Brenda's Wealth Shock

[ursus arctos]

Which is precisely why attorneys with weak cases don't want them on the jury

[Eggchaser]

I would have thought lawyers were ideal jury members, due to their knowledge and skills.

That was the supposed problem, especially back in the day when solicitors did a bit of everything, rather than the highly specialised niches we fall into now.

[Lang Spoon]

Still ineligible here, even if you just studied a law degree but never practised.

What, just a law degree, not even professional exams?

[Duncan Gardner]

some lawyers still dislike having attorneys on the jury and will do what they can to strike them from the pool

Do they object to the judges having legal experience?

Ever since seeing 12 Angry Men as a kid I've thought that the jury system is silly. We don't call in random people off the street to sort out our dentistry or accountancy...

[Sporting]

What, just a law degree, not even professional exams?

"Hay una serie de ciudadanos ?exentos? de formar parte de un Jurado, la Familia Real, los abogados o procuradores, ni profesores universitarios de disciplinas jur?dicas y por ende los estudiantes de Derecho. Para el resto de ciudadanos existen una serie de excusas validas para no ser miembro del Jurado a pesar de haber sido llamado a ello:

• ser mayor de 65 a?os,
• haber sido miembro del Jurado en los ?ltimos 4 a?os,
• prestar un trabajo de inter?s general,
• ser militar o residir en el extranjero,
• otra causa que impida el desempe?o de miembro del Jurado."

Sorry, not going to edit out those failed diacritics!

[ursus arctos]

Especially striking as those students could be eight years away from being able to practise

Spain currently requires an:

Undergraduate degree (usually four years)
Master's degree (usually two years)
Legal internship (another two years)
National bar exam

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

I've never seen an official explanation of the policy behind the pre-2004 ban on lawyers being jurors in the UK, but I always assumed that it was a mix of (a) a perceived risk of lawyers getting hung up on legal points and being distracted by possible "bees in their bonnet" from doing their job as a juror properly - i.e. applying layman's common sense to weighing up the evidence presented and following the judge's directions in doing so, and (b) a percieved risk of lawyers "unbalancing" the jury in the sense of having disproportionate influence due to possible inappropriate deference by other jurors.

On that last point, the only time I did jury service, there was one other lawyer in the 12. She made the mistake of revealing (not in a "making a point" kind of way I think, but just having open chat about what people did for a living) that she was a solicitor. She got inappropriate deference from a handful of other jurors ("oh, you should be the chair....") and consequently some fairly evident resentment from one or two others who clearly had a chip on their shoulder about it. V glad I had kept schtumm.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Especially striking as those students could be eight years away from being able to practise

Spain currently requires an:

Undergraduate degree (usually four years)
Master's degree (usually two years)
Legal internship (another two years)
National bar exam

Those are some imposing barriers to entry.

[ursus arctos]

And yet the profession thinks that they aren't stringent enough and is in the process of making them higher (including by making the exam more difficult).

On EEG's point, the rationale behind the ban was always grounded in concern over lawyers being given disproportionate influence by the other members of the panel, though there was also a largely unvoiced belief on the part of criminal defence and plaintiff personal injury lawyers that the presence of attorneys on the jury rendered many of their traditional tactics less effective.

[Duncan Gardner]

Is there any significant support for getting rid of Juries in Britain, America or elsewhere? (I suppose my attitude is colored a bit by the particular oddities of Northern Ireland).

In Australia, the State of Victoria allowed women jurors only from 1975- and even then paid them barely half what men received

Briefly back to the namedrop quiz. It was the Queen Mum who missed out. Her official visit to our office was a few months before I joined. They installed a special khazi (which she didn't use).

Richard Duke Gloucester was the Deputy Chairman. He's the direct descendant of Charles 2 thru his Ma Alice

[ursus arctos]

Virtually none for criminal proceedings in the US.

There is more of a constituency for removing them from some categories of civil cases (particularly complex financial fraud, high level intellectual property disputes and other long running litigation given to highly technical evidence, but those proposals still lack strong popular support.

[Duncan Gardner]

Thanks Ursus. As a layman I sometimes wonder how much of the support is based on current public policy need (as opposed to just keeping traditions from the age of steam or horsepower)?

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

And yet the profession thinks that they aren't stringent enough and is in the process of making them higher (including by making the exam more difficult).

Sounds like someone wants to be on the wrong end of a competition case .That's just taking the piss. Reminds mo of when the supergrass was thinking about getting accredited for cases in Dublin, and having looked into it, he decided it would be quicker, cheaper and less hassle to bring a competition case all the way to Europe.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

I think "trial by one's peers" is considered to be a key plank of English law civil liberties - obviously it goes back centuries. Leaving aside the special considerations which apply to complex financial cases involving reasoning beyond the IQ of your average Joe Public, I think I'd have to agree with that.

Unless things have changed fundamentally since I was in "law school" (actually the then City Poly, long since merged out of existence) back in 1990, in English law criminal offences are divided into 3 categories:

(a) the most serious - always triable by judge and jury (Crown Court)
(b) the most trivial - triable by magistrate only
(c) the middle group - "triable either way": they get tried in the Magistrate's Court unless either side asks for jury trial. Prosecution may do so because judges have greater sentencing powers than magistrates. Defence may do so because in the circs that may improve chances of an acquittal.

We were lectured by a practising criminal barrister. He said if acting for a client being prosecuted for an "either way" offence, be damn sure to ask for a jury trial if you plan to challenge police evidence. The common picture, at least 30 years ago, don't know if things have changed since, was that magistrates were a lot harder than juries to convince that the police might be lying, because they tended to be conservative establishment golf club types.

So removing jury trials is not a great move constitutionally.
-

[ursus arctos]

The right to a jury in criminal trials is guaranteed by the US Constitution (both Article II and the Sixth Amendment), though it has been interpreted not to apply to a) juveniles or b) "petty" offences (generally those punishable by a sentence of six months or less)

[Lang Spoon]

The Troika never got their way in dismantling Ireland's professional cartels, did they? The legal profession, architects, fuckin jokers.

[Lang Spoon]

And yeah, as EEG sez however awful juries can be I'd rather have them than a feckin District Court judge/magistrate/JP wank decide my fate.

[DCI Harry Batt]

On the subject of sneering: this interests me much more than royalty. As a reproach it has successfully attached itself to "middle class liberals". It feels like it can now be made to cover any expression of incomprehension at or opposition to a contrary political position, so long as that position is held sincerely by someone with cultural 'authenticity', especially older people and white working-class people. i'm also trying to think here about who does not sneer: whose concerns are legitimate, even when they are damaging or inexplicable. We still tend to romanticise 'gut feelings' and overlook the mental, political effort that goes into propping them up.

Bloody hell but that's good, thank you.

[Duncan Gardner]

Bad news for newborn Brenda great grandson Brookbank junior. Only a week old and he's already been bypassed by the Sussex embryo

[ad hoc]

I've noticed two headlines in the Guardian in the last few days referring to "Meghan". Using only her first name. What the fuck is that all about? I mean, I don't really want to read stories about any of them, but i get that some people do, but this first name basis shit needs to be stamped out

[Duncan Gardner]

Come on. As Graun failings go it's hardly the most pressing.

She's an A List sleb, that's how our trivialising media treats them. One name is enough, even for lower rankers. See also (R) Ashwin, (AS) Su Kyi

[ad hoc]

Well, no it hardly is the most pressing, but it;s still annoying and very very tabloidy.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Good luck with that, in a country where much of the media refers to the prime minister as "Boris".

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

I'm with ad hoc on this one. We have enough tabloids already. I hope the Guardian has never referred to TCITC (copyright Purves) as "Boris" in news reports. I find that kind of language vaguely infantilising.

[Duncan Gardner]

The sleb fluff stories pay for the long reads (like the one that inspired this thread) and other serious journalism. Or as Cilla Black put it "There's no costume drama without Blind Date"

I'm more irritated by media insistence on using their absurd titles, rankings etc