Throw out the legal precedents and the rules of evidence.
Honestly, I think we should have jurors like we have uber drivers. Side gigs for anyone from the McDonalds worker to the attorney to earn a few dollars on the side.
The founding fathers did not like the concept of professional jurors, but they also came from a different era and illiteracy was much more common. They also completely fucked up the judicial model, taking it from the wrong era. So, in this instance, I'm not afraid to say they didn't just screw the pooch, it died and bled out.
Every case should be overseen by multiple people. There shouldn't be a judge that decides what evidence they can and can't review.
Most critically, the rules of evidence need to be thrown out the window, with the "trial".
1) Instead, a jury should do an initial review of a case where the parties present what they think matters. No judge, no direction from some piece of shit on what they can or can't see.
2) Any evidence that the opposing party wants to contest, they can do it at that time (That paper is forged!).
3) Then, the jurors deliberate, and stand in the shoes of each party to determine what kind of evidence or witnesses matter to the jury's determination.
4) Then the parties are told what witnesses or evidence to bring that matters to the jurors in determining their case.
5) Any contested evidence has to be authenticated. A party that challenges evidence that is ultimately authenticated will have adverse consideration in the weight, in wasting the time and resources of all involved.
6) Similarly, any fraudulent evidence will result in the loss of a case.
7) Then the parties return at a later date. If they can present the witnesses and evidence the jurors care about, then they're going to win. If they can't, it's clear who should prevail.
How it works now:
1) A judge oversees an entire pretrial process for months, to years before any jury selection occurs. The judge, in reading the complaint and through the motion practice, discovery and other processes, already develops a bias of which party they want to win months or years before jury selection ever occurs.
2) A judge then determines what evidence a party can submit before trial, with motions in limine and other practices. They can also change requirements at any time. For example, suddenly, you have to file 10 copies of all of your exhibits in the courthouse with only 24 hours notice, or you can't introduce anything. Impeachment evidence? Hah, nope. At trial, through the rules of evidence, if a judge doesn't favor a party, he can require they authenticate every piece of evidence or it's thrown out. Want to submit a cancelled check? Did you fly the bank executives in at a cost of $20,000 to authenticate it? Sorry, not admitted, the jury doesn't get to see it. Have a notarized statement from 15 individual witnesses to a car accident that were on a travel bus? Did you fly all fifteen of them in? Sorry, non-admissable hearsay. HOWEVER, If the judge favors a party, he can conversely do the exact opposite. Have a simple story written on notebook paper that you claim a non-present witness wrote attesting to your position (not even notarized)? Sure! Admitted! It's all in their discretion. Arguing over the admission of evidence often consumes about 25% of the precious little trial time a party even has.
3) In many cases, especially complex cases, it would take days to present it to the jury. But the judge controls his own schedule, and it's completely acceptable to give a party a two hour slot to present a seven-day case. Imagine trying to tell your coworkers about an argument with your boss, and having only 45 seconds to do it, and you're forced to bring in your boss to read the emails you allege he wrote, you can't just tell your story. That's a modern courtroom.
4) The parties have to guess as to what evidence is important in the mind of a jury.
2) The parties cherry pick a couple testimony and evidence from their case, and burn a ton of time arguing about admission. The jury gets about 8% of the story, and is subtley lead by comments by the judge into delivering the outcome desired by the judge.
6) Then the judge decides sentencing (or often the judgment) regardless, making the jury entirely moot.
7) If there's evidence that would've been a key determination in the minds eye of the jury or judge, it's shit outta' luck.
8) If there's legitimate evidence that a party is denied by a judge - either in advance of trial, or during trial (did you fly in the bank exec?) they are shit outta' luck. Even if they could, after the fact, fly in that executive.
9) Appeals don't actually exist. That's an entirely different topic. [And I've won a lot of appeals). In the way everyone envisions an appeal, they don't exist.
The concept of a one-and-done trial doesn't work with human psychology. What matters to Bob isn't what matters to Steve. And every person alive has biases. You can only attempt to overcome those by having multiple people.
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
