes with cryer).
>
>Decades-old high-school French suggests the French would say "vwahr
>deer", "wah" as in "mwah" (American fake/sarcastic kiss noise).
Like Patrick Roy?
>But whenever I tried to say a simple French sentence in France, they
>replied in English, so I'm not a good data point.
Around here, they pronounce the whole phrase like it were "voy dure."
--
"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool
following it."
- Laurence VanCott Niven
Daniel R. Reitman
In Oregon, they explain that the nullification proponents sometimes
pass out literature at the courthouse, but that it's a disfavored
interpretation.
Dan, ad nauseam
Daniel R. Reitman
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:46:56 -0700 (PDT), Harry Mary Andruschak
><adopts...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>From the Jury Pool in the courtroom, 19 jurors were selected at random
>>to begin the VOIR DIRE. I was #9.
>>
>>(Depending on who was speaking, it was pronounced either as d-long i-
>>R, or as d-short i-r. How would the Frence pronounce it?)
>
>No idea, but around here, everyone uses the short-i pronunciation.
>>. . . .
>. . . .
In Oregon, we usually say "jury selection."
Dan, ad nauseam
Keith F. Lynch
> I was called up for jury duty a while back. When asked, I told the
> judge that I would not be willing to decide according to the law if
> I thought the law was clearly wrong--which was true.
> A further point, perhaps relevant, was that the charge was carrying
> a concealed firearm.
It's unfortunate that they ask. If I were ever arrested for breaking
a bogus law, I'd have to hope that my jurors were willing to lie to
the judge.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
If you are selected for a criminal trial, I hope you keep in mind
that police routinely lie under oath, and that they and prosecutors
routinely promise to drop or reduce charges against people accused
of crimes if they agree to falsely testify against people accused of
more serious crimes.
Of course I'm not claiming that defendants never lie, but given
a defendant of unknown veracity and a policeman, one of whom is
certainly lying, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant.
Harry Mary Andruschak
> Of course I'm not claiming that defendants never lie, but given
> a defendant of unknown veracity and a policeman, one of whom is
> certainly lying, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant.
"Certainly lying"??? Without any knowledge of the case, the policemen
involved, other witnesses, and other evidence...you feel you can make
such a blanket statement?
Well, go ahead and make your blanket statement, so I can make a
blanket rejection of your foolishness.
Kip Williams
I think he means that if the stories are sufficiently different, then
one of the two is certainly lying. He doesn't say which, but he says
which way he'll give the nod if obliged to choose.
Kip W
David Friedman
<51cecd1e-dbb5-441d...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Harry Mary Andruschak <adopts...@aol.com> wrote:
I think you are misreading his statement.
Consider a case where the testimony of one witness contradicts that of
another. One of them is certainly lying--or at least, certainly telling
an untruth, although it could be a mistake rather than a lie. Hence his
"one of them is certainly lying."
Keith's point is that if you know that one of them must be lying, he
would give the benefit of the doubt as to which one it is to the
defendant.
David Goldfarb
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>Consider a case where the testimony of one witness contradicts that of
>another. One of them is certainly lying--or at least, certainly telling
>an untruth, although it could be a mistake rather than a lie. Hence his
>"one of them is certainly lying."
*At least* one of them.
--
David Goldfarb |"Get your mind out of the gutter -- you're blocking
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | my snorkel."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Frank Ney, on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
David G. Bell
<cod5e5d7sp82a7768...@4ax.com>
Was it the trial of William Penn, back in the 17th Century, where the
Judge was eventually told he could guide the jury, but he couldn't lead
them by the nose. Something about the Jury refusing to convict, and the
Judge jailing them for contempt.
Jury nullification shouldn't be a trivial option.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
Keith F. Lynch
Exactly. Sheesh! If Harry is chosen for the jury, I hope he doesn't
misunderstand the arguments made in court as badly as he misunderstands
arguments made here. Otherwise he might just as well flip a coin to
decide whether he'll vote to convict.
"Foolishness"? What does the Bible say about calling someone a fool?
Karl Johanson
>Well, go ahead and make your blanket statement, so I can make a
>blanket rejection of your foolishness.
Matthew 5: 22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmwrqldUdCc&feature=related
Karl Johanson
Has high blood pressure got a hold on me, or is this the way Hell's supposed
to be...
Kip Williams
> "Foolishness"? What does the Bible say about calling someone a fool?
As far as that goes, I think the remark pertained to the statement and
not to you as a person. This is a level of civility we strive for here,
rather than jumping right at a person's throat, which you'll recall does
seem to happen sometimes.
Kip W
David Harmon
F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>It's unfortunate that they ask. If I were ever arrested for breaking
>a bogus law, I'd have to hope that my jurors were willing to lie to
>the judge.
So the obvious question is, if you were not already a prohibited person,
would you be willing to lie to the judge?
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>> It's unfortunate that they ask. If I were ever arrested for
>> breaking a bogus law, I'd have to hope that my jurors were willing
>> to lie to the judge.
> So the obvious question is, if you were not already a prohibited
> person, would you be willing to lie to the judge?
No.
Kip Williams
> David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>> It's unfortunate that they ask. If I were ever arrested for
>>> breaking a bogus law, I'd have to hope that my jurors were willing
>>> to lie to the judge.
>
>> So the obvious question is, if you were not already a prohibited
>> person, would you be willing to lie to the judge?
>
> No.
"I have always depended upon the mendacity of strangers."
Kip W
Keith F. Lynch
>> David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>>> It's unfortunate that they ask. If I were ever arrested for
>>>> breaking a bogus law, I'd have to hope that my jurors were
>>>> willing to lie to the judge.
>>> So the obvious question is, if you were not already a prohibited
>>> person, would you be willing to lie to the judge?
Would you?
>> No.
> "I have always depended upon the mendacity of strangers."
Unfortunate, but if I'm ever again accused of a crime, and if the
judge asks veniremen whether they're willing to follow the judge's
rules even if it conflicts with doing what is right, and rejects those
who say no, I will hope that I get jurors who will do what is right.
Wouldn't you?
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>>>> It's unfortunate that they ask. If I were ever arrested for
>>>>> breaking a bogus law, I'd have to hope that my jurors were
>>>>> willing to lie to the judge.
>
>>>> So the obvious question is, if you were not already a prohibited
>>>> person, would you be willing to lie to the judge?
>
> Would you?
>
>>> No.
>
>> "I have always depended upon the mendacity of strangers."
>
> Unfortunate, but if I'm ever again accused of a crime, and if the
> judge asks veniremen whether they're willing to follow the judge's
> rules even if it conflicts with doing what is right, and rejects those
> who say no, I will hope that I get jurors who will do what is right.
>
> Wouldn't you?
Quite possibly, but the juxtaposition of your unyielding rectitude re
lying and the hope for someone who will judiciously fib for true justice
seemed worthy of at least a pointed jest.
I'm aware of my flaws, though probably not of all of them. Time and
again, after I thought I had put all dishonesty behind me, I find that I
have cut corners and trimmed here and there, so I try not to advertise
my virtue, even as I strive for it.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>>>>> It's unfortunate that they ask. If I were ever arrested for
>>>>> breaking a bogus law, I'd have to hope that my jurors were
>>>>> willing to lie to the judge.
>
>>>> So the obvious question is, if you were not already a prohibited
>>>> person, would you be willing to lie to the judge?
>
>Would you?
>
>>> No.
>
>> "I have always depended upon the mendacity of strangers."
>
>Unfortunate, but if I'm ever again accused of a crime, and if the
>judge asks veniremen whether they're willing to follow the judge's
>rules even if it conflicts with doing what is right, and rejects those
>who say no, I will hope that I get jurors who will do what is right.
>
>Wouldn't you?
It's okay for you to want them to lie and then break their oath when you
wouldn't do so yourself?
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Indeed.
A large part of my dismay with Keith are his frequent statements that he
A) has a reputation for accuracy, B) that acknowledges when he is
corrected and C) that he never lies.
Observationally, he has a low reputation for accuracy, he almost never
acknowledges when he is wrong and he will lie on occasion when it suits
his needs.
--
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public."
- H. L. Mencken
Keith F. Lynch
> never acknowledges when he is wrong and he will lie on occasion when
> it suits his needs.
<PLONK>
Philip Chee
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Observationally, he has a low reputation for accuracy, he almost
>> never acknowledges when he is wrong and he will lie on occasion when
>> it suits his needs.
>
> <PLONK>
I thought that Keith said he never killfiled anyone?
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
netcat
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:27:49 +0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
> > David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Observationally, he has a low reputation for accuracy, he almost
> >> never acknowledges when he is wrong and he will lie on occasion when
> >> it suits his needs.
> >
> > <PLONK>
>
> I thought that Keith said he never killfiled anyone?
I wouldn't hold being able to change one's mind against anyone.
rgds,
netcat
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:27:49 +0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Observationally, he has a low reputation for accuracy, he almost
>>> never acknowledges when he is wrong and he will lie on occasion when
>>> it suits his needs.
>>
>> <PLONK>
>
>I thought that Keith said he never killfiled anyone?
Oh, no. He killfiles people. I know he's killfiled Andre Lieven and I
believe he's killfiled Terry Austin.
This is funny, though. He killfiled me, I am almost certain, for saying
that he lies. However, I recently pointed where he *had* lied and he
didn't killfile me at that point.
--
"The more you love, the more you can love - and the more
intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how _many_
you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love
all of that majority who are decent and just."
-Lazarus Long 'Time Enough For Love'
Keith F. Lynch
> I thought that Keith said he never killfiled anyone?
It's extremely rare, but I've done it. It really takes a lot to
provoke me that far. I believe the only current rasff posters in my
killfile are Andre and now David Loewe. And I was cutting David a
lot of slack due to his serious medical and financial problems. And
since, unlike Andre, he does occasionally post something of value.
But even my unilateral disarmament (my ceasing to respond to him at
all) wasn't stopping his incessant attacks on me.
Others have killfiled him. If he continues his attacks, I hope more
and more will do so. Or will at least cease responding to the attacks.
I should have done it long ago. The newsgroup is already a more
pleasant place. And not just for me -- I don't think *anyone* liked
reading his constant attacks and my constant defenses and occasional
counterattacks.
David Harmon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>It's okay for you to want them to lie and then break their oath when you
>wouldn't do so yourself?
If lying is what it takes for justice to be done, then I salute those
who are willing to do it. There are higher values than not lying.
Whether or not I would myself in that case is yet to be determined. It's
a situation where lying could cost you a lot, including jail time. My
parents tried hard to teach me never to lie, and partially as a result
of that I'm no good at it. This has occasionally been a great handicap.
[Not speaking for anyone but myself]
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:08:28 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>It's okay for you to want them to lie and then break their oath when you
>>wouldn't do so yourself?
>
>If lying is what it takes for justice to be done, then I salute those
>who are willing to do it.
Which isn't the point of my question, but I digress...
>There are higher values than not lying.
>Whether or not I would myself in that case is yet to be determined. It's
>a situation where lying could cost you a lot, including jail time. My
>parents tried hard to teach me never to lie, and partially as a result
>of that I'm no good at it. This has occasionally been a great handicap.
>[Not speaking for anyone but myself]
--
"It's d�j� vu all over again."
- Yogi Berra after Mantle & Maris had gone back-to-back
for the umpteenth time
David Harmon
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:02:52 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:08:28 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>
>>>It's okay for you to want them to lie and then break their oath when you
>>>wouldn't do so yourself?
>>
>>If lying is what it takes for justice to be done, then I salute those
>>who are willing to do it.
>
>Which isn't the point of my question, but I digress...
The remainder of the paragraph connects to the question (which wasn't
directed at me, anyway) even if it's not a direct answer.
>>There are higher values than not lying.
>>Whether or not I would myself in that case is yet to be determined. It's
>>a situation where lying could cost you a lot, including jail time. My
>>parents tried hard to teach me never to lie, and partially as a result
>>of that I'm no good at it. This has occasionally been a great handicap.
>>[Not speaking for anyone but myself]
Now suppose after all that, I said I wouldn't personally be willing to
take the risk. Would you then accuse me of hypocrisy?
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:51:43 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
>Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:02:52 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:08:28 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>>>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>
>>>>It's okay for you to want them to lie and then break their oath when you
>>>>wouldn't do so yourself?
>>>
>>>If lying is what it takes for justice to be done, then I salute those
>>>who are willing to do it.
>>
>>Which isn't the point of my question, but I digress...
>
>The remainder of the paragraph connects to the question (which wasn't
>directed at me, anyway) even if it's not a direct answer.
>
>>>There are higher values than not lying.
>>>Whether or not I would myself in that case is yet to be determined. It's
>>>a situation where lying could cost you a lot, including jail time. My
>>>parents tried hard to teach me never to lie, and partially as a result
>>>of that I'm no good at it. This has occasionally been a great handicap.
>>>[Not speaking for anyone but myself]
>
>Now suppose after all that, I said I wouldn't personally be willing to
>take the risk. Would you then accuse me of hypocrisy?
I would urge you to examine your beliefs - which is what I did to Keith
there.
--
"Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart.
Wait for the order. It will be my last to you. I protest against my
condemnation. I have fought a hundred battles for France, and not
one against her ... Soldiers, Fire!"
- the Last Words of Michel Ney