Jury Duty. Do you hate it? Like it? Don't care? Love it? What?

A few murders in Indio the past few months. Might be interesting to serve on one of those ones?

There is a law in Ontario that Lawyers are not eligible for jury duty (I believe it is because jurors are supposed to be concerned only with the facts of the case and it's impossible for lawyers to restrict themselves to considering the facts alone when they also comprehend the legal aspects, or else they could be closely acquainted with one of the lawyers or prosecutor in the case). Notwithstanding that I was once called up to serve and when I produced evidence that I was a retired lawyer I was eventually disqualified. That was a good thing for the lawyer for one of the sides of the civil proceeding who when he heard I could have been a juror was really concerned since we once had a down and out fight over a personal matter.

Much the same with cops in Michigan, Buzz.  Last time I was sent the questionnaire (a number of years ago), one of the questions was whether you had ever been a police officer.  When I said that I had, they basically said "Thanks, but no thanks".  Must still be on record since I've never been called again.

My wife used to get out of jury duty also since she worked for Los Angles County Mental Health putting people on 72 hour psychiatric holds. Since she often worked with the police on some of the more violent cases she was excused for the whole time she had her job.

Yep, that would keep her off.  In Michigan, and I presume in most other States, psychiatrists are never permitted to serve on juries.

I've been excused for years because I'm self-employed. My business would suffer significant losses if I were gone for more than two weeks.

I got a delay once several years ago because we were going on a cruise that was non-refundable. However they only delayed it 60 days and I had to sit in the room and read all day when we got back before being told I was done for the year. When you get called for Jury Duty. always bring a book to pass the time. If you bring in like "The Communist Manifesto" or "Quotations of Chairman Mao (the little red book) it helps get you rejected too.

ABSOLUTELY! otherwise you will fall asleep waiting. Anything big and official looking with small print will usually get you a pass.

And they get really bent out of shape at people who fall asleep. A lady did in L.A. one time and I thought she was going to be the next one on trial!

Don't do jury duty anymore, I've a permanent exclusion.

But when I was, I was called every year, actually was chosen 8 times for the pool, and sat on two trials. The first one was ended on a plea. the second one resulted in a hung jury. (an 11-1 vote for conviction, one guy just would not budge off innocent even though they had a signed confession and video)

Jury duty is boring most of the time and you don't get to see the entire trial which is much more interesting.

I was selected as an alternate juror on a murder trial once, but it never got to trial.

Once of the few responsibilities of citizenship - people who reap the benefits of citizenship and shy away from fulfilling their civic responsibilities are a curious lot.

I have been called, I have been selected and served, I have waited all day to be told I was not needed - none of these were major upheavals and I felt pretty good about doing my civic duty.

I get that same feeling when I vote, attend  and participate in village and county county meetings or pay my taxes each year.

I guess it is a different perspective on citizenship - rights come with responsibilities.

I served on a jury one time.  The charge was kidnapping, assault and battery and sexual assault.   He got 17 years to life. 

The guy had just gotten out of jail after serving 5 years.  He was back in jail 7 weeks later. 

I've only been called once for jury duty (probably due to my military career).  When I went in I was the first seated in the jury box for the initial questioning.  The case was some black kids allegedly gang banging a white girl and videotaping it.  In my questionnaire, I was asked if I had ever been the victim of a crime.  I had.  During the questioning the defense attorney asked me for details, knife point robbery by a black man-I was dismissed as a juror.  At the end of the day, I received a 10 year deferment, which is standard here, at least in this part of New York.

Oh, and no one is allowed to skip jury duty here anymore.  Doctors, lawyers, etc. are all required to be called and have to show up.

I've done it and hated it. Too much time sitting around waiting for the government to get its act together and get on with the work at hand. They are unbelievably inefficient. 

That was not my experience Dean. I think it depends on the state you live in. 

I have a different perspective of Jurors and Jury duty.  I have never been called for jury duty but I have had to testify and I would gladly serve if I were asked to.  Both my grandparents were murdered March 19, 1995.  Sadly I knew the young man who did it.  My mother has never recovered.  We appreciated the time and attention that each Jury member dedicated to the trial and for the sentence they rendered.  Of course their time and effort and my family's justice was stolen when Governor O'Malley decided to modify the sentence before he left office. 

I respect the individual opinion on Jury duty but for someone who was personally affected my appreciation is endless.

I was on a strange civil case. A man had his car robbed by a teen. He then went and got two of his friends who thought it was his new car. The driver who stole the car, got into an accident and one of his friends died. The grandmother of the dead kid was suing the owner of the car, for the lose of her grandchild (and the wages he brought into the home). 

The entire jury was made up of teachers. It took about 2 min for us all to vote and say that there was no case. We ordered lunch, it came, and waited for them to check in with us. When they did, they said that the insurance company settled the case. 

When I left the room I had to pack up some stuff I brought with me, and the insurance lawyer stopped and asked me if we had come to a decision, and i told him yeah. He asked me if I minded telling him (I think he really shouldn't do this, but hey I didn't care), and I told him that we found no case, and were going to rule in favor of the owner of the car (and the insurance company). Man was he pissed! 

At times, logic escapes attorneys....

That is why when asked, I refused an invite to be mentored by one.

(all it takes here in WA state is to pass the bar exam and join the association to be an attorney. You don't need to go to law school, they have a specific provision in the rules that allow you to be mentored by a lawyer till you can pass the bar, although not required, makes it easier, that is what I refused)

Wow, that's crazy.. in NYS you have to go to law school. Think about it... anyone can learn the questions to pass the bar, but understanding precedent... that you need to learn in school.  

There are a great many jurists and lawyers that never went to law school. (Abraham Lincoln was a notable one)

You have to understand the precepts of the law, the ideals behind the way the law views certain things. Requiring law school to be admitted to the bar is not needed for that education to take place.

Although the attorney's associations and their political allies in government would like to make it so.

More states do not require it than do.

One thing I have never done is look at the political makeup of the states that do, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that most of them are solidly liberal. Or have prestigious law schools in their jurisdiction.

Just a feeling and I've never researched it, but it would be interesting to find out.

If that concept, of not having to become educated not only in the precedents but in the applications and techniques of practising law, were also applied to medicine, one could become a doctor as long as they sat in a doctor's office and watched them treat patients. One needs to learn how to think like a lawyer, to be able, for example, to effective argue either side of an issue.

Perhaps in historical times it was okay to become an expert in various fields from having watched your father or others do it, but that does not teach creativity, or provide a theoretical background necessary for intelligent use of the profession.

Are you saying buzz that someone who doesn't or hasn't gone to law school is not educated? or doesn't understand the law? It is so difficult a subject that it cannot be understood by the common man?

Precedent is simply the decisions that have been made before. Nothing further to understand.

The law itself is simple, it's the personal opinions that people interject into it that are difficult to grasp.

Law school is said to prepare a candidate for life as a lawyer. Which I find to be the truth. they don't actually teach law, but how to think....

"Law school is said to prepare a candidate for life as a lawyer. Which I find to be the truth. they don't actually teach law, but how to think...."

...but how to think like a lawyer - not just how to think. There is a difference.

...but how to think like a lawyer - not just how to think. There is a difference.

Exactly.  I got a really good technical education, in the Navy first and then more school after I got out.  I am constantly pointing out things to people that they overlook or don't understand.  Thinking well and thinking well about technology are not exactly the same.  How many people really understand the technical details of the things they see every single day?  Know why some intersections have those big, stainless steel boxes on a post near the intersection and some don't?  I do.  Know why some intersections have those thin cuts in the road near the intersections?  I do.  Know why car radiators are painted black?  I do.  Not because I'm smarter that others necessarily, (fact is I usually am though), because I learned how to think like a tech person.  It let's me figure out things I never specifically learned by using the underlying principles I was trained in.

Men sit in prison and pore over law books, some of them are incredibly crafty, but they're not lawyers.  Just desperate men with nothing else to do.

And you just proved my point.

If you can think like a lawyer, tell me what my point was.

"Law school is said to prepare a candidate for life as a lawyer. Which I find to be the truth. they don't actually teach law, but how to think...."

...but how to think like a lawyer - not just how to think. There is a difference.

You can try to draft a million dollar contract as a lay person, but one tiny mistake can cost you dearly. You can make a little mistake in drafting a will, and once the person dies and the will is read, and there is a mistake in it - it's too late to change it. You can miss the meaning of a document registered on title, and then lose rights to the property. Do you know what the Rule against Perpetuities means? If not, don't even TRY to draft a will for anyone.

You can try to draft a million dollar contract as a lay person, but one tiny mistake can cost you dearly. You can make a little mistake in drafting a will, and once the person dies and the will is read, and there is a mistake in it - it's too late to change it

You can try to save money installing your new furnace yourself, and your family can die of carbon monoxide poisoning because you don't understand the importance of proper venting.  You can replace your old water heater for yourself, but if you don't leave enough room above it for the pop off valve to lift it can blow the wall out of your house.  Yes, I've seen these things and others too.  Bad lawyering can leave you broke, poor engineering can kill you and your family.

The Rule against Perpetuities, Basically is a rule against acquiring a future interest in something that will not vest until the passage of time makes it valid.

It's a rule created to prevent a person from controlling their assets or estate after their death. I believe it was created in the 1600's or so and its first use was in english courts of equity.

The rules can easily be taught but that isn't the point of a law school. Those criminals poring over the law books can easily learn the rules and how to play the game. But do they really understand the point? Hard to tell but I would state that most probably do not. A good law professor does not teach to the law, he teaches to the understanding. A good lawyer must learn to think outside the box.

A good engineer the same way. You can teach the rules of the profession, which most anyone can learn. But teach the whys and do it in a manner that can be translated to other things.

Thomas Jefferson is my hero, or idol so to speak. He was classically educated and trained. and most knowledgeable people consider him a genius right up there with the Aristotle's, Einstein's, Tesla's et al...... When I say I am classically educated, that is what I am talking about.

When I am in a discussion in a group, (real life) I'm usually the one who sits quietly allowing others to speak and just enjoy the repartee back and forth. I've had on more than one occasion, joined in on the conversation and as the conversation continues others start to recede from the conversation. They start listening and slow their contributions to nothing. I hate talking to myself. So I usually shut up and say nothing so I can enjoy the conversation. You hate being the smartest man in the room, it is so limiting it feels like a prison.

Sometimes I find myself doing that here. but the difference is here (in the group, on the site) I have friends and acquaintances, (like you and Wheel, Mac, Perrie, RW, Marsha and many others) that are smarter than me in many ways and at least my equals in education. So I can learn and receive wisdom as well as give.

It's why I keep coming back.

"It's why I keep coming back."

So did the cat.

By the way, you related the purpose of the Rule against Perpetuities as it may appear in a dictionary. Can you give an example of where it would be applied?

Does it mean you can't take a patent on something that you think might be invented before it's invented?

Depends on if it is a new idea or not, if it is patented already. (actual piece of hardware)

Otherwise,

No you cannot patent an idea.

You want an example?

I can understand doubts.....

So, For example,

If Mr. Smith transfers his real property to his son Howard for life and then to Howard's children who are alive at the time of Howard's death, the children's interest is not vested. (conditional) Their interest is subject to the condition precedent that they survive their father Howard.

If Mr. Smith transfers his property to his son Howard for life, and then to Howard's children Ann and Richard, the children's interest is vested. (non conditional but subjugated to their fathers term of life) Although the children's right to possess and enjoy the property might be delayed for many years, the rule does not relate to the time when property vests in actual possession but only when the property vests in interest.

The interest that the children possess is known as a future interest. (or an unpossessed interest is another way to put it but not an entirely accurate way)

Under the rule, a future interest must vest within a certain period of time. This period is limited to the duration of a life in being (being meaning actually alive ie, the "measuring life") at the time the interest in the property is transferred, plus twenty-one years.

The period of the rule can be extended by one or more gestation periods. (once a baby is made it is considered a "life in being" under this rule) A person is in being at the time of conception if he or she is born thereafter. (as long as the life is carried to term and actually born, a dead fetus cannot vest anything)

Therefore the measuring life, or lives, might be the life of a person who has been conceived at the time the instrument takes effect but who is born afterward. (an unborn child can have a future interest in an estate)

Another example,

A testator (will maker) leaves property "to the descendants of Jones who are living twenty-one years after the death of my last surviving child." Six months after his death, the testator's wife gives birth to their only child. This child is the measuring life, and the descendants of Jones who are alive twenty-one years after the death of the testator's child will take the property.

The period of gestation can also occur at the end of the measuring life. A person conceived before but born after the death of a measuring life is considered to be an "in being" life.

An example of this scenario,

A testator leaves his estate to his grandchildren who attain the age of twenty-one. The testator's only child, William, is born six months after the testator's death. William himself has only one child, Pamela, who is born six months after William's death. The will provisions that leave the property to the testators grandchild Pamela are valid, and she will inherit her grandfather's estate when she reaches twenty-one.

Many different ways that the rule can apply. And it can become complicated when your talking abut multiple children or specifically named survivors.

Does that answer your question?

"Does that answer your question?"

Absolutely. How many people other than lawyers would know the limitations indicated by the rule, and be able to draft a will that takes the rule into consideration?

However, a very simple will handwritten by the testator can be valid. There is a famous example in Canada of a farmer whose tractor overturned on him, and with his last breathing effort scratched onto the fender of the tractor the words: "All to my wife" and it was considered a valid will. The fender is in fact kept on display in the library of a law school in one of the Western provinces.

There is a legend (I have been unable to find it) where a sailor trapped and drowning in a ship during the attack on Pearl Harbor scratched "All to mother" on a wall and put his name down and it was held to be a valid will.

".....where a sailor trapped and drowning in a ship during the attack on Pearl Harbor scratched "All to mother".....

I heard that on a blog somewhere also Randy, almost 15 years ago, A man trapped in the USS Oklahoma, and despite all my efforts to research it, I have come up with nada. I would think that would be something that would be noted and reported widely given the tragic and historical nature of the thing.

I won't contradict it, but it definitely resides in the realm of legend.

I won't contradict it, but it definitely resides in the realm of legend.

It may or may not be true, but I'd like to believe it is.

I'm sure there are very few non-lawyers that would understand the full complexity the rule can engender. But only because they haven't been taught, or took the time to learn it. (it can be a very boring subject)

As far as the tractor fender, I've heard about that, and I believe that Howard Hughes's will on a napkin is also in a museum somewhere.

Any legal document is strictured by it's explicit terms. Unless it violates any of the numerous doctrinal rules the law imposes upon the situation.

That's what we have judges for.

"But only because they haven't been taught, or took the time to learn it."

Which is at least one reason why there are law schools. Another, as we discussed above, is to train a person to THINK like a lawyer.

Well I'll let the think like a lawyer thing go. As not worth getting into. I'll just leave it at there are differing educated opinions on that subject.

Peace brother.

Peace, likewise.

is to train a person to THINK like a lawyer.

What, if anything, do you believe that phrase means? 

Hehehe 

Well, Krishna, in keeping with thinking like a lawyer, it could have many meanings, and each one should be explored for veracity and logic. Then a determination must be made as to which is the most plausible, however always keeping in mind that other possibilities exist and could have credence. Res ipsa loquitor may not always be the case.

Well said Buzz.

Actually I was trying to put two "lawyerisms" in my comment-- or what I believe are:

1. Saying "what if anything do you believe that phrase means"...rather than "what do you believe that phrase means?". I had thought that saying it without the "if anything" implies that the person believes the phrase means something--including "if anything" means I was not trying to imply the person being addressed thought it meant anything.(Or perhaps to be more precise, the person being addresses may r may not think it meant anything). 

2. Saying "what . . . do you believe it means" rather than "what does it mean? To not imply that what the person addressed says is indeed fact, but rather that its just his/her belief! (And of course tat belief may or may not be true...heh

Splitting hairs, the sort of games I thought some lawyers might play...?

But maybe I was just watching too much television?

I know you can't view videos (at this time*)-- that was is the introduction to an old TV show called "L A Law"-- did you ever see that programme?

____________________________________

* "at this time"...WTF??? There I go again!

Or chasing hare's.....

Got a lawyerism for ya....

Res ista judicata usque Res Judicata!

Didn't see this before, Krish.

I watched all the programs about lawyers that could be seen in Toronto, and L.A. Law was one of them.

"So did the cat."

Very true, very true.

But unlike the cat's instincts, as a human, that can be fixed....

"Do you believe in capital punishment?"

"Yes"

"Dismissed".

"Do you believe in capital punishment?"

I would never punish a capital.

Take a seat. (Ignorance is not a bar to jury duty.)

Only DC - they need all the punishment they can get.

Well, it looked for awhile like I was going to get on my first trial and to tell the truth I sort of wanted to be on this one because it was a case of one man 21 years old having sex with multiple girls 14 and 15. However the judge asked if there were any of the first group of jurors (which I was in) had anything they wanted to say, but did not want to say in open court, so I was one of the ones who went into chambers with him, the DA, the defense attorney and the court reporter. That's when I told him I had been raped at age 7 by my mother's boyfriend and wasn't comfortable with just saying so in an open court room filled with people I didn't know. He asked if I had received any counseling for it and I told him that I am currently under psychiatric care and have been for several years and was retired on Social Security Disability for Major Depressive Disorder, with Suicidal Features and PTSD. He asked if I thought I could handle the stress of the trial and be impartial and I said I certainly could, because it didn't involved young children being molested. At that point I really wanted to be a juror on this case.

He sent me back out to my seat in the jurors box (as opposed to the others who talked to him in chambers who went right out the door) so it looked like I was going to be on the jury. Still, after about 15 or 20 minutes of asking other potential jurors some questions in open court he called a 15 minute break and then asked me to stay behind in the court until the rest of the jurors and prospective jurors had left. He then told me that he had given it a lot more thought and didn't want to take the chance that with me not being able to take the stress of a sex case and that I was also sort of liability if there was a conviction to get the verdict overturned by having someone under psychiatric care on the jury, with a history of being sexually abused. So he very, very nicely told me he had decided to excuse me too. The whole time the defense attorney was nodding so I knew I was going to be one of his peremptory challenges anyway. I was very surprised at how disappointed I was and told the judge again, trying to get him to change his mind, that I still thought I could handle the stress and still do a really good job, but he said his decision was final. He was very, very nice about the whole thing.

I have never wanted to serve on a jury before because every time it got to where I was sitting in the juror's box it was a drug case and I honestly look at drug addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one. That said, if they showed me this guy was guilty I really, really wanted to be one of the people to send him to prison. Maybe wanting to send him to prison so badly showed and the judge was right to remove me?

So I'm sad and disappointed that the one trial I really want to serve on was not to be, but you're already swore in when you talk to the judge and lying wouldn't make any sense because when the truth came out I could be in bad legal trouble myself.

I can understand the angst.

But the one trial you WANT to sit on is the one trial you shouldn't be sitting on.

And I think you know that in your heart of hearts.

I think so too, as hard as it is to admit. I wanted to sit on this trail so bad because of the charges and perhaps I would not be able to be completely unprejudiced considering my history. Plus it is bound to be a very, very stressful trial in an of itself and would I spend my evenings pacing the living room thinking about the case and what went on that day. The judge was predicting at least a 6 week trial and that is a lot to take in. I get obsessed with perfection and it would be an imperfect trial. It would definitely be a reasonable doubt case and not a verdict you could ever be 100% sure of.

You did the right thing, Randy, and so did the judge. I think you earned the respect of the judge, and the others in his chambers.

Since then I have been kicking my self for not having the courage to state everything in open court. At least the Mental Health part. I just thought I couldn't bring up one without the rape and even more then 50 years later I still carry some amount of shame or rather embarrassment (better word) for that happening to me. It's easy to say that it was not my fault, but there is still a part of me that make it impossible for me to say in a public setting. In front of strangers like that. Still, it's past and it's over. Time to move on.