|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
The problem with the American Criminal system is not the jury. It's getting in
front of a jury in the first place. Look agt what happened to Aaron Swartz.
I don't know how the UK jury system compares, but you won't see jurors talking
like we saw in the Samsung case. If he'd been a UK juror he would have got six
months for contempt if he was lucky! Not for what he said, but just for
talking!
We do get the odd disaster, but they also tend to get put right. I don't think
we have THAT many enduring miscarriages of justice, and I think most of them are
down to the gutter press!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
In some cases, you might do better with a judge,
if only because it's easier to
appeal and because
the case may include topics that are very complex
and you
worry a jury might not get it. It's a choice
you can sometimes make, depending
on several
issues.
Lawyers
usually know how judges have ruled in the
past,
as that's part of their job, and so they kind
of know what they are
getting, and if it's
a good record, they can advise a client to
stick with a
judge and not ask for a jury or
ask the judge to handle some topics and
not
others. You see that a lot in civil trials.
Here's a page and
a second one
that explains some of what's involved
in
a criminal case. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|