OT: Re: [Coco] New Scam

[johnadonaldson at comcast.net]

  I have seen jury stacking where they try and purt people on that will either
prosicute the person or be will to let them go free. If you watched the show "Medium" that is what she was hired to do. To use her powers to determine if such and such possible jurer would vote for for the prociscution.
  They no longer reject someone because they know someone involved or who's profession is related to the case. I got selected on a Medical Malpractice case once. Not only did I work in the medical field, but I knew one of the doctors involved.

John Donaldson


-------------- Original message -------------- 

> On Thursday 29 September 2005 21:44, Ward Griffiths wrote: 
> >On 09/29/2005 08:59 pm, Gene Heskett wrote: 
> >> On Thursday 29 September 2005 20:26, Ward Griffiths wrote: 
> >> > I'll never sit on a panel due to having read the Constitution and 
> >> > Bill 
> >> > of Rights -- the Voir Dire (French for jury stacking) process will 
> >> > Thats not a defense I've heard before. Please elaborate if you can. 
> >> 
> >> Now, get this as I don't know how common it is, but as a senior 
> >> citizen, I'm automaticly excused here in WV. Personally, I'd think 
> >> that they might want to have the life experiences of an Old F^h^h^ 
> >> h^h^hS.C. on a jury, and by the way, we don't have to take time off 
> >> from a $200 dollar a day job, to serve on a jury panel at $5 and found 
> >> a day. So to me, it would make perfect sense to avail themselves of a 
> >> captive jury that isn't trying to solve yesterdays problems he got 
> >> called about last night while sitting a jury box. We might need a 
> >> latrine break more often, but heck, that goes with the territory. 
> > 
> >Voir Dire is when the lawyers from each side (and then the judge) look 
> > for reasons to reject jurors. Originally, the idea was to make sure 
> > that none of the jurors had a personal connection with the defendant, 
> > but nowadays it's mostly used to make sure that no juror has any 
> > knowledge of the case (i.e., never reads the papers or watches the news 
> > and is otherwise ignorant of the world and will therefor take their 
> > word about laws and rights). 
> 
> Does such a person actually exist? I'd submit that anyone not living 
> in a cave without any means of communication would fail that test, 
> and I darned sure wouldn't trust a jury made up of such info starved 
> people. After all, they chose NOT to live in the society they are 
> being asked to judge. Who knows what their idea of justice may or 
> may not be. And thats not a question, its a statement... 
> 
> > Knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of 
> > Rights will almost always get a juror rejected, because of that 
> > historical tendency of juries to refuse to convict somebody accused of 
> > breaking an unconstitutional or otherwise patently ridiculous law, even 
> > if that "law" was actually violated. Among other things, the Fugitive 
> > Slave Act and Ethanol Prohibition were casualties of Jury 
> > Nullification. 
> > 
> >See www.fija.org for further information. 
> >-- 
> >Ward Griffiths wdg3rd at comcast.net 
> > 
> >But today doctors are as dependent on Medicare and Medicaid as their 
> >patients are. The great narcotic of the welfare state has caused 
> >consumers and doctors alike to lose faith not only in the free market 
> >but also in the concept of voluntary charity. Everyone has lost faith 
> >in himself and in others. -- Jacob Hornberger 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers, Gene 
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: 
> soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." 
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 
> 99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly 
> Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above 
> message by Gene Heskett are: 
> Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list 
> Coco at maltedmedia.com 
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco