I've been served

You have a point, TIm. But if I were on trial regarding my profession as a
drywaller or electrician, I would want someone knowledgable about my trade on
the jury, not a bunch of 94 year-old ladies that got scammed by some roofer and
were looking to get revenge (spin on Beanie Baby collector juror #4?).

I'd offer that, when a profession is involved, as is the ACG case, that there
be some representatives that can see through all the double-talk some so-called
expert witnesses will probably provide. I can just see some witness explaining
just how wonderful a colorized (or gold-plated) State Quarter set looks and how
much it will increase in value, and all those old ladies thinking "wow, my
grandson would love to have one of those."

Granted this is a fun hobby and most of us get great enjoyment out of it, but
there is also the potential for a lot of money to change hands on a single
coin. This isn't something I would want left in the hands of the uninformed
(hey, look at Congress... "that grand old benevolent national asylum for the
helpless").

Jerry

"Coin Saver" provides:

From Jerry Dennis:

Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the
defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be collectors
and
dealers.

This 'ploy' has been tried (no pun intended) quite a few times in the past,
in
courts (mainly by defendants who represent themselves), and failed.

The judicial system has the duty to interpret the law and dispense justice.
Of
the several definitions of "peer", the courts use the one that says a peer
is:
"one belonging to the same societal group".

Otherwise, our courts would be severely hampered by a senseless
technicallity.
For example: where would they have been able to find 12 "Charlie Mansons"?

Scott Peterson is on trial in California on a charge of a double murder of
his
wife and her child. Should he be allowed, if found guilty, to have a
mistrial,
due the fact that the jury wasn't 12 people who were murderers (his proven
'peers'?).

If you have a requirement of a 6-jury class-action lawsuit for 46 defendants,
are we then required to have a jury of 276, six for each defendant? The legal
system would come to a standstill if the judges allowed any / all varieties
of
individual comprehension of all the terms.

I disagree.

A jury of your peers does not mean a jury of friends or people who
necessarily share the same ideas. People sometimes confuse the word
"peer" with "friend". The two are not necessarily equivalent. A peer
is someone who is of general equivalent stature to you, whether it be
of age, intelligence, general (not specific) occupations, etc.

For example, let's take a murder case in which the defendant is a
known member of a violent gang. Is the defendant going to have a jury
of gang members? Probably (and almost certainly) not.

In fact, in most jury trials, the opposite is true. Those who have
the most knowledge of the subject are excused from the jury because
just that. In the usual court system, juries are not supposed to be
knowledgable. Such knowledge is to be determined by (expert)
witnesses.

Therefore, I disagree with the statement below.

-- Mike

haw (Jerry Dennis) wrote in message ...
Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be collectors and
dealers.

Jerry

Michael Ng wrote:

I disagree.

A jury of your peers does not mean a jury of friends or people who
necessarily share the same ideas. People sometimes confuse the word
"peer" with "friend". The two are not necessarily equivalent. A peer
is someone who is of general equivalent stature to you, whether it be
of age, intelligence, general (not specific) occupations, etc.

For example, let's take a murder case in which the defendant is a
known member of a violent gang. Is the defendant going to have a jury
of gang members? Probably (and almost certainly) not.

In fact, in most jury trials, the opposite is true. Those who have
the most knowledge of the subject are excused from the jury because
just that. In the usual court system, juries are not supposed to be
knowledgable. Such knowledge is to be determined by (expert)
witnesses.

Therefore, I disagree with the statement below.

-- Mike

The last time I was called for Jury Duty, it was Federal District Court.
Some poor soul was alleging that his cancer was due to his government
service. About 200 of us were herded in for jury selection.

After the simple 'weeding questions', (have you ever worked for, do you
now work for, are you related to, etc) they asked "Do you believe that
radiation causes cancer?" I stood up.

Me and two others. ;-/

Alan
'we were disqualified'


haw (Jerry Dennis) wrote in message ...
Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be collectors and
dealers.

Jerry

"Alan Williams" wrote:
After the simple 'weeding questions', (have you ever worked for, do you
now work for, are you related to, etc) they asked "Do you believe that
radiation causes cancer?" I stood up.

Impartial? Of course I can be impartial. Bring the guilty @#$% in!

--Chris

There's no such thing as a jury of peers. When was the last medical
malpractice case where the jury was a group of physicians?

On 12 Apr 2004 13:17:35 GMT, haw (Jerry Dennis)
wrote:

Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be collectors and
dealers.

Jerry

"Bob Peterson" writes, in part:

Don't make the mistake of thinking the case is weak because you see it that
way. Think of it from a jury's point of view that knows nothing about
numismatics, cause its a cinch that no one that ever so much as bought a
proof set will be on the jury.

--
Note - Remove the X from my e-mail address for direct replies

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...
You have a point, TIm. But if I were on trial regarding my profession as
a
drywaller or electrician, I would want someone knowledgable about my trade
on
the jury, not a bunch of 94 year-old ladies that got scammed by some
roofer and
were looking to get revenge (spin on Beanie Baby collector juror #4?).


The fact is that the judicial system deliberatley screens out anyone that
might have any personal knowledge or information relating to the case at
hand, on the theory that they will be more likely to make a decision based
on the evidence presented rather than on personal knowledge which is not
evidence since it was not presented as such.

I'd offer that, when a profession is involved, as is the ACG case, that
there
be some representatives that can see through all the double-talk some
so-called
expert witnesses will probably provide. I can just see some witness
explaining
just how wonderful a colorized (or gold-plated) State Quarter set looks
and how
much it will increase in value, and all those old ladies thinking "wow, my
grandson would love to have one of those."

Granted this is a fun hobby and most of us get great enjoyment out of it,
but
there is also the potential for a lot of money to change hands on a single
coin. This isn't something I would want left in the hands of the
uninformed
(hey, look at Congress... "that grand old benevolent national asylum for
the
helpless").

Jerry

"Coin Saver" provides:

From Jerry Dennis:

Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the
defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In
this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be
collectors
and
dealers.

This 'ploy' has been tried (no pun intended) quite a few times in the
past,
in
courts (mainly by defendants who represent themselves), and failed.

The judicial system has the duty to interpret the law and dispense
justice.
Of
the several definitions of "peer", the courts use the one that says a
peer
is:
"one belonging to the same societal group".

Otherwise, our courts would be severely hampered by a senseless
technicallity.
For example: where would they have been able to find 12 "Charlie
Mansons"?

Scott Peterson is on trial in California on a charge of a double murder
of
his
wife and her child. Should he be allowed, if found guilty, to have a
mistrial,
due the fact that the jury wasn't 12 people who were murderers (his
proven
'peers'?).

If you have a requirement of a 6-jury class-action lawsuit for 46
defendants,
are we then required to have a jury of 276, six for each defendant? The
legal
system would come to a standstill if the judges allowed any / all
varieties
of
individual comprehension of all the terms.

"Alan Williams" wrote in message
...
Michael Ng wrote:

I disagree.

A jury of your peers does not mean a jury of friends or people who
necessarily share the same ideas. People sometimes confuse the word
"peer" with "friend". The two are not necessarily equivalent. A peer
is someone who is of general equivalent stature to you, whether it be
of age, intelligence, general (not specific) occupations, etc.

For example, let's take a murder case in which the defendant is a
known member of a violent gang. Is the defendant going to have a jury
of gang members? Probably (and almost certainly) not.

In fact, in most jury trials, the opposite is true. Those who have
the most knowledge of the subject are excused from the jury because
just that. In the usual court system, juries are not supposed to be
knowledgable. Such knowledge is to be determined by (expert)
witnesses.

Therefore, I disagree with the statement below.

-- Mike

The last time I was called for Jury Duty, it was Federal District Court.
Some poor soul was alleging that his cancer was due to his government
service. About 200 of us were herded in for jury selection.

After the simple 'weeding questions', (have you ever worked for, do you
now work for, are you related to, etc) they asked "Do you believe that
radiation causes cancer?" I stood up.

As you should be. Radiation does not cause cancer. Certain forms of
radiation in high dosages could cause cancer to form years later, but low
level doses are generally quite benign. You showed that you believed
something that is provably false, that may have had a bearing on the case in
point, so its probably fair that you were dismissed.


Me and two others. ;-/

Alan
'we were disqualified'


haw (Jerry Dennis) wrote in message
...
Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the
defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In
this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be
collectors and
dealers.

Jerry

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...
You have a point, TIm. But if I were on trial regarding my profession as
a
drywaller or electrician, I would want someone knowledgable about my trade
on
the jury, not a bunch of 94 year-old ladies that got scammed by some
roofer and
were looking to get revenge (spin on Beanie Baby collector juror #4?).

I'd offer that, when a profession is involved, as is the ACG case, that
there
be some representatives that can see through all the double-talk some
so-called
expert witnesses will probably provide.

For exactly this reason, I've felt that the judge should be the one to
select and call the experts in a civil case. That would take the monetary
bias out of the experts that are called by the defendants and plaintiffs and
probably better serve the interests of arriving at a "correct" solution.

I can just see some witness explaining
just how wonderful a colorized (or gold-plated) State Quarter set looks
and how
much it will increase in value, and all those old ladies thinking "wow, my
grandson would love to have one of those."

Granted this is a fun hobby and most of us get great enjoyment out of it,
but
there is also the potential for a lot of money to change hands on a single
coin. This isn't something I would want left in the hands of the
uninformed
(hey, look at Congress... "that grand old benevolent national asylum for
the
helpless").

Jerry

"Coin Saver" provides:

From Jerry Dennis:

Bob brings up an excellent point, and it ought to be considered by the
defense
team's attorneys. A jury is supposed to be made up of your PEERS. In
this
case, the entire jury (or at least a decent mix of it) should be
collectors
and
dealers.

This 'ploy' has been tried (no pun intended) quite a few times in the
past,
in
courts (mainly by defendants who represent themselves), and failed.

The judicial system has the duty to interpret the law and dispense
justice.
Of
the several definitions of "peer", the courts use the one that says a
peer
is:
"one belonging to the same societal group".

Otherwise, our courts would be severely hampered by a senseless
technicallity.
For example: where would they have been able to find 12 "Charlie
Mansons"?

Scott Peterson is on trial in California on a charge of a double murder
of
his
wife and her child. Should he be allowed, if found guilty, to have a
mistrial,
due the fact that the jury wasn't 12 people who were murderers (his
proven
'peers'?).

If you have a requirement of a 6-jury class-action lawsuit for 46
defendants,
are we then required to have a jury of 276, six for each defendant? The
legal
system would come to a standstill if the judges allowed any / all
varieties
of
individual comprehension of all the terms.

"Alan Williams" wrote in message
...
Michael Ng wrote:

I disagree.

A jury of your peers does not mean a jury of friends or people who
necessarily share the same ideas. People sometimes confuse the word
"peer" with "friend". The two are not necessarily equivalent. A peer
is someone who is of general equivalent stature to you, whether it be
of age, intelligence, general (not specific) occupations, etc.

For example, let's take a murder case in which the defendant is a
known member of a violent gang. Is the defendant going to have a jury
of gang members? Probably (and almost certainly) not.

In fact, in most jury trials, the opposite is true. Those who have
the most knowledge of the subject are excused from the jury because
just that. In the usual court system, juries are not supposed to be
knowledgable. Such knowledge is to be determined by (expert)
witnesses.

Therefore, I disagree with the statement below.

-- Mike

The last time I was called for Jury Duty, it was Federal District Court.
Some poor soul was alleging that his cancer was due to his government
service. About 200 of us were herded in for jury selection.

After the simple 'weeding questions', (have you ever worked for, do you
now work for, are you related to, etc) they asked "Do you believe that
radiation causes cancer?" I stood up.

Me and two others. ;-/

I probably would have, too. Even though I believe that radiation also
*cures* cancer. You takes yer pick. Either way they are usually related
somehow in most peoples' minds.

Never been called for jury duty in over 40 years of votin' and drivin'.
I'd tell 'em I would make a good juror, considering I can pretty much tell
if a person's guilty just by lookin' at him.

Bruce

Bob wrote:

Radiation does not cause cancer. Certain forms
of radiation in high dosages could cause cancer
to form years later, but low level doses are
generally quite benign. You showed that you
believed something that is provably false, that
may have had a bearing on the case in point,
so its probably fair that you were dismissed.

You may want to take a little trip to the site of the Chernobyl reactor-
people there might have some insight for you as to how long it takes
cancer to develop after exposure. Radiation DOES cause cancer- in the
statement provided there were no qualifiers, so Alan believed something
proven to be true. Perhaps you'd care to let us know how many centigray
are safe and for what length of time so the fine folks in the raiology
department can dispose of all those silly lead shields.

-Steve