Posted on 08/28/2016 11:59:18 AM PDT by Theoria
The criminal trial ended more than two and a half years ago, but Judge Jesse M. Furman can still vividly recall the case. It stands out, not because of the defendant or the subject matter, but because of its rarity: In his four-plus years on the bench in Federal District Court in Manhattan, it was his only criminal jury trial.
He is far from alone.
Judge J. Paul Oetken, in half a decade on that bench, has had four criminal trials, including one that was repeated after a jury deadlocked. For Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who has handled some of the nation’s most important terrorism cases, it has been 18 months since his last criminal jury trial.
“It’s a loss,” Judge Kaplan said, “because when one thinks of the American system of justice, one thinks of justice being administered by juries of our peers. And to the extent that there’s a decline in criminal jury trials, that is happening less frequently.”
The national decline in trials, both criminal and civil, has been noted in law journal articles, bar association studies and judicial opinions. But recently, in the two federal courthouses in Manhattan and a third in White Plains (known collectively as the Southern District of New York), the vanishing of criminal jury trials has never seemed so pronounced.
The Southern District held only 50 criminal jury trials last year, the lowest since 2004, according to data provided by the court. The pace remains slow this year.
In 2005, records show, there were more than double the number of trials: 106. And decades ago, legal experts said, the numbers were much higher.
“It’s hugely disappointing,” said Judge Jed S. Rakoff, a 20-year veteran of the Manhattan federal bench. “A trial is the one place where the system really gets tested.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
My friend was part of Gotti Jr’s defense team.
He says he COULDN’T believe the unlimited assets the prosecutors had at their disposal. Miracle he walked three times.
I don’t think anyone gets a jury of their peers anyway.
But beyond that, it’s not a court of justice these days, it’s a court of law. The system stopped pursuing the truth long, long ago.
Guilty by accusation. What could possibly go wrong?
“I don’t think anyone gets a jury of their peers anyway.”
You are absolutely correct.
.
Besides, a jury consists of people who weren’t smart enough to figure out how to get out of doing jury duty.
The purpose of a federal trial is not to convict you, the purpose of a federal trial is to break you.
You have $20,000 sitting around? just for openers
Last time I had jury duty, some un fatherly looking fellow walked in with a baby in his arms, and went up to the check-in window. After speaking with the clerk for about five minutes, he walked away, without his jury duty summons, and we never saw him, again. The rest of us all agreed the baby was likely “borrowed” from someone.
I am an attorney. I do civil litigation. No criminal stuff. No family law. No personal injury. Mostly insurance claims, real property disputes, contract disputes, trust and estate disputes, stuff like that.
I have been practicing about 30 years. I consider myself reasonably successful.
Number of cases I have litigated through a jury verdict in all that time: One. In that case, I represented firefighters, so I knew I couldn’t lose.
I tried one other case to the point where it was submitted to a jury. Then, the lazy judge finally read my brief, realized I was entitled to win as a matter of law, said she was thinking about ruling as a matter of law without waiting for the jury, at which point the other side decided to settle.
I have tried cases to judges many times. Less expensive, more predictable, much greater ability to set up a reversal on appeal in the event the judge rules against you.
Jury trials are just too expensive and random to justify their expense in most disputes.
About 60% of the judges I practice in front of are stupid, lazy, burned out, or some combination of all three. Because I practice in my state capital, I have been lucky enough to have practiced about 40% of the time before judges who do exactly what they are supposed to do: take the time to read the briefs, know the law, understand the facts, and make a real effort to apply the law in a principled way. Although I don’t always win, I generally do pretty well in front of such judges.
I also do a fair amount of appellate level work. You would think appellate judges would be smarter, and higher quality, than other judges. They aren’t.
It’s not a loss. People can still opt for it....they usual do if the facts aren’t on their side
Nevertheless, overall, the federal system has tilted in the prosecution's favor to a worrying degree. For example, trial and appellate courts increasingly endorsed a wide scope for honest services fraud and Hobbs Act charges, but the US Supreme Court reversed them in two recent cases, providing relief to Conrad Black and Bob McDonnell, among others. Due to federal jury selection rules and limitations on evidence that can be submitted, criminal defense lawyers these days often despair of trial in federal court.
-—”Saw this article today and pondered...if the case were tried by a jury.....”
It was tried by a jury. They affirmed the death penalty. Read more at www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_jr_sentenced_to.html
Interesting information, thanks for sharing.
I got as far as the voir dire process, in a civil case, involving Latino family members, and a house that one couple had rented to their cousins.
They went through the list of perspective jurors alphabetically, my name begins with “W” and they didn’t make it that far. The jurors, and original members in the jury box represented a fair cross section of people, as would be found in Orange County CA. I could not help but notice, after two hours of watching people being “thanked and excused”, the only people who were left were Caucasians, who spoke without an accent.
The last time I was called for jury duty, the system was explained to me.
If not enough jurors show up, the defendant walks. So the prosecutor schedules the case he most wants to win first, so that there are enough jurors for THAT trial. The defendant at that point generally takes the plea deal. The potential jurors at that point are eligible to be assigned to the NEXT scheduled trial, so THAT defendant takes the plea deal. And so on.
We wound up the day all being sent home.
For poor defendants who have to take a public defender, the guy doesn’t have the time to do a jury trial, so he has an incentive the push for accepting a plea deal.
Cops, who know how the system works, are also not picked.
Kinda old news. I thought maybe this was going to be about a newer, second case.
It’s the old Monte Hall game-—Let’s Make a Deal
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.