Jordan Birnbaum

Host

The Jury's Still Out

Oct 24, 2013·38 visitors

Rachel McDonnell

Cohost

Stage· 299 messages

Oct 24, 2013

Our dear Rachel has recently had to endure jury duty, which made me think of when I had to endure jury duty, which I'm guessing is now making you think of when you had to endure jury duty. So what do we think? What did we learn about our fellow citizens? How well does it work? What should change? Let's Tawk.

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:05 AM

Ms. McDonnell, I presume? AKA My Sister Of Psychology?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:05 AM

haha. yes. hi Jordan. :)

Rachel McDonnell · 1:05 AM

hi everyone. (hi rebecce! :) )

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:05 AM

Nice - all my faves in the forum!

Rachel McDonnell · 1:05 AM

*rebecca already misspelling

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:05 AM

LOL -misspewlling is charming on Tawkers...

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:06 AM

My old friend Fred -welcome pal!

Rachel McDonnell · 1:06 AM

p.s. I think you spell it Pauly Shore lol I loved his movies back in the day lol. don't judge me ;)

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:06 AM

★ Spotlighted from Blake Ian

“Is this Tawk a discussion about the Paulie Shore film??”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:06 AM

thanks Rebecca, I appreciate that

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:06 AM

I suppose there is a place for Mr. Shore in the annals of culture...

Rachel McDonnell · 1:07 AM

haha yeah well I was young what did I know lol but Son in Law will always be great lol

Rachel McDonnell · 1:07 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rick Rosner

“You mean the anals of culture.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:07 AM

OK - well I guess our topic of jury duty was faiurly relatable for people

Rachel McDonnell · 1:07 AM

wow not even five mins in and Pauly Shore is taking a beating lol

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:07 AM

Rick - I was actually if I was misspelling it

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:08 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“These days, the justice system makes a Pauly SHore film look well-thought-out. Which is kind of the point of the Taw, isn't it?”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:08 AM

impressive, Westbrook.

Rachel McDonnell · 1:08 AM

yes suffering through jury duty (or at least selection) is something we can all relate to I think

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:08 AM

OK Rach -so you recently served on juury duty, and it brought up a lot of interesting and/or disturbing observations?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:09 AM

disturbing observations... to say the least

Rachel McDonnell · 1:09 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“I have a pretty decent knowledge of juries so this should be an interesting one.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:09 AM

And BTW -forum - do us a favor -if you have ever sat on a jury, shout out what kind of trial it was. like, drugs or robbery or civil...

Rachel McDonnell · 1:09 AM

good to know Fred, we may call on some of your expertise :)

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:10 AM

So Rach, let's start with your recent experience - how did you find the arrival and selection process?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:10 AM

well the first day we sat for four hours and then got sent home, I think that trial go resolved. then we came back the next day and had to sit for the selection

Rachel McDonnell · 1:11 AM

I guess I started this experience optimistic that this could be a good opportunity to see the law work the way it is supposed to..

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:11 AM

Now, did you feel any sort of civic pride?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:11 AM

no lol. I would have, had things gone differently

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:11 AM

(PS - I sat on a drug case -we'll discuss later)

Rachel McDonnell · 1:11 AM

but the selection was really interesting to view

Rachel McDonnell · 1:12 AM

what I noticed more than anything overall was how biased people are toward the state's side

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:12 AM

what kind of case was it?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:12 AM

I can't tell you how many times the defense lawyer had to explicitly say "state has burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty." but alot of the jurors were already on the "guilty" before the trial even started

Rachel McDonnell · 1:13 AM

oh ok so the case was a criminal case

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:13 AM

this came through based on how they answered questions during discovery?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:13 AM

the state was charging the defendant with "terroristic threat"

Rachel McDonnell · 1:13 AM

but all the evidence we were given was witness testimony and circumstantial evidence which I had a huge problem with

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:13 AM

I didn't mean discovery -I meant selection

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:14 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rick Rosner

“Piano case? Suit case? Guitar case? Case of the clap?”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:14 AM

That's quite a caseload, Rick

Rachel McDonnell · 1:14 AM

basically an employee of a casino "may or may not" have said something threatening they had one main witness and another backing them up, but they had been childhood friends (bias) and he didn't hear "everything"

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:15 AM

Hold on - let's go back to selection

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:15 AM

during selection, did you want to get picked, or want to avoid it?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:15 AM

no I didn't want to get pick, but at the same time yes because they told us if we weren't picked this time we would have to come back the next week

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:16 AM

(I told everyone I wanted to avoid it, but secretly I wanted to get picked)

Rachel McDonnell · 1:16 AM

so again I don't think that is a good selection process because you are going to get people who "just want to get it over with"

Rachel McDonnell · 1:16 AM

I did at first I was excited to be a part of it, like I said I wanted to see the system work

Rachel McDonnell · 1:16 AM

but I think I was a bit naive lol

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:17 AM

Me too, on both counts. OK -the trial -so a casino employee was charged with making threats? Who was he /she threatening?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:17 AM

allegedly?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:17 AM

(and ps -we'll get to Fred and Seth's points in a bit...)

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:17 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“It's a completely tainted process, jury selection. The lawyers are more interested in selecting people they believe they can convince of their story. And the jurors have their own preconceptions coming into the trial.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:18 AM

it's problemtaic for sure

Rachel McDonnell · 1:18 AM

so it started when the defendant (she) was talking to another co-worker about putting in her leave notice for the winter, he said something like "you should flip tables over and freak out" and she supposedly responded sarcastically "oh yeah that's wh

Rachel McDonnell · 1:18 AM

what I'm going to do... not like I want my job back"

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:18 AM

That's it?!

Rachel McDonnell · 1:19 AM

what the other side supposedly heard was "I'm going to bash heads in and kill those I don't like"

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:19 AM

Ahh

Rachel McDonnell · 1:19 AM

but this is where the

Rachel McDonnell · 1:19 AM

he said, she said comes in

Rachel McDonnell · 1:19 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Most evidence is circumstantial, and circumstantial evidence is fine for convicting someone one. It's rare that there is an eyewitness or a videotape”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:20 AM

I really never knew before this case Seth that you could convict someone on basically hearway

Rachel McDonnell · 1:20 AM

*hearsay

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:20 AM

I didn't know that either.

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:20 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“The absolute truth in a courtroom doesn't exist. It's merely a matter of convincing people of your version of the truth. Lawyers use enough of the facts to draw their own conclusion & put together their case.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:20 AM

And this is something (Fred's point) I think we all should find upsetting

Rachel McDonnell · 1:21 AM

like this is someone's life and we can convict on hearsay and a terroristic threat count on top of that - scary world we live in I'll tell ya that!

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:21 AM

so the trial was presented -was it riveting, boring, or all of the above at certain times?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:21 AM

oh yeah and during selection I said a few things like I don't believe in the justice system that much and they still choose me but I think the defense probably wanted to keep me

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:22 AM

wow -I'm surprised the prosecutor kept you

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:22 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Hearsay is not really circumstantial evidence”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:22 AM

it was a little riveting because I apparently saw a different side of the trial than others.. I thought the defense lawyer did a great job of refuting every piece of state's evidence

Rachel McDonnell · 1:23 AM

there was a lot of "i don't knows" and "i don't remembers" from everyone on the witness stand including the main witness against and the police officer

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:23 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“"Terroristic" is an inflammatory word these days. If you're patriotic, you have to be "not with the terrorists" in the new McCarthyism.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:23 AM

I am sort of amazed that just saying that would end someone up in court

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:24 AM

and the charge does make it souind like a plot to commit a bombing or something

Rachel McDonnell · 1:24 AM

Rebecca you read my mind! I said something about it in the deliberation room and it is interesting because I wonder if they would have convicted had the count been called something other than "terroristic"

Rachel McDonnell · 1:24 AM

that's another thing that scared me about the experience, so much group think, blinding trusting the state, and blaming the victim going on

Rachel McDonnell · 1:25 AM

but it's interesting because the "threat" didn't get reported until 8 days later, and wasn't even reported by the person who supposedly heard it first

Rachel McDonnell · 1:25 AM

and around the time this was reported another employee at the casino was escorted out and fired because they had brought a weapon to work and so all the employees were scared and fear was heightened

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:26 AM

so in some ways it felt like the verdict was more the result of human nature and behavior in groups than of the evidence presented in the case?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:26 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“@rebecca yes, we can equate these troubling times to the McCarthy era”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:26 AM

sadly agreed, Julie and Rebecca

Rachel McDonnell · 1:26 AM

yes I mean there wasn't much "evidence" to me when you get on the stand and say "i don't know" or "I don't remember" you aren't the most reliable person to me

Rachel McDonnell · 1:27 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“Circumstantial evidence can be used to infer the defendant’s guilt. Direct evidence supports the truth of the assertion.”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:27 AM

Julie yes! As a scientist I NEED that HARD proof to back up at least SOME part of the story

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:27 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“Hearsay based on perception is the equivalent of a witchhunt, which (heh heh) which starts with "Look! That person's a witch!" In comes the gray area...”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:28 AM

do you think that on a jury we naturally regress into a Salem witch trial kind of mode, making us more likely to convict regardless?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:28 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“As much as the judge & attorneys press for jurors to be objective & to separate themselves from the case, certain cases touch a nerve with jurors & becuase they're people, they react emotionally in deliberations.”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:29 AM

Well what Rick said is kind of how I saw it. The defendant was sort of a quirky lady that didn't "fit in" with this in crowd at the casino and to me it just seemed to me like they were picking on her but the girl who reported it got scared because

Rachel McDonnell · 1:29 AM

1. she was there to hear the "threat" 2. the former employee being escorted out 3. her friend told her that this lady said that and then added that she said she was going to bring a gun

Rachel McDonnell · 1:29 AM

so again no consistency in the reports

Rachel McDonnell · 1:30 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“@Rick. Are you advocating active rebellion against an oppressive government? :-)”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:30 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rick Rosner

“Always.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:30 AM

LOL

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:30 AM

As usual, the forum is three steps ahead of me:

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:30 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“I honestly think, esp. after seeing the last two high-profile cases--Casey Anthony and Zimmerman--that juries truly do not understand what it takes to convict someone and set to high a bar for conviction”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:30 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“Heartily agreed, Seth!”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:30 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“It is so easy for lawyers to play on possibly unrecognized prejudices and assumptions within jurors' psyches than it is for jurors to understand the scale and scope of their role.”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:30 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“The real fact of case deliberation is not just if one side's case is plausible, but whether there is the possibility for any other story to exist. A side's case may have holes, but unless there's an alternative, you can convict circumstantially.”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:31 AM

@Fred but we had an equally just as plausible story from the defendant's side

Rachel McDonnell · 1:32 AM

but I don't know I think people are so biased towards the state's side maybe I am wrong I haven't done this much but that is the impression I got

Rachel McDonnell · 1:32 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“I would guess the media playing up the "loner who was an outsider" was the shooter doesn't help the perception people have.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:32 AM

Well, there have been psych studies that prove the power of authority on the human psyche

Rachel McDonnell · 1:32 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“If there was a plausible alternative, then you can't convict beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:33 AM

THANK YOU FRED! That's what I said! Many times!

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:33 AM

assuming the state is an "authority" it wouldn't surprise me if your observation about people's bias for the state was correct

Rachel McDonnell · 1:34 AM

and everyone found the cop convincing and he didn't bring his papers in he needed for the trial defense had to give them to him he said he heard her say a threat when he put her in the cop car but he had the recorder in his car on and the defense

Rachel McDonnell · 1:34 AM

pulled up the transcript and was like can you show me on here where she said the threat.. it wasn't on there anywhere the cop said it must have been an "inaudible" because of the traffic noise or the noise of the radio

Rachel McDonnell · 1:34 AM

what?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:35 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“How do you hadnle this situation when you are the only person who sees the injustice in this? "12 Angry Men"”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:35 AM

I mean I am sure it happens but come on! you go into court with that? and people take you seriously no questions asked.. huh?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:35 AM

one of my all-time favorite movies, Julie

Rachel McDonnell · 1:36 AM

yeah I feel like I had the opposite experience as everyone else I was all liek "oh snap!" to all of the defenses rebuttals because they did a great job at disproving.. apparently it was just me lol

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:36 AM

so what was the deliberation like? did they gang up on you?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:37 AM

there was one other person who agreed with me, but she wasn't going to say anything if I didn't I argued for like 3 hours about it but they said since the doc the judge gave us said we must judge based on whether or not the threat was said not intent

Rachel McDonnell · 1:37 AM

yeah they "nicely" ganged up on me lol.

Rachel McDonnell · 1:37 AM

but ganged up nonetheless

Rachel McDonnell · 1:37 AM

I just kept saying look 1 maybe 2 people aren't enough to prove that something was said, especially when there were how many other people in the break room that didn't report anything

Rachel McDonnell · 1:38 AM

but they kept say "1 witness ... plus the cop" the cop seemed to really solidify things for the jurors

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:38 AM

wow - so you felt compelled to convict because of the strict instructions the judge gave you?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:38 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure" Juror 8”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:38 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“Like cops never lie...”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:38 AM

like if you were judgihng whether or not she meant it, you could have ruled differently?>

Rachel McDonnell · 1:39 AM

yes if we were able to judge on whether or not she meant it

Rachel McDonnell · 1:39 AM

it would have been not guilty

Rachel McDonnell · 1:39 AM

they all said that

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:39 AM

doesn't it seem like with those kind of instructions, they actually take the decision OUT of the jury's hands?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:40 AM

it's like - DO NOT use your judgments!

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:40 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“We had one juror in the middle of deliberation yell out "Burn the son of a bitch!"”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:40 AM

(waas it George C Scott?)

Rachel McDonnell · 1:40 AM

exactly! ugh I guess it is again the gov. leading us by the hand like we are children... those instructions were to a T specific and I feel like you said because of a technicality this lady got convicted

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:41 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“@ Jordan LOL”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:41 AM

was hoping someone would catch that, Rich!

Rachel McDonnell · 1:41 AM

@Fred ok see now how does that person get past selection?? I feel like selection is a bit of a joke, especially because of how undesirable jury duty is to people, like they will take who they can to fill a jury.

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:42 AM

So in my case, we had a similar experience with the judge's instructions

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:42 AM

it was a drug case, and we all felt the defendant was NOT a drug dealer, but was in the wrong place at the wrong time

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:43 AM

Most of us wanted to acquit. But the judge gave us instructions SO specific, that to acquit would have been a virtual open rebellion.

Rachel McDonnell · 1:43 AM

oh we need to tawk about the war on drugs Jordan next time! I have so much to say! but continue :)

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:43 AM

so after a while, I think we all felt pressured to convict based on how we were instructed.

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:44 AM

afterwards, the defense attorney told us the defendant would get 7 years minimum. I almost threw up. And I have regretted that conviction every day since.

Rachel McDonnell · 1:44 AM

exactly! I feel the same Jordan and like you said they have then taken all of our "power" as jurors in that the directions are so specific little room is given to make an actual verdict without the courts help

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:45 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“So that person goes into prison as a petty criminal and comes out a harden criminal?”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:45 AM

I know I couldn't look at the lady when we went out.. and everyone else was all happy go lucky pops up and out like nothing happened

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:45 AM

yes Julie that is the cycle

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:46 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“That makes me mad”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:46 AM

me2

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:46 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“@ Jordan & Rebecca - what a horrible feeling”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:46 AM

absolutely

Rachel McDonnell · 1:46 AM

well yes Julie thanks for bringing that up because one of the things I wanted to talk about is how I think there is collaboration between defense and state but I think it leans more towards "any jail time" is good for the state and the defense is bas

Rachel McDonnell · 1:46 AM

basically looking for reduced jail time... so again jail time.. is the main outcome of the legal system and not on accident I don't think

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:47 AM

OK - so let's go bigger picture

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:47 AM

It seems we all agree the legal system is a mess

Rachel McDonnell · 1:47 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“Yup Seth. The game has two players. Both want to win. If the defense attorney has a higher record, their fees spike & they get called on for higher profile cases, which leads to a book deal. It's all a game.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:47 AM

we all agree that juries are terribly flawed psychologically

Rachel McDonnell · 1:47 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Very true Fred. It's all about the Benjamins: usually defense attorneys start out as prosecutors until they realize the real money is in defense. Most of the so-called experts would testify for Hitler if it paid well enough”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:47 AM

and scientifically

Rachel McDonnell · 1:48 AM

lol I told them I was a scientist in the making and they were all like "oh! that's why she is a stickler" lol..people!

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:48 AM

so we're led to this inevitable question:

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:48 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rick Rosner

“The system is flawed because it was designed by humans, who are flawed by definition. But what is the best alternative?”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:49 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“@ Rachel What a horrible ordeal.... now throw in privatized prisons!”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:49 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“Doesn't make you a bad person, Rachel. It might make you a "logical" person!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:49 AM

Indeed, what is the best alternative?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:49 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“Judge Dredd is the best alternative”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:49 AM

yes silly me, I want logic and hard facts before convicting someone of anything nowadays I mean these people don't have a chance really after conviction no matter how big or small

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:49 AM

lol

Rachel McDonnell · 1:50 AM

well.. not sure I have the answers audience what do you think are some things we could do to change things?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:51 AM

Here's my first idea for our evaluation - I don't know that I advocate this, but would like to discuss it: professional jurors

Rachel McDonnell · 1:51 AM

well jordan like you said, give the choice of conviction and charging back to the jurors - and get rid of the ridiculously pinpointed instruction by the judge

Rachel McDonnell · 1:51 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“Lawyers are crooked politicians in training”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:51 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Rich let's not forget that most politicians were former attorneys”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:51 AM

what if we train jurors in the law, in psychology and do everything we can to help them become objective arbiters of the law?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:51 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“I agree Jordan and Rachel. It does seem that the instructions by the judge can bias the entire jury”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:51 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“That seems incredibly fucked up. I guess I hadn't thought about the "instructions from the judge part". Where is the oversight there? That seems like a lot of room for abuse of power.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:52 AM

so professional jurors would be harder to manipulate

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:52 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Professional jurors, how would they get fired? What basis would've for paying them or evaluating job performance?”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:52 AM

and how do we keep them from becoming corrupt and getting into bed with private prisons?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:53 AM

i think at first they would be harder to manipulate but eventually especially if they stay in their same groups corruption could occur, as with any longstanding job. But you could individually train them and then mix them up so they don't serve with

Rachel McDonnell · 1:53 AM

the same people twice

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:53 AM

there would have to be a ROBUST system of checks and balances that acknowledges that corruption is inevitable and as such must be constantly monitored

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:53 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“What if professional jurors become compromised”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:53 AM

yeah that's the thing money corrupts.. we always come back to that don't we?? take money out of our system!

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:53 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“Professional jurors sounds dangerous”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:53 AM

★ Spotlighted from Mr. Chow

“how about making it a jury of 100 people?”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:54 AM

Yes Liphan! WE could make it a vote, like American Idol!

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:54 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rick Rosner

“100 jurors - can you imagine deliberations?”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:54 AM

and there would need to be MAJOR consequences for those who acted immorally or acted solely because of money that would need to be a must

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:54 AM

no deliberations - just voting

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:54 AM

★ Spotlighted from Mr. Chow

“ya that would be sooooo much better!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:54 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“Isn't our government founded on a robust system of checks and balances? :-)”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:55 AM

a vote might work, but you have the possibility of larger error the larger your sample size gets

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:55 AM

Yes Julie -that's why things have gotten so much worse as a result of DEREGULATION

Rachel McDonnell · 1:55 AM

hahaha good one Julie

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:55 AM

OK - so it's an idea with some flaws

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:56 AM

★ Spotlighted from Mr. Chow

“3 rounds of voting lol”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:56 AM

I think we honestly need to go back to imprisoning those who intend to harm someone or actually DO harm to someone

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:56 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“100 vs 1, the trial edition”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:56 AM

lol

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:56 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“How do "we the people", solve these flaws?”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:56 AM

OK -ready for another kooky idea that I don't neccesarily endorse but would like to discuss?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:56 AM

yes :)

Rachel McDonnell · 1:56 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“stealth deregulation by the presidents??”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:57 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“Bob Saget shall decide our fate!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:57 AM

what if we were to scrap the adversarial model altogether, and instead move to a collaborative model where the collective goal is to uncover the truth?

Rachel McDonnell · 1:57 AM

*gasp* too logical Jordan

Rachel McDonnell · 1:57 AM

not enough blaming the victim! it might have people rethinking the entire criminal justice system... let's do it!! :D

Rachel McDonnell · 1:58 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“We love a good competition here in America.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:58 AM

like, you can still have someone looking out for the defendant, and someone looking out for the state or plaintiff, but the collective goal is to uncover the truth and reach a fair conclusion. no more winning or losing?

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:58 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“I like that idea! Like the council in "The Matrix" worked. ;-) Oops! I let the geek out!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:58 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“Oooh. Dude. Why does everything have to be a competition, right? If the goal were not about winning or losing, then it really would be a different game entirely!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:58 AM

★ Spotlighted from Julie Myers

“Sounds too logical...”

Rachel McDonnell · 1:58 AM

@Fred then we should make it a fair fight.. the lawyers should showdown not the defendant who is already down

Jordan Birnbaum · 1:59 AM

Ooooh -I think the collaborative model is striking a chord!

Rachel McDonnell · 1:59 AM

yes I like it! And yes Rebecca, if only people would see that while we fight against each other in small town courtrooms the big wigs win... every time

Rachel McDonnell · 1:59 AM

with collaboration we could pick each other up

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:00 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“I think so Jordan!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:00 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“The lawyers go out drinking together afterward. They would never go fully at one another.”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:00 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“How long did it take us to solve the issue once it was brought up? LMAO”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:00 AM

So we should probably do another Tawk in which we collectively write the new legal system in America on Tawkers...

Rachel McDonnell · 2:00 AM

haha! again Tawkers could get things DONE! :)

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:00 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“How would that play out Jordan...let's say you were using the collaborative model against the Boston Bomber?”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:01 AM

yes! I was hoping we would have a lawyer or law student in the tawk I should wrangle one up for next time.. it'd be interesting to hear from their side (defense or state)

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:01 AM

I think the defense attorney is not trying to get his client off - rather uncover the entire truth, and then advocate for the best treatment proportionate to that truth for the defendant

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:01 AM

★ Spotlighted from Mr. Chow

“it's too hard to make a criminal defendant collaborate :/”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:01 AM

seth - for people causing harm or intent to cause harm those people are the ones who need bars

Rachel McDonnell · 2:01 AM

everyone else - collaboration :)

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:02 AM

If innocent, they'd want to collaborate. If guilty, fuck them.

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:02 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“We the Tawkers' jury, find the defendants guilty of being smarty pants. We sentence them to 3 hours of Beavis & Butthead reruns.”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:02 AM

see Liphan that is another "blame the victim" thing I see always, like these people are supposed to be innocent till proven guilty

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:02 AM

A reasonable sentence to be sure

Rachel McDonnell · 2:02 AM

but we have lost that

Rachel McDonnell · 2:02 AM

now we hear "Defendant" and immediately think guilt

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:02 AM

★ Spotlighted from Mr. Chow

“what about an issue such as self defense???”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:02 AM

it's a dangerous thing to assume I think

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:03 AM

The prosecution and defense collectively uncover what's happened

Rachel McDonnell · 2:03 AM

self-defense again someone is harming someone else so therefore they would need to be convicted

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:03 AM

OK before we lose everyone -I have one last wacky idea I want to share

Rachel McDonnell · 2:03 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Based on high-profile cases, I don't think you could say that Rachel”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:04 AM

seth you are right I was thinking how different my experience was from say Trayvon Martin's case or OJ.. maybe high profile cases are completely different probably are considering all the media attention and potential contamination

Rachel McDonnell · 2:04 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“The defendant is set-up to be guilty before proven innocent. The mere fact the defendant is there means, in some eyes, that where there's smoke, there's fire.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:04 AM

yeah, we haven't even touched on racism...

Rachel McDonnell · 2:04 AM

that's very sad Fred, but that's what I saw

Rachel McDonnell · 2:05 AM

tell us your brilliant idea Jordan. :)

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:05 AM

Again -I don't advocate this -I just want to discuss it

Rachel McDonnell · 2:05 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“True, Seth, but high-profile cases seem to be the worst of the worst. SO often in small-time cases, the opposite is true. :/”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:05 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Majority of cases defendants have almost no money, state-appointed defendant, and no knowledge of the law so they usually cop a plea”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:06 AM

what if we made all criminal defense attorneys public defenders, and every defendant was assigned a lawyer through a lottery system. no more high-priced attorneys getting off guilty clients.

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:07 AM

all criminal attorneys work for the state -no private criminal attorneys..

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:07 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“That's a good idea Jordan...definitely would level the playing field”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:07 AM

i love it, but I don't think the lawyers would

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:07 AM

★ Spotlighted from Mr. Chow

“that would lower the quality of criminal defense attorneys”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:07 AM

but why should the rich be entitled to better representation?

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:07 AM

and why should people get rich by setting guilty men free?

Rachel McDonnell · 2:07 AM

exactly, about time everyone saw the equality in the justice system.. crazy I know

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:08 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rick Rosner

“Capitalism doesn't necessarily advocate a level playing field.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:08 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“The lawyer the defendant had in my case was horrific. That would be the casino version of crapping out.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:08 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Capitalism shouldn't enter the courtroom...just like in most sports teams have the same salary-cap”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:08 AM

I agree again money out of our system would stop all of this corruption and help more innocent people go free

Rachel McDonnell · 2:08 AM

I should look up the stats on how many estimated innocent people are locked away right now.. sad sad.. and mostly because someone else could afford a better lawyer

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:08 AM

if rich people had to rely on public defenders through a lottery, it would end corporate crime

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:09 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“We're seeking justice after all!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:09 AM

★ Spotlighted from Fred Smilow

“He was a public defender, but he had no defense for how bad he was.”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:09 AM

and Fred - we certainly need to raise the standards of quality for the public defenders office

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:09 AM

and need to get better lawyers in there

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:09 AM

★ Spotlighted from Mr. Chow

“now we're about to have an entire tawk about attorney ethics!!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:09 AM

you ready to host it, Liph? (he's an attorney, by the way...)

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:10 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Also if you locked up white-collar criminals in actual prisons instead of golf resorts w/ Grey Poupon served at their beck and call things would be different Jordan”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:10 AM

and if my aunt had balls she's be my uncle...

Rachel McDonnell · 2:10 AM

yes I would love an ethics tawk!

Rachel McDonnell · 2:10 AM

★ Spotlighted from Mr. Chow

“i'm down!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:11 AM

OK -so we need an ethics Tawk, a collaborative legal system Tawk, a money out of the lkegak system Tawk...did I miss anything?

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:11 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“attorney ethics, self defense ethics, public defender lottery.... here we go!!!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:11 AM

yeah, rich!

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:11 AM

wow -this was a fun one!

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:12 AM

should we wrap it up, Rach? You have anything else you want to cover tonight?

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:12 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“You're all guilty!”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:12 AM

no I think we are good. unless people won't to discuss more

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:12 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“What if these randomly-assigned public defense attorneys had an accountability system to answer to like public school teachers do? SO if they were shit, theoretically they'd be out on their asses.”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:12 AM

I am always guilty

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:12 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“I'm throwing the book at you!”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:12 AM

I hide behind my Native blood on that one ;) lol

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:12 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rick Rosner

“Order! Order in the Tawk!”

Rachel McDonnell · 2:13 AM

yes Rebecca! I think some system where they'd have to be accountable to the citizens in a more tangible way is a must

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:13 AM

OK - hey all -just a quick heads up that tomorrow night Rebecca and I are Tawking about making life decisions for happiness above all else. what makes that hard, and what makes that easy.

Rachel McDonnell · 2:13 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rich Hagberg

“Thank you everyone! Good subject matter Jordan & Rachel!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:13 AM

would love to hang with you all again.

Rachel McDonnell · 2:13 AM

thanks rich :)

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:14 AM

And PS - DEEPAK CHOPRA is doing a Tawk on Friday afternoon!!!!!!!! Holy s**t!

Rachel McDonnell · 2:14 AM

that's so awesome! I hope I can catch it!

Rachel McDonnell · 2:14 AM

and I will hopefully be there for yours and Rebecca's perfect timing in my life.. overworked.. no fun :p

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:14 AM

forum -you were amazing as usual.

Rachel McDonnell · 2:15 AM

yes thank you audience you rock as always :)

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:15 AM

Love you guys -thanks for reminding me I'm not alone!

Rachel McDonnell · 2:15 AM

yes thanks everyone and thanks jordan for having me :)

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:15 AM

★ Spotlighted from Rebecca Westbrook Toker

“Which is not as awesome as Deepak Chopra, but...I want you guys to come!”

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:15 AM

yeah me too -it's going to be great! forget that Chopra guy....

Jordan Birnbaum · 2:15 AM

★ Spotlighted from Seth Hochman

“Court is dismissed (gavel comes down)”

Forum · 212

Forum· 212 comments

38 visitors

Blake IanOct 23, 2013, 10:12 PM★ Spotlighted

Is this Tawk a discussion about the Paulie Shore film??

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 12:58 AM

Hey, Rachel! Been missing you!

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:01 AM

Blake - would you actually watch a Paulie Shore movie?

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:05 AM

Droppin' In!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:05 AM

Hello Rachel & Jordan

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:06 AM

Typos are disregarded here as a courtesy to everyone. ;)

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:07 AM★ Spotlighted

You mean the anals of culture.

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:07 AM

Hello everyone!

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:08 AM★ Spotlighted

These days, the justice system makes a Pauly SHore film look well-thought-out. Which is kind of the point of the Taw, isn't it?

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:08 AM★ Spotlighted

I have a pretty decent knowledge of juries so this should be an interesting one.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:09 AM

Do tell!

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:09 AM

I was on the Leopold and Loeb jury - a real blast!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:10 AM

Never got chosen by a jury...I was hoping to though

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:10 AM

I have never been selected for Jury Duty

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:10 AM

My number has never been drawn. My sis has been called 3 times this year, though! :D

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:12 AM

(Deep Breath) I was the foreman of two jury panels. The first, when I was 22, was a gang murder trial that lasted 5 weeks in the courtroom & 1 week in deliberation. The 2nd was about 5 years ago I believe. It was personal (motorcycle) injury case.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:12 AM

My brother-in-law is a detective so little chance of getting chosen

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:13 AM★ Spotlighted

Piano case? Suit case? Guitar case? Case of the clap?

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:14 AM

I think one of the things that has to be done is banning TV cameras from inside the courtroom; it changes the whole dynamic of the trial and turns it into a media circus, ie. Casey Anthony, Zimmerman, OJ, etc

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:15 AM

In some ways I agree, Seth. In other ways, I worry about transparency. Sometimes TV cameras put people on better behavior, if not the best.

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:16 AM

I always imagine old ladys knitting while watching the trials - like Tale of Two Cities.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:16 AM

That's really interesting, Fred.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:16 AM★ Spotlighted

Most evidence is circumstantial, and circumstantial evidence is fine for convicting someone one. It's rare that there is an eyewitness or a videotape

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:16 AM

Or old ladies gossiping....

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:17 AM★ Spotlighted

It's a completely tainted process, jury selection. The lawyers are more interested in selecting people they believe they can convince of their story. And the jurors have their own preconceptions coming into the trial.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:18 AM

Rebecca trials are already transparent, as the courtroom is full of people watching the trial plus there are reporters everywhere for high-profile cases. And all testimony is already transcribed. In all Federal trials, cameras are banned, and other

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:18 AM

trials need to follow suit

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:18 AM

Fred, that's why I feel like more public oversight is probably better. But then, I also think the public is a half an idiot.

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:19 AM

I was tried in Federal Court for dancing with a mailman. (apologies to W.A.)

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:19 AM

Seth, I hear your argument. I agree,on principal, but something about it still bothers me. Not sure what.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:20 AM★ Spotlighted

The absolute truth in a courtroom doesn't exist. It's merely a matter of convincing people of your version of the truth. Lawyers use enough of the facts to draw their own conclusion & put together their case.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:20 AM★ Spotlighted

Hearsay is not really circumstantial evidence

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:20 AM

In the gang murder trial I was in, pretty much every piece of evidence was circumstantial & yet we still convicted the defendant.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:21 AM

Showing a pattern of behavior of a person, items they've purchased, travel records, phone records, occupation, etc. are all perfectly acceptable circumstantial evidence

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:22 AM★ Spotlighted

The system is flawed because it was designed by humans, who are flawed by definition. But what is the best alternative?

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:23 AM★ Spotlighted

Hearsay based on perception is the equivalent of a witchhunt, which (heh heh) which starts with "Look! That person's a witch!" In comes the gray area...

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:23 AM★ Spotlighted

"Terroristic" is an inflammatory word these days. If you're patriotic, you have to be "not with the terrorists" in the new McCarthyism.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:24 AM★ Spotlighted

Circumstantial evidence can be used to infer the defendant’s guilt. Direct evidence supports the truth of the assertion.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:26 AM

The Federal court system is a lot better Rick and a lot faster. That is why a lot of businesses push to have federal trials rather than state or local. Cameras and TV are already banned so it takes away the circus effect, and things run much smooth

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:26 AM★ Spotlighted

@rebecca yes, we can equate these troubling times to the McCarthy era

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:27 AM★ Spotlighted

As much as the judge & attorneys press for jurors to be objective & to separate themselves from the case, certain cases touch a nerve with jurors & becuase they're people, they react emotionally in deliberations.

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:27 AM

Go back to Sacco and Vanzetti. Nothing is new.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:27 AM

It kind of taints the process unless you can somehow wrangle them in.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:27 AM★ Spotlighted

I honestly think, esp. after seeing the last two high-profile cases--Casey Anthony and Zimmerman--that juries truly do not understand what it takes to convict someone and set to high a bar for conviction

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:28 AM★ Spotlighted

Heartily agreed, Seth!

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:29 AM★ Spotlighted

@Rick. Are you advocating active rebellion against an oppressive government? :-)

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:29 AM★ Spotlighted

Always.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:29 AM★ Spotlighted

The real fact of case deliberation is not just if one side's case is plausible, but whether there is the possibility for any other story to exist. A side's case may have holes, but unless there's an alternative, you can convict circumstantially.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:30 AM★ Spotlighted

It is so easy for lawyers to play on possibly unrecognized prejudices and assumptions within jurors' psyches than it is for jurors to understand the scale and scope of their role.

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:30 AM

Violence gets attention, but frequently not a good result. And the personal cost is usually too high.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:31 AM

It's all a game. Some play it in high school. It's called Mock Trial. Those who get good at it go to law school.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:31 AM

Indeed, Rick. I ditched violence about 3 years ago. ;)

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:31 AM

Done by you or to you?

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:31 AM★ Spotlighted

I would guess the media playing up the "loner who was an outsider" was the shooter doesn't help the perception people have.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:32 AM★ Spotlighted

If there was a plausible alternative, then you can't convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:33 AM

Both. Violence begets violence, and I'm smarter than that.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:33 AM

Oh, Julie, that's a perpetual problem!

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:34 AM

@R - I could make a case that violence is the best response to violence, at least on a personal level.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:34 AM

There are rules to the game. End results based on certain choices & lines of reasoning. I had to get familiar with them in order to figure out how we could come to a verdict.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:34 AM★ Spotlighted

How do you hadnle this situation when you are the only person who sees the injustice in this? "12 Angry Men"

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:35 AM

Calm & reason is the only way to handle it

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:35 AM

Rick - not unless you're the biggest. I am not a large person.

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:35 AM

Biggest - or the meanest or most determined.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:36 AM

I'm not the manest, either. So a double disadvantage. :D

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:36 AM

Meanest or manest.

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:36 AM

I was raised to turn the other cheek, but I'm no saint.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:36 AM

"It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. --- But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:37 AM★ Spotlighted

valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure" Juror 8

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:38 AM

That's a very vague term "reasonable doubt," and I think the vast majority of jurors take it to mean "no doubt."

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:38 AM

I was raised with a lot of violence, and it was nice to grow up and understand taht everything isn't like that. It's nice not to live with constant anxiety.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:38 AM★ Spotlighted

Like cops never lie...

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:38 AM★ Spotlighted

We had one juror in the middle of deliberation yell out "Burn the son of a bitch!"

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:39 AM

So I ditched violence. I'll see how that works for me. I'm not a saint, either - I still get a good case of the red ass and break shit from time to time. :D

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:39 AM

Holy shit, Fred! That's scary!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:39 AM

Twelve Angry Men was an awesome movie Julie!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:40 AM

I was like "Whoa! Hang on here. We can't go there.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:41 AM

@Fred Really ?!?!?!

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:41 AM★ Spotlighted

@ Jordan LOL

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:41 AM

He was reacting to one stubborn juror who wouldn't change her mind no matter what. She was afraid gang members would retaliate against her family.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:42 AM

Prosecutors want convictions. They don't care how they get them. It goes on their conviction record. The higher the record, the better chance they'll get elected to some higher office.

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:42 AM

@R - I guess the best is not violence - but not fearing violence, if that makes sense.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:42 AM

@Jordan That would be tough

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:43 AM

I suppose empathy has no place in the courtroom. It is good I ahve never been drawn for Jury Duty :-)

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:43 AM

@ Rick - makes sense!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:43 AM

I think the guy was also real frustrated that the trial had gone on as long as it did. It was stupidly long, to be fair.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:44 AM

Fred I think the same could be said about defense attorneys...they want their client to walk no matter what they've to do to make it happen. Not to mention, the defense has an automatic advantage in an American trial

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:44 AM

I think that's true, Rick - specially in the context of activism these days (or historically). You can't be afraid that things will go badly - just assume that they will.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:44 AM

What's that advantage, Seth?

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:45 AM

@ Rick being non-violent doesn't mean being a victim when the threat of violence is present

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:45 AM★ Spotlighted

So that person goes into prison as a petty criminal and comes out a harden criminal?

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:45 AM

Prosecution must prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the prosecution has all the burden of the case

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:45 AM★ Spotlighted

Yup Seth. The game has two players. Both want to win. If the defense attorney has a higher record, their fees spike & they get called on for higher profile cases, which leads to a book deal. It's all a game.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:46 AM★ Spotlighted

That makes me mad

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:46 AM

I'm willing to mix it up, but not get shot by the National Guard ala Kent State.

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:46 AM★ Spotlighted

@ Jordan & Rebecca - what a horrible feeling

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:46 AM

Or a teaching gig

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:47 AM★ Spotlighted

Very true Fred. It's all about the Benjamins: usually defense attorneys start out as prosecutors until they realize the real money is in defense. Most of the so-called experts would testify for Hitler if it paid well enough

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:47 AM

He was, after all, a vegetarian.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:48 AM★ Spotlighted

That seems incredibly fucked up. I guess I hadn't thought about the "instructions from the judge part". Where is the oversight there? That seems like a lot of room for abuse of power.

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:48 AM★ Spotlighted

@ Rachel What a horrible ordeal.... now throw in privatized prisons!

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:49 AM★ Spotlighted

Doesn't make you a bad person, Rachel. It might make you a "logical" person!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:49 AM

According to def. lawyer Allen Dershowitz, American law is setup so that if nine guilty defendants walk free while one nut guilty one walks free, it did it's job

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:49 AM★ Spotlighted

Judge Dredd is the best alternative

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:49 AM

Like Seth said... all about the Benjamins... just like crooked politicians

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:50 AM

@Rich Go see "Escape Plan" if you want privatized prison scare you

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:50 AM★ Spotlighted

Lawyers are crooked politicians in training

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:50 AM★ Spotlighted

Rich let's not forget that most politicians were former attorneys

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:50 AM

@ Julie - or "Fortress"

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:50 AM

@ Seth - GREAT POINT

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:51 AM★ Spotlighted

I agree Jordan and Rachel. It does seem that the instructions by the judge can bias the entire jury

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:52 AM★ Spotlighted

Professional jurors, how would they get fired? What basis would've for paying them or evaluating job performance?

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:52 AM

The best alternative is to throw them into the river. If they float, then they are a witch & we burn them. If they sink, then they weren't a witch after all.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:52 AM

And after a few trials wouldn't the "professional jurors" get jaded and let their biases really get the better of them or simply tune out the trial?

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:53 AM★ Spotlighted

What if professional jurors become compromised

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:53 AM★ Spotlighted

Professional jurors sounds dangerous

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 1:53 AM★ Spotlighted

how about making it a jury of 100 people?

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:53 AM

LOL, Fred! (Except...wait a minute...people actually DID that. Schmurrr.)

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:53 AM

@ Julie - I was thinking the SAME thing about the Jurors... like paying a boxer to through the fight

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:54 AM★ Spotlighted

Isn't our government founded on a robust system of checks and balances? :-)

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:54 AM★ Spotlighted

100 jurors - can you imagine deliberations?

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 1:54 AM★ Spotlighted

ya that would be sooooo much better!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:55 AM

We can put them through that Wipeout game. If they make it across, then they are worthy of re-entry into society.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:55 AM

Kind of wish criminal trials would be run more like civil trials where you simply have to prove a preponderance of the evidence: this gives both sides an equal playing-field

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 1:55 AM

100 juror system with automatic appeal function!!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:55 AM★ Spotlighted

100 vs 1, the trial edition

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 1:55 AM★ Spotlighted

3 rounds of voting lol

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:56 AM

Or was it 1 vs 100

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:56 AM★ Spotlighted

How do "we the people", solve these flaws?

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:56 AM★ Spotlighted

stealth deregulation by the presidents??

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:56 AM

go for it Jordan!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:57 AM★ Spotlighted

Bob Saget shall decide our fate!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:57 AM

There's no money in the truth

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 1:57 AM

the legal system is adversarial by nature

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:57 AM

Well he did a good job with D.J. and the other girls....

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:57 AM

You can't handle the truth!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 1:58 AM

One thing I can definitely agree on is the for-profit prison system in this country has to go!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:58 AM★ Spotlighted

We love a good competition here in America.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 1:58 AM★ Spotlighted

Sounds too logical...

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 1:58 AM

Quote - Jack Nicholson.

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:58 AM★ Spotlighted

I like that idea! Like the council in "The Matrix" worked. ;-) Oops! I let the geek out!

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:58 AM★ Spotlighted

Oooh. Dude. Why does everything have to be a competition, right? If the goal were not about winning or losing, then it really would be a different game entirely!

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:59 AM

Right Rebecca!!!!!

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 1:59 AM

(LOL, Rick. Somebody had to say it!)

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 1:59 AM★ Spotlighted

I think so Jordan!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 1:59 AM★ Spotlighted

The lawyers go out drinking together afterward. They would never go fully at one another.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:00 AM★ Spotlighted

How would that play out Jordan...let's say you were using the collaborative model against the Boston Bomber?

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:00 AM★ Spotlighted

How long did it take us to solve the issue once it was brought up? LMAO

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:00 AM★ Spotlighted

it's too hard to make a criminal defendant collaborate :/

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:00 AM

HURRAY!!!!!

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:00 AM

we the tawkers jury

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 2:00 AM

@Rachel - Tawk is cheap.

Julie MyersOct 24, 2013, 2:01 AM

Good tawk!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:02 AM★ Spotlighted

We the Tawkers' jury, find the defendants guilty of being smarty pants. We sentence them to 3 hours of Beavis & Butthead reruns.

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:02 AM★ Spotlighted

what about an issue such as self defense???

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:02 AM

Definitely a topic for a whole another Tawk

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:02 AM

I'll call my Cousin Vinny! :-)

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:02 AM

what I see in the criminal court system is guilty until proven innocent

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:03 AM★ Spotlighted

Based on high-profile cases, I don't think you could say that Rachel

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:03 AM

I would like to be in on that Liphan! Self defense

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:04 AM★ Spotlighted

The defendant is set-up to be guilty before proven innocent. The mere fact the defendant is there means, in some eyes, that where there's smoke, there's fire.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:04 AM

Casey Anthony, OJ, Zimmerman, all walked while the majority thought they were guilty

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:04 AM

in oj's case, the police framed a guilty man

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 2:05 AM★ Spotlighted

True, Seth, but high-profile cases seem to be the worst of the worst. SO often in small-time cases, the opposite is true. :/

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:05 AM★ Spotlighted

Majority of cases defendants have almost no money, state-appointed defendant, and no knowledge of the law so they usually cop a plea

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 2:06 AM

I think you're right, Fred. It's a cultural prejudice that we can't shake and may not even be aware of.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:06 AM

Those high-profile cases ended the way they did because of fear. The lawyers were afraid of the constant media spolight & the jurors were scared to look bad. And being human, most can't bear to condemn someone in the public eye.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:06 AM

Very true Rebecca which is another reason I think TV should be banned from the courtroom

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:06 AM

999999!!!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:07 AM★ Spotlighted

That's a good idea Jordan...definitely would level the playing field

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:07 AM★ Spotlighted

that would lower the quality of criminal defense attorneys

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 2:07 AM

That's also true, Seth. God, it's a fucked-up system! As i said, i agree with you about the cameras, i just worry about penetration. I am paranoid as fuck about what is done behind closed doors.

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 2:07 AM★ Spotlighted

Capitalism doesn't necessarily advocate a level playing field.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:07 AM★ Spotlighted

The lawyer the defendant had in my case was horrific. That would be the casino version of crapping out.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:07 AM

I don't think most Americans care what lawyers think Rachel :

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:08 AM

unfortunately the rich can almost afford better everything

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:08 AM

I wouldn't wish that guy upon my opponent

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:08 AM★ Spotlighted

Capitalism shouldn't enter the courtroom...just like in most sports teams have the same salary-cap

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 2:08 AM

Should is the operative word.

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 2:08 AM

And I know that reporters and viewers are allowed in most courtrooms, but it's just the people DON'T READ anymore. TV is the best way to reach a lot of people.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:08 AM★ Spotlighted

We're seeking justice after all!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:08 AM★ Spotlighted

He was a public defender, but he had no defense for how bad he was.

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:09 AM

Justice, exactly, not the truth. That's really the endgame.

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:09 AM★ Spotlighted

now we're about to have an entire tawk about attorney ethics!!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:09 AM★ Spotlighted

Also if you locked up white-collar criminals in actual prisons instead of golf resorts w/ Grey Poupon served at their beck and call things would be different Jordan

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:10 AM★ Spotlighted

i'm down!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:10 AM

The salary has to be raised to get the right kind of attorney into the public defender's office. That's just the bottom line of it, unfortunately.

Mr. ChowOct 24, 2013, 2:10 AM

lollolol

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:11 AM★ Spotlighted

attorney ethics, self defense ethics, public defender lottery.... here we go!!!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:11 AM

Good luck on that one Fred, being that we just had a govt shutdown a week ago

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:11 AM

INDEED!

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 2:12 AM

thanks Rachel and Jordan!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:12 AM

How about a Tawk about how Pizza Hut stopped serving wings, but McDonald's does serve them. Ridiculous I tell you!!!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:12 AM★ Spotlighted

You're all guilty!

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 2:12 AM★ Spotlighted

What if these randomly-assigned public defense attorneys had an accountability system to answer to like public school teachers do? SO if they were shit, theoretically they'd be out on their asses.

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:12 AM★ Spotlighted

I'm throwing the book at you!

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 2:12 AM★ Spotlighted

Order! Order in the Tawk!

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:12 AM★ Spotlighted

Thank you everyone! Good subject matter Jordan & Rachel!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:13 AM

I'm hungry. Can we stop for McDonald's on the way home?

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:13 AM

Pink Burgers all the way around!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:13 AM

All this jury talk has given you a Big Mac attack Fred?

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 2:14 AM

Thanks, guys!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:14 AM

Jonesing like....like....I can't rhyme jonesing....

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:14 AM

That is gonna be AWESOME!!!!

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 2:14 AM

And p.s., Jordan and I have a Tawk tomorrow night!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:14 AM

Mike Meyers made a movie about him

Rich HagbergOct 24, 2013, 2:14 AM

8:00!

Rick RosnerOct 24, 2013, 2:14 AM

How can a Thai entrée host a Tawk?

Rebecca Westbrook TokerOct 24, 2013, 2:15 AM★ Spotlighted

Which is not as awesome as Deepak Chopra, but...I want you guys to come!

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:15 AM

Don't forget about South Park tonight too!

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:15 AM

And the Tawk tomorrow is?

Fred SmilowOct 24, 2013, 2:15 AM

Thanks guys, that was fun

Seth HochmanOct 24, 2013, 2:15 AM★ Spotlighted

Court is dismissed (gavel comes down)