May 21, 2005
Warning to Criminals - Don't count on Henry Fonda
If you are an accused and your trial is set in the State Court for Fayette County, Georgia during the week of June 13 - 17, 2005 and if you are guilty, you better hope that I'm not on the jury. On the other hand, if you are innocent, you better hope that I am. That's right; I have received a jury summons for that time, and I believe in justice. (Quiz: Define "justice." Answer later.)
Perhaps, there's no danger to those on trial either way. The attorneys never pick me. The last time I was interviewed one attorney asked me if I had any preconceptions of the case, so I pointed to the judge and yelled, "He did it." That'll get you off the jury really fast!
The clerk of court sent me a list of reasons for getting out of serving. Maybe they have already made up their minds on me. However, I feel that it my duty to serve my community and uphold the sixth amendment in the Bill of Rights.
I watched an old movie the other day about juries. It is titled "12 Angry Men" and was made in 1957. One of the stars is Henry Fonda, who is the do-gooder. The story is about a jury of twelve white men (when is the last time there was a jury like that?) who heard a case about a young man's crime. Eleven of the jurors "know" he's guilty from the evidence and are ready to go home to fire up the grills and cook some steaks. But, do-gooder Henry Fonda holds out and, one-by-one, convinces everyone to switch to an innocent vote. He talks about reasons like the kid has had some bad breaks and comes up with suppositions and conclusions totally absent from the evidence presented. I saw some reviews about how good it was, but those reviewers were suckered in by the "feel good" aspect of it rather than the legal aspects. A "Henry Fonda" better not be in my group. I'm planning on cooking out that week.
Now, I remember a good court scene in which Jack Nicholson tells off Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men" and shouts "You can't handle the truth." I have to say that to liberals a lot.
Does anyone have any tips or stories for me in case the attorneys slip up and select me for their jury? In the meantime, I'll be getting up to speed by watching "Court TV" and watching re-runs of "Matlock" and "Jag." (I had a relative star in "Jag" this season. Impressed?) If Ben Matlock is the defense attorney, the real guilty person will break down and confess before we even get to deliberations.
Just in case, I know I have along way to go, because I thought that O.J. and Robert Blake were guilty when it turned out that they were innocent. With your advice and the examples from California juries, I'm going in prepared.
Posted by GM Roper at May 21, 2005 02:00 PM | TrackBackI am not able to advise you, Woody because to do so would probably be a violation of more federal statues than can be found in the Library of Congress. Never-the-less, I was excused during voire dire once when I said, in response to the question, "Can you render and fair and impartial decision in cases such as this?" -- and I said, "Absolutely, every idiot deserves a fair and impartial hearing."
______________________
Tell me that really didn't happen! I would have loved to have been in the room.
That might have been a good time to break into the Jack Nicholson monologue: "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way."
You might have received applause rather than have been been struck.
Woody
Posted by Mustang at May 21, 2005 02:28 PM
I'd like to be on this jury:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/21/afghanistan.abuse.reut/index.html
Posted by steve at May 21, 2005 02:37 PM
Actually, if I may, a better citation than the dumbed down CNN version:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/international/asia/22abuse.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=e9e3ad1e6c5e1514&hp&ex=1116734400&partner=homepage
_______________________
steve, why wait for a trial? Join the media lynch mob! Everyone on the left knows that the U.S. and this administration are always wrong (ask Newsweek!), so who needs a jury?
Woody
Posted by steve at May 21, 2005 02:38 PM
Wow! you seem to have missed the whole thrust of the movie. You are like the hard head that was the last holdout against the facts that were overlooked in the case as presented by the prosecution. Admittedly the defense council must have been republican because he must have agreed that the defendent was guilty and just went to sleep during the trial. Fonda just pointed out the inconsistancies of the trial, And the other members couldn't refute them. Sound familiar?
________________
Jim, I admit that I was in-and-out during the movie. However, I do remember "facts" being introduced and discussed that were not even brought out in the trial. Anyway, I'll be sure to try to see the whole thing next time.
Woody
Posted by James S Melbert at May 21, 2005 04:18 PM
C'mon, Woody, that's your response to the story? Doesn't it bother you a bit the way these asshole E-4's and E-5's have have impugned the honor and integrity of ALL of our armed forces, as well as our country, with their fucking outrageous acts? Or the fact that we apparently have a President who is such a weenie to stand up before the country to say in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable, and will NOT be tolerated!
If so, I'd suggest you've been listening to way too much AM radio. The story is NOT the NY Times.
Apologize for the language. This really has me angry.
___________________
Does the left like ANYTHING that our military does, or is it only critical? See the next post above. I'll have to get back with you on the article. It's birthday time and, as reg says in reference to us, "life goes on."
Woody
Posted by jim hitchcock at May 21, 2005 04:20 PM
We would probably all like to agree with Jim on this, but the fact is that the President of the United States is IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. He is precluded from making statements on any matter that may be tried pursuant to the UCMJ. If he does comment, it could result in charges being dismissed.
Posted by Mustang at May 21, 2005 04:34 PM
Happy Birthday, Woody...but you're missing the point. This is NOT what our military does. This is the action of some very sadistic pieces of excrement. Where in the hell were their officers? And what the hell was lacking in their training to make them think they could do this kind of shit?
If your crack about the left not liking anything the military does was directed at me, you're way off base. Hope you get underwear with hearts on it for a present.
_____________
Jim in no way was my remark directed at you. It was a general statement, which I know that many on the left don't like--which is the only time that they respect the individual.
I didn't connect the dots, but in another post I made reference to this being my son's birthday. But, when it is mine, I hope that I get better underwear than Saddam Hussein models.
Woody
Posted by jim hitchcock at May 21, 2005 04:48 PM
Woody,
1, the capitalist organ the NYT [whom you cited as praising the troops above] is an odd 'left' institution...
2, i'll go by my judgement, i was on target on the fake nature of the WMD claims, my bets are on the 'left-wing' military sources quoted and named in the NYT article and the documents.
3, go back and look at the records, Hamid Karzai is not a leftist.
4, such stories are not new and what they describe is torture, not 'abuse'. if the 'liberal' media were describing such horrific acts of murder and torture occurring against an American soldier, they'd be rightly referring to them as 'torture', no?
Posted by steve at May 21, 2005 07:14 PM
Newsweek was right actually, the only thing they were wrong about was to offer the fake retraction when no retraction was necessary and no need was in order to follow the advice of the Pentagon or the Bush administration given their own record of systematically not caring about the truth when revelations of torture at Guantanamo have been raised time and again, not to mention the invasion and current occupation of Iraq.
I read their capitulation as pathetic, then again they're a major capitalist organ of information dissemination, no need to be too surprised.
Posted by steve at May 21, 2005 07:18 PM
Juries... *sigh*
"In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man will be stoned to death, no matter how long it takes or how many other folks are unintentionally killed in the process."
Two juries I've been on were both civil cases. In both instances, a pronounced majority wanted to give something to the plaintiffs cos they felt sorry for them. In the first case, the only other sensible person on the jury and I could not persuade the rest and a 10-2 verdict (no unanimity required in this case) sunk justice. In the second case, "we" started out as three and another leaner and were able to review the evidence and testimony and let the rest draw a more sensible conclusion...
_________________
What gets me are juries that give outrageous awards saying that no one is going to have to pay it because it's covered by insurance.
Woody
Posted by David at May 21, 2005 10:08 PM
I think I'm tardy to the party Woody, but Happy Birthday to you!
As for jury duty, try this one: "I believe we all are responsible for our actions."
I doubt there is a defense lawyer in the land that would let you through upon hearing that.
_______________________
What if I said, "Who's really on trial here is society for failing the accused. If we send the accused to prison, shouldn't all of us go?" Now, of course, you know that I don't believe that, but I suspect that there are a lot of people who would eat that up.
Woody
Posted by too many steves at May 22, 2005 06:46 AM
Oh man, I think applause might even break out, especially if you were to add, "And who are WE to Judge?".
________________
What if I said that I was going to hold a filibuster until we got a new judge?
W
Posted by too many steves at May 22, 2005 01:01 PM
ugh, that's a myth woody, awards haven't been going up, nor have the rates of lawsuits in this country
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/study_debunks_lawsuit_explosion.html
___________________
steve, I think I'm going to scream. I put thoughtful answers here in response and approve the comments, but forget to save my response. I'm going nuts.
In a nutshell and not to re-type everything, the link refers to class-action suits. There have been many HUGE settlements in individual civil suits, and I have heard the jurors interviewed and their responses something like "no one has to pay for it since insurance covers the claim." That's the same logic that no one has to pay for anything that the government does.
Woody
Posted by steve at May 22, 2005 05:09 PM
Here though you're using anecdotes, but I think that article is pretty correct in its assessment of actual trends statistically.
Don't go crazy, Seek wisdom in the grass, the anthills, the slides, and Maisy Mouse. That works for my son.
____________________
I basically use the analytical tools that were taught to me by watching "Blue's Clues."
W
Posted by steve at May 22, 2005 08:22 PM
