decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
a sad state of affairs | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
a sad state of affairs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 03:42 PM EDT
Um no. One person may be able to influence certain groups of people to do one
thing, this may occur some percent of the time in juries, but it is simply wrong
to say that one person can influence ANY OTHER PERSON to do a certain thing. So
it is not a case of you need a specific man to be perfect, it is a case of you
need one in X people willing to stand up for what they actually think.

Further you're clarification of what is a "jury" clarifies nothing,
nor was anything needed to be clarified. The thing I am saying applies to all
concepts of "jury". For if it doesn't, then it's not a jury but a
singular "judge" or "dictator". Yes the "jury"
might not be of your peers and therefore not a "jury" under many
definitions, but my arguments apply anyways.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

a sad state of affairs
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 04:38 PM EDT
I'd rather have my case, if I had one, judged by a
jury than a judge any day of the week.

Here's the purpose, under the US system, of a jury:
to put hearts and common sense into the legal system,
not just the law. Any law you write, no matter what
it is about, will need exceptions and fudging around
the edges to accommodate edge cases, taking into
account odd facts that the law didn't think about
when it was written. It is just like that.

Judges don't have much wiggle room, in that they are
supposed to follow the law carefully. Juries can in
fact say, I don't care what the law says; it'd be
wrong to apply it here in this case.

It's an important safety net.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

a jury of ones peers
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 07:26 PM EDT
means a very different thing nowadays than it did back then.

Back then, it meant a Peer had the right to be tried by the House Of Lords.
Well, not quite, because I think Magna Carta predates the House Of Lords, but
that's where the word "peer" comes from.

So the whole point of "a jury of ones peers" meant that the accused
was well known to, and probably friends with many of, the jury.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )