Posted on 08/25/2005 3:11:59 PM PDT by SmithL
San Francisco -- When California jurors sit on kidnapping cases, judges will no longer be required to explain that the perpetrator had to "inveigle" his victim.
Instead, as part of an eight-year effort to simplify jury instructions, the judge may say it like it is — "enticed" his victim.
The Judicial Council, the policy making arm of California's court system, is set to approve on Friday 700 new criminal law jury instructions that often are clouded in jargon, double negatives and unfamiliar words. The goal is to make it easier for jurors to understand the law, and cast judgment accordingly.
Carol Corrigan, a San Francisco appellate judge and the leader of a group of lawyers, professors and judges who altered the instructions, said the old guidelines, some predating the 1930s, are written in the voice of "Benjamin Franklin's brother-in-law."
She said the new instructions, covering everything from drunken driving to death penalty cases, do not redefine the law, but she acknowledged there is a "risk that if you change the language, you change the meaning."
The intention was to ensure jurors are being instructed "in a way they can understand," Corrigan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
You know the saying..."anyone dumb enough to give up 3-6 months of their life...?..
How screwed up is the California justice system?
The last time I was called for jury duty, one potential juror said during voir dire on Monday that if he might be in trouble with her boss if the trial went past Wednesday. The judge said that this isn't California and there would be some lawyers in trouble if the trial went into Wednesday.
With the way California juries are, they're going to need to start using crayons and sock puppets to explain things.
The most important instructions the jurors NEVER get is that they have the right to ignore the instructions of the court and to use their conscience to decide matters of law.
If guns are banned and you're on a jury where someone sits accused of violating that law you have the right as a juror to nullify the law by refusing to convict someone of breaking it.
It is the potential for legislative and judicial tyranny which is why we have juries in the first place as a check and balance on lawyers, legislators, and judges.
When you're on a jury vote your conscience and screw the law!
its amazing out here. anyone with half a loeb says no thanks!
So screwed up that they call on Manhattan Beach residents to serve as jurors in COMPTON.
Think about it. It'll hit you.
Me, I wouldn't go into that hellhole unless I was packing heat. And I sure as hell wouldn't put up with my wife being called to serve in that hellhole either.
"...written in the voice of 'Benjamin Franklin's brother-in-law'"
Otherwise known as English.
Yes. Which explains why the jury got so easily misdirected.
That is why I make it a point to say every so often, "Well, if they aren't guilty, then why were they arrested?"
I think that was why I wasn't included in the jury last time. The prosecutor asked if any of the potential jurors knew what "jury nullification" meant. I gave a detailed enough answer that he said maybe I should be the one presenting the case. I was sent home by about 10:30.
I've been summoned to that rat hole and I always request a change of location. So far they have been accommodating.
If it does not fit (and believe me, it won't) you must acquit.
What else do I need to know?
What is destroying the United States are self-serving lawyers not knowing nor caring that we are Americans who speak English - NOT bastardized french or latin!
If the devil is the living flesh of evil, then here is who I think he is. Far from appearing as a hideous demon, he is the average-looking person who walks into a room and shakes your hand with a smile. By the time he leaves, the standards of decency of everyone within that room have been lowered ever so slightly.
--- A lawyer come to mind.
Good to know. Thanks!
Personally, I was wondering what the jury system was thinking...I mean, aren't people supposed to be tried by a jury of their peers? Last I saw, there weren't any baggy-assed gangbangers living in this area.
There are rarely enough gangbangers out of jail or on parole at any given time to make up a jury pool.
Last I saw, there weren't any baggy-assed gangbangers living in this area.
Just drive over to Inglewood.
Seriously, though, they've always let me serve in either Torrance or Long Beach.
Look. California juries are no better or worse than other states. I've seen some verdicts from the other 49 states that were some real "doozies" and posted here on FR. The problem with California juries is that they are are usually made up of new residents from others states. We have invasions of illegals from the Southern border and ignorants from the Eastern border.
Bull. You couldn't find a jury in Iowa that would have let O.J. or Michael Jackson walk. Only in California!
California juries are fine ... but we have to "deal with" racial prejudices against convicting young black men.
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.