Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)

12. I only mentioned that

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 2, 2014, 11:30 AM

Feb 2014

because when I was the jury of a fraud trial back in the '70s the defense councel later mentioned that is he'd noticed that one of the guys on the jury had a copy of the Guardian sticking out of the pocket of his Barbour coat he'd have rejected him.

Much to my amusement the prosecuting councel , at a later much date , was done for kerb crawling in the Queensway area.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How A Ruling On Gay Jurors Could Have A Huge Effect On The Gay Rights Movement [View all] Tx4obama Feb 2014 OP

Something's missing here. I don't see how a higher priced medication from one company could hurt pinto Feb 2014 #1

I couldn't see that either. dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #3

Here's a little more info: Incitatus Feb 2014 #6

Ah, thanks for the info. Many HIV med regimes these days are combos from different companies. pinto Feb 2014 #7

Do I take it that lawyers in the US need to give reasons when they select a jury ? dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #2

They need a reason to challenge a juror. NYC Liberal Feb 2014 #4

They get some set number of dismissals on jury selection subject to appeal and review. pinto Feb 2014 #5

I don't think an English lawyer would be able to object to a juror without reason muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #11

I only mentioned that dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #12

Ah; that would have been before the 1988 act muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #13

the irony is that if the lawyer hadn't said it was because the juror was gay dsc Feb 2014 #8

K&R! countryjake Feb 2014 #9

Link to decision...the district court judge ought to be ashamed of herself. Abbot's attorneys ought msanthrope Feb 2014 #10