Comments on: Notes From Inside The Jury Room

By: Jamie Spencer

Jamie Spencer — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:04:59 +0000

Maybe, Blondie, but then, that would have delayed my lunch, now wouldn’t it…

By: Blonde Justice

Blonde Justice — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:39:03 +0000

Good post, I’d love to get on a jury just once to see exactly how it goes down. Your wife should have been the holdout for a hung jury!

By: Ishmael

Ishmael — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:04:42 +0000

Hammer it all youse wants, there, B.Dubya. It ain’t like they gonna care anyway. They watch that TV law, and they knows who’s who’s and what’s what’s.

You can’t fool them jurors with yer defense sweet talk when they got someone who needs a damn good lesson. After all, if they jury don’t make ‘em pay, who will?

By: B.W. Barnett

B.W. Barnett — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:04:03 +0000

Great post. I think every trial lawyer would like to be a fly on the wall in the jury room. This is further confimation of many of my suspicions. All the more reason to really hammer the standard/burden of proof during voir dire and closing.

By: Jamie Spencer

Jamie Spencer — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:27:35 +0000

Quoting your comment (again out of context, but the full comment is right above): (a) Obviously, my comment does not equate your interpretation. I started with the premise that the defendant is guilty because sometimes I see blood results suppressed (properly, I might add) and the result is a lesser plea.

While I applaud your making “the case against” forcible blood draws in the original post, in the paragraph starting “It’s a violation of civil rights”, you do go on to predict that no constitutional challenges will ultimately be successful, and you may well be right about that. At least once the police have all the kinks worked out in their pre-printed warrant applications.

Also, I read the part I quoted in the context of your back and forth with Grits about the deterrent effect, but to the extent you were thinking that ole .23 test result had already been supressed, your comment makes more sense.

Either way, I’ll stand by my original point: jurors who rank letting the guilty go unpunished as their highest avoid-at-all-costs priority are State’s (and decidedly not Defense) jurors.

Finally, tone of voice doesn’t always carry well in emails/blogs; I’ll accept the characterization of snarkiness, as long as you know it’s snarkiness with love. And please feel free to jump in whether I’m being fair or not.

By: D.A. Confidential

D.A. Confidential — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:28:58 +0000

Interesting post, always fascinating to see what goes on in the jury room, but I do have to take issue with one snarky comment, if you don’t mind. You quote me accurately as saying:

“What I do know is that many felony DWI-ers get away with acquittals or having their cases reduced to misdemeanors, which seems like positive reinforcement for their behavior.”

Then the disappointing part where you misinterpret/put words in my mouth: “That’s right, a not guilty verdict is simply a guilty man getting away with it. Can’t have that.”

I just wanted to (a) point out the obvious, and (b) clarify my view.

(a) Obviously, my comment does not equate your interpretation. I started with the premise that the defendant is guilty because sometimes I see blood results suppressed (properly, I might add) and the result is a lesser plea.

(b) If you know me, and I believe you do, then you know that I have great respect for our system and I’ve never made the blanket statement that a not-guilty verdict equates to someone getting away with it. Now, anytime I get a not guilty that’s the case because I’d never prosecute an innocent man/woman…. <— tongue in cheek, please do not quote!!!

Seriously, I do love to be linked to and quoted, and given the dearth of prosecutor blogs I'm kind of setting myself up for defense lawyers to kick at me. But I'll have to jump in when I feel you're not being quite fair to me or my fellow prosecutors.

Otherwise, great new (to me) blog – I'll link mine to it forthwith.