Here is the ATLA’s Logo …
… these are better:
And from my neck of the woods:
Posted on 07/24/2004 8:29:57 AM PDT by joesbucks
Exactly. Pretty good choice of words there. :)
I thought he had already been elected once. Sadly, the trial lawyers don't seem to be too damaged from the first term.
I'm strangely unmoved by their claims of starry-eyed idealism. It's the money, honey.
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. (Winston Churchill)
Here is the ATLA’s Logo …
… these are better:
And from my neck of the woods:
They are pretty snazzy. Did you make the first group?
Heh..I've been down that road myself.
Actually, it seems that the problem is not so much with the lawyers, but the jurors who make the decisions. Even if the runaway jury is only 10% correct in how jurors in big cases are chosen, we got a glimspe of what goes on behind the scenes in such instances. Ever part of something like that?
I recently was in the jury pool for a capital case in my county. I was profiled and dosiered by both the defense and the prosecution. I saw the computer printouts on each prospective juror in addition to the 100 + questions I answered. Each print out had us scored as to whether we were going to be hostile to the prosecution or the defense. I btw got bounced during voire dire by the defense.
Every judge in a trial attorney situation has the ability to rule that one party or the other has not enough to go forward. Even conservative judges more often than not don't stop meaningless cases.
So you see, I don't blame trial lawyers. I blame how lawyers from both sides attempt to manipulate the jury in favor of their client, irregardless of the truth.
What say you counselor?
"I will do whatever necessary to see that candidates who espouse the position that Bush does are defeated at the polls," said Mr. Angelos, also the owner of the Baltimore Orioles.
Now that Cal Ripken has retired, it's so easy not to care about my favorite boyhood team!
I will agree with tort reform the moment both sides agree to represent facts rather than attempt juror emotion and manipulation.
my point.
Stop watching TV.
Of course both sides try to find jurors who, based solely on the information elicited, might be predisposed to lean a certain way. It is all a guess. (this process is controlled by individual states, and in many cases ultimate latitude is given to trial judge)
A lawyer who does not do what he or she can to determine the the leanings of the people to whom he or she is trying a case is a lawyer who commits malpractice.
The process of trying a case is not "jury manipulation." The facts are the facts, the ruling of the judge determines the admissibility of evidence. Thus, the most critical rulings are made when a judge determines what evidence will be seen or heard. Over that, lawyers have little control. (e.g. the judge in the Bryant case just permitted some limited use at trial of the alleged victim's sexual history. Had he allowed none, or had he allowed all, would likely have different affects on a jury.)
Once the evidence is in, it is the job of counsel on both sides present that evidence in the light most favorable to their clients. Indeed, I have seen cases won and lost not because of the evidence, but because certain witnesses did poorly on the stand, or were deemed not credible.
In the end, juries make the decisions on the facts presented. It is their job to assess the facts and evidence, and more importantly, to establish the credibility of witnesses who testify. It is not a small responsibility. And, they are instructed with jury instructions guiding them in their responsibilities. (In some jurisdictions, the instructions of law to the jury go back to the deliberation room with the jury.)
Juries reach results for many different reasons. Often, they disregard instructions, and reach compromise verdicts. Sometimes, one may try a case focusing the entire case on certain witnesses and certain facts, only to find out that the jury thought something else was important. And, it is also true, that there is simply no accounting for jury room deliberation dynamics, a mystery to many. But strong and smart jury members can dominate a deliberation.
In the end, no matter what we do up there, it is not the lawyers who decide these cases -- it is juries. (No matter how many times you instruct a jury that its rulings must not be based on bias and sympathy, they are. Why, because we all have biases and sympathies.)
With this, I would agree. No one should be able to get out of jury duty. I am concerned that the pools of jurors are weak because so many people are let out of jury duty for work reasons.
In the end, however, most jurisdictions allow only a few peremptory strikes. (Striking a juror for no reason at all) Where I practice, we sit civil panels of 13, and each side may strike 3 for any reason or no reason. If you want to get rid of someone else, it must be for cause. (determined by the Court from some bias elicited during voir dire.) We don't do surveys, and the only information we get on jurors is name, age, occupation, and address. While the practice is to get that info the Friday before a case begins, more often than not we will receive it the morning of the trial. Unlike Grisham movies, there is little to be done with such information in a short time.
Admittedly, some jurisdictions go crazy on this stuff. (Can anyone say California). The judge for whom I clerked always said, we would have tried OJ in five days.
I will leave you with this, just so you don't think lawyers control the system everywhere. I saw this happen.
When Marv Albert was tried in Virginia, he hired Roy Black, who in turn hired a "local counsel." (Often hire rollers will use locals to understand local rules and practice.) Apparently, Mr. Black didn't do much consultation with local counsel.
In a pre-trial hearing to set the trial calendar and resolve some pre-trial motions. Mr. Black addressed the Court and said, "Judge, I have good news. I think we can pick this jury in two weeks, and I think we can try this case in 6 weeks."
The Judge, a former defense attorney and hard-nosed local judge looked down and said, "Mr. Black, I think we can pick this jury in two hours, and try this case in 3 days. Welcome to the Commonwealth"
Marv took a plea agreement three days into the trial.
Why would any nice, compassionate conservative ever want to horrify a trial lawyer??
John / Billybob
Thanks. I made them except for the GIF. Devolve made the GIF.
Everytime I get on the bandwagon for tort reform, something like this comes out. BTW, I know this happens frequently. Add to the above, my employer eschews honesty and integrity, sustainable development and all the new catch phrases, they still when it comes to product stewardship. Well, BS. They will attempt to destroy anyone who comes forward with information regarding their shortcomings. Financially, legally, employment future and on and on. Anyway, here's the latest:
The maker of a billion-dollar antipsychotic medication has acknowledged misleading doctors and other healthcare providers about the safety of its product, minimizing potentially deadly side effects.
The drug, Risperdal, has been commonly prescribed to Florida children in state care, including to a handful of boys who developed lactating breasts after taking it.
On Wednesday, drug maker Janssen Pharmaceutica wrote a two-page letter to doctors, warning them that the company, in promotional material, had ''minimized potentially fatal risks, and made misleading claims'' that the medication was more safe in treating mental illness than other drugs in the same category.
Most physicians received the letter Friday.
Risperdal is the leading drug used to combat schizophrenia and other types of psychotic disorders, earning Janssen about $2.1 billion in annual sales. The drug was first marketed about eight years ago, and is prescribed to more than 10 million people worldwide.
The ''important correction of drug information'' came shortly after federal regulators had accused Janssen of ''disseminating'' advertising and marketing material that was ``false or misleading.''
A letter from Janssen to doctors, dated Nov. 10, 2003, claimed Risperdal did not increase the risk of diabetes among consumers compared with other similar drugs, called neuroleptics or antipsychotics.
But an April 2004 letter from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to Janssen asserts quite the contrary. Research indicated ''an increased risk of hyperglycemia-related adverse effects and diabetes with Risperdal,'' the letter stated.
A TROUBLED HISTORY
In 2001, The Herald published a series of stories about the common use of Risperdal among children in state care. Child-welfare advocates said the drug routinely was being used by foster care providers as a ''chemical restraint'' on children whose unruly behavior was a frustration to caretakers.
''I had clients who were displaying severe side effects, and I tried to alert the Department of Children & Families both as to the local problem and the growing national concern about a range of psychotropic medications, Risperdal and other antipsychotics in particular,'' said Coral Springs attorney and children's advocate Andrea Moore.
''They listened, but they did not hear me,'' Moore added.
Broward Circuit Judge John A. Frusciante, who must approve requests from doctors before they can prescribe mind-altering drugs to children whose cases he oversees, said Risperdal continues to be used frequently by doctors who treat children in state care.
''It is not uncommon,'' Frusciante said.
''This whole psychotropic drug issue is a problem for us,'' Frusciante said. ``It's a very scary area to be in, because we know medication can be a tremendous help for a number of children. But we also know that there are risks to the children who are taking these medications.''
Friday, DCF officials told The Herald they would review the new material and ask doctors who care for foster children to re-evaluate their medication options.
''We will make this information available to all our districts, program supervisors, community-based care agencies and partners,'' said DCF spokesman Bill Spann. ``In addition, we will provide this information to all the physicians who care for the children in foster care, and ask them to review the cases of any children who are on the drug.
''We will ask them to take the appropriate action,'' Spann said.
ONE IN THREE TREATED
The state Agency for Health Care Administration, which pays the drug bill for most children in state care, as well as needy children who are insured by Medicaid, could not say Friday how many Florida Medicaid recipients are being administered the drug.
In 2001, after The Herald's series, DCF reviewed the records of most foster children. Records showed about about one in three foster children taking a powerful mood-altering drug. Many were taking untested combinations, or ''cocktails,'' of the drugs.
Infants and toddlers were being given psychiatric drugs, according to a 2003 study by the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council.
Antoinette R. Appel, a Plantation neuropsychologist, studied the records of about 50 South Florida foster children who had been prescribed Risperdal.
She said many of the children developed severe side-effects, including obesity, lethargy, lack of concentration, hormonal disorders and the inappropriate development of secondary sexual characteristics, such as lactating breasts in boys or young girls.
Carolyn Salisbury, associate director of the University of Miami's Children & Youth Law Clinic, has pleaded with child welfare authorities for about five years to curtail the widespread use of mood-altering drugs among foster kids, who often complain the drugs make them more ill.
VICTORY IN COURT
One of the clinic's most high-profile clients, identified in court papers as M.W., won a Florida Supreme Court ruling that child welfare authorities cannot lock up foster kids in psychiatric hospitals without a hearing. M.W. had developed lactating breasts after doctors forced him to take Risperdal, court records show.
One of Salisbury's clients, a 15-year-old girl, begged her to prevent the child welfare agency from forcing her to take Risperdal, Salisbury said. The girl had become obese and suffered from dramatic mood swings, alternating between feeling agitated or very depressed.
''I always object to my foster child clients being placed on Risperdal . . .,'' Salisbury said. ``However, DCF continues to place children in their care on the drug, even though DCF knows full well the horrible side effects foster children continue to suffer on this drug.''
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.
