Are tattoos prejudicial?

[George Costanza]

Isn't that why they have a Jury Poll: To weed-out Jurists that might have an unfair bias against the defendant?

The problem with this is, how many people are going to step up and admit to racial prejudice? Not too many.

I once had a jury find my client guilty of murder one. Two years later, a guy came up to me on the street and identified himself as one of the jurors on that case. I asked him what the main thing was that the jury relied upon in convicting the defendant. He said: "The defendant was Mexican. The dead guy was Mexican. We all know that those people kill each other."

On the basis of that chance encounter, I was able to get my client a new trial.

However, the point here is, that when the jury was first being selected, this guy had sailed through voir dire, representing to everyone in the courtroom that he was unbiased and "could be fair."

Let's be honest here.

Who is not being honest?

Your job is to use the black and whiteness of the law to provide the best defense you can and get your client off regardless of guilt or innocence.

Thank you for telling me what you think my job is. The job of a defense attorney is to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. If that is done, the jury must acquit.

It does not matter what I think about my client's guilt or innocence. Defense counsel take cases to trial every day of the year where they are virtually certain of their client's guilt, many times where the defendant has confessed guilt to the attorney. Doesn't matter.

Now, within this system, there are several things defense counsel may NOT do. A defense attorney may not knowingly present false or perjured evidence. Contrary to what more than a few people think, defense attorneys do not huddle with their clients, dreaming up false defenses which are then presented to the jury. Further, if defense counsel knows that the defendant is going to insist upon testifying and is going to lie on the stand, he/she cannot put the defendant on the stand. If the defendant still insists on testifying (which he has a right to do), in a situation such as this, defense counsel must withdraw from the case and another attorney will be appointed to continue with the case.

I doubt you will answer, but WAS he guilty? Did you get your client a new trial based on a technical point because the juror popped off or because justice wasn't served? This juror was one of twelve. I realize that technically, his comments make a difference. But obviously the other 11 voted guilty too. Did they share this one guys sentiment?

Why do you doubt that I will answer? The only reason I did not mention the result of the re-trial first time around is that it is not relevant to the point under discussion. On second re-trial, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. On third re-trial, he was found guilty of second degree murder (note that he was originally found guilty of first degree murder). I did not handle either of the two re-trials. I did handle all of the litigation connected with getting him a new trial and, of course, the original trial.

Every time I hear someone griping about a "technicality," all I (or any other defense attorney) can do is shake my head. You present your question here as if the existence of a "technicality" and the "serving of justice" are mutually exclusive. How about YOU being honest - do you really think that a jury with someone on it such as the prejudiced juror in this instance, is capable of "rendering justice"? It looks like you do, judging by your "11 other jurors" comment.

We will never know whether anyone else on the jury shared the sentiments of the prejudiced juror. The law seals information (names, addresses, phone numbers) on jurors. The first thing I wanted to do was to contact all of the other jurors and question them as to that precise question - whether or not they were also prejudiced or if anything said by the prejudiced juror played any part in deliberations.

You know those "liberal, activist courts" you cons are always complaining about? The court would not allow the defense to contact any of the other jurors. Why? The stated reason of the court was the legal equivalent of, "because."

 

[George Costanza]

Yes, so? This isn't the case with ANY murder trial? Moreso; Isn't this only one of a multitude of objections to the use of juries in ALL trials?

Of course it is. Or any criminal trial for any crime, for that matter.

Voir dire is oftentimes a joke. A potential juror will state: "I really have trouble with the presumption of innocence. I think if someone gets arrested, they are probably guilty." Defense counsel will then challenge for cause. The judge will then attempt to "rehabilitate" the juror - translation: "Aha! I think we have a pretty good prosecution juror here. Don't want to lose HIM! Let's see what we can do to make sure we don't . . . "

Then the judge will say: "Well, I understand that. But in spite of your feelings in this regard, do you think you can be fair in this case?" Potential Juror: "Oh, yes, your honor." Judge: "Challenge for cause denied." Now, the defense has to use a peremptory challenge.

Which raises the point: Could the defense ask for a trial by judge?

Yes - if the defense wanted to guarantee a guilty verdict. Court trials are rarely requested by the defense. Contrary to the belief of most conservatives, trial judges are highly prosecution oriented. Thanks to decades of Republican rule, most of them (at least in California) are former prosecutors who have been put on the bench by Republican governors. They would not recognize reasonable doubt if it hit them in the face and, if they did, they would find a way to ooze their way around it and still find the defendant guilty.

Not many know this, but both sides have to agree to a court trial. Usually, in the rare cases where the defense does request a court trial, the prosecution will knee-jerk fail to concur on the theory that if the defense wants a court trial, there has to be a reason which is detrimental to the prosecution.

 

[kwc57]

George,

Just an FYI. I have never bought the "activist court" arguments from either side of the aisle. People who bitch about that are just people who had a decision made that they disagree with.

 

[George Costanza]

George,

Just an FYI. I have never bought the "activist court" arguments from either side of the aisle. People who bitch about that are just people who had a decision made that they disagree with.

Yup. Glad we agree on that one.

 

[FA_Q2]

Thanks to decades of Republican rule, most of them (at least in California) are former prosecutors who have been put on the bench by Republican governors. They would not recognize reasonable doubt if it hit them in the face and, if they did, they would find a way to ooze their way around it and still find the defendant guilty.

Really, the partisan rout? I believe that CA has been fairly divided in the last few decades as to the governorship!

Could you comment on this George from an earlier post I presented?

Doesn't the fact he is a skinhead have an impact on the character of the defendant? Is that not enough to bring that into the courtroom as establishing this man's character to the jury? I honestly do not know so I am looking for the legal answer to this.

Also, I would say that MOST judges fall in to the category of the posts above but there ARE activist judges out there and you see them in some of the insane sentences that is given out and the reasoning behind them. It may be rare but it is those rare cases that get all the publicity.

 

[mayya555]

Tattoos shouldn't be prejudicial unless you do to yourself something like this seyfried almost-a-celebrity-girl : http://www.designs-tattoos.com/unusual-celebrity-tattoo-amanda-seyfried-reveals-her-secret