We're all proud of you, Indy . The defendant probably had it coming though... .

I think that we should go back to the good ole days. You know, witch burnings, mobs, and of course The Ordeal! Now THAT was justice!

---

Oh yeah, this morning's case was a criminal assault and battery case.

---

you guys have juries for that??!! in the uk we just sling them in front of a magistrate (not even a real judge) who pretty much presumes guilt (so they can get their lunch early) and issues sentences depending on how much their mother-in-laws have annoyed them that morning And you think i'm joking...

fook me, a jury for an drunken brawl? next day at the beak for us, as grom says.

Well the prosecutor used "grievous injuries" to describe the schlub who got beat up so I think he was pretty badly mangled up. And my guess about the case going to trial is because the two defendants (assuming that they were guilty) didn't want to enter into a plea bargain.

They looked pretty big and mean looking. Also, in NY, we have a 3 strikes law. The charges against these two were felony assaults and batteries so if they already have two prior convictions, this one could send them up the river for life if they are convicted.

vairrry interesting.. what if you're some guy that so happens to be incapable of english?

p.s. i made port commodore! its been a long, and hard no-spam road that i took..

Pah -who needs juries?? Keel Haul them all I say!! Every case should involve a keel hauling just to see if you should get a trial! Keel haul on a ferry or somehint - and if they live........they can have a trial. Then keel haul them over a aircraft carrier. If they live then they are guilty! Should cut down on court cases/prison populations

I guess I should explain that the law on summonses for jury duty in NY changed about 5 or 6 years ago. Before then, there were a large number of permanent exceptions in the laws so that people could claim disqualification for things like
not speaking English well enough, professional licenses as doctors or lawyers and home care giver, etc.

This so radically reduced the number of available jurors, due to abuse, that they eliminated all permanent exemptions except: Physical and/or mental incapacity, felony conviction and non-citizenship. Of course, if you are under age 18, you are too young to serve as a juror... but that is not a "permanent" disqualification so to speak.

Now, if you cannot adequately understand English, you have to go the the Clerk of the Court's office and prove your incapacity when you are summoned. This condition, also, is not considered a "permanent" disqualification because as you are an American citizen, it is assumed that over time you will gain enough English comprehension to qualify as a juror.

We have a Crown Taw? Where? I'm a heathen Scottish person I see no King in the North!

-~-~-~-~
There is no Silicon Heaven! But where do all the calculators go ?

You could no more evade my wrath... than you could your own shadow!

The American legal system; you have to love it . I have always found it interesting that in almost every other country you have to pay to sue someone, and thus it is a big thing. In the US however, you can sue anyone for anything, because you don't have to pay for it unless you win! At least, that's my understanding. I especially love those "McDonald's made me fat!" type of legal challenges. Classic. That wouldn't happen in Aus.! (Or at least, very rarely).

kimk - Good on ya! Have a ginger beer! I too, will soon achieve "Port Commodore" with no spam to my name.

@ Esqy

Yeah, we usually joke among ourselves that the best way to get even with Afghanistan or Iraq would have been to export our lawyers to those countries.

Lawyer jokes here practically are falling out of the trees. e.g.: What to you call a busload of attorneys going over the edge of a cliff? A good start.

No. The deal is that in most countries, if you intend to sue someone for damages (money) in civil court, you have to post a bond which is some proportionate amount (serious proportion) of the money you are claiming against the other guy. If you lose your case, your bond is forfeited AND you have to pay for the other guy's legal fees.

That type of setup was challenged here a long time ago and it was decided that the US Constitution prohibited that type of rule because, basically, it discriminated against the poor.

no spam to your name, yeh right Esqy nice one!

The funny thing is that lawyers in britain are constantly trying to battle the reputation they are getting from american tv programmes. Over here, unless you're into corporate or land law, lawyers get a pittance for a wage. My girlfriend is a criminal lawyer working with the legal aid board (legal aid is a government source of funding for people who can't afford a solicitor), and she gets really frustrated with people expecting her to be a rich con-artist like her american counterparts. And it annoys the hell out of me too. She works almost double the hours that I do, handles heroin addicts, rapists, child molesters every single bloody day and gets paid bugger all for it. It makes no sense to me. The large corporate firms employ lawyers on wages that are anything up to five times my salary and all they do is ponce around all day playing golf. And the poor b*stards that actually have to deal with the scum of this world every day, could never even dream of reaching a quarter of the salaries they're on. How does this make sense??

Indy - Yes, I thought that the US laws might cater to the masses. In Aus., there's not much you can do unfortunately .

Taw - PROVE that I have spammed, and post some links; I dare you! But if you do, be prepared for a semantic battle the likes of which the world has never seen!?!?!

Hopefully the rest of the world has more honest lawyers than the US. We have lawyers that suppose to represent a group of people that were hurt by a product and sued, Classaction, I think. They win a $20 million judgement with the lawyer getting over half of that.

Finalday

Habaq Mot / Aspazomai Thanatos / Capere Obitus... /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)