3 ms·

I've said before, and I'll repeat here: After serving on a jury I have only the following advice: Stay away from the criminal justice system as much as you can

I've said before, and I'll repeat here: After serving on a jury I have only the following advice: Stay away from the criminal justice system as much as you can. Once you are in a courtroom on a jury trial, you are effectively a coin toss from prison. The amount of uninformed opinions and plain old charisma involved in deciding a case is just mind boggling. There are no certainties, just people reliving their trauma and deciding whether or not the person they see in the courtroom looks like a person that would cause that trauma.

Spivak 2y ago
This is true even before you land in the court room. The best advice is to put as much distance you can between yourself and the entire criminal justice system. Folks make fun of "justice involved person" but it's capturing a real thing that it's a black hole (heh) that is impossible to escape from completely. Even when you're the victim. You are at your safest when the police have no idea who you are.
- Taek 2y ago
  I've received professional advice from lawyers multiple times (related to SEC, related to FBI, related to local police, related to international police): "Every time you talk to an entity with enforcement capabilities, you significantly increase your chances of receiving an enforcement action. My clients that maintain a strict policy of never engaging with [regulators, police, justice] all have significantly less enforcement actions than clients who agree to be witnesses, report potential crimes, or otherwise take steps to be a good citizen." (Paraphrased, but I've received advice like that across many areas of justice/regulation)
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Yup. I’ve come across frauds in my work that my lawyers plead with me not to report. I didn’t listen to them once and learned my lesson.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Any details you'd be willing to share?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Not sharing proof of ownership because it’s super confidential should be the red flag it obviously is.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Now try to stay as far away from the criminal justice system if you “don’t look like you belong”. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/28/ving-rhames-police-gunpoint-home https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/28/ving-rhames-... He was in his own house minding his business.
busyant 2y ago
I met a product liability attorney years ago. He said something to the effect of… “The jury NEVER understands expert witness testimony. I had a juror tell me that she ‘voted’ for my side because she liked my necktie. So… I always wear a nice tie at trial!” He thought it was hilarious.
eszed 2y ago
Second this motion. I was on a jury which hung (didn't reach a verdict) because the last two hold-outs for conviction revealed only after we'd returned the (non)-verdict that their reasoning had been (and I'm not making this up) "he looks like a criminal". Before you get distracted by that (admitted outrage), there were a couple of other weird dynamics at play: 1) The lead cop even gave those two holdouts the squicks. I was good, and didn't google his name until after the whole trial was over, but he'd been the subject of multiple lawsuits - including wrongful death, in which he rolled up to a scene being controlled by other officers and started shooting 8 seconds after getting out of his car. No one on the jury (said they) trusted him. 2) The case was horrifically over-charged. The defendant was shady, and was probably looking for a car to break into when the cop rolled up. However, there was nothing (besides prejudice and supposition) linking him to the drugs the dog found thirty feet away, and describing the items they found in his backpack as "deadly weapons" strained credulity. There might have been something there ("carrying burglary tools"? Is that a thing?) on which I would have voted to convict, but not the case presented. Still, it was a coin toss. The first vote was eight to four to convict, and it all could easily have gone another way.
- recursivecaveat 2y ago
  It's illegal to "possess burglary tools with the intent to commit a burglary". Why that it is I am not sure, you would think it would just be evidence of intending to commit the actual crime. Maybe it is like a notion of pre-medition and professionalism or an excuse to grab people before the act. Though as far as I know there's no "possessing murder weapons with intent to murder" charge: just attempted murder and degrees of murder.

Spivak 2y ago

This is true even before you land in the court room. The best advice is to put as much distance you can between yourself and the entire criminal justice system. Folks make fun of "justice involved person" but it's capturing a real thing that it's a black hole (heh) that is impossible to escape from completely. Even when you're the victim. You are at your safest when the police have no idea who you are.

Taek 2y ago
I've received professional advice from lawyers multiple times (related to SEC, related to FBI, related to local police, related to international police): "Every time you talk to an entity with enforcement capabilities, you significantly increase your chances of receiving an enforcement action. My clients that maintain a strict policy of never engaging with [regulators, police, justice] all have significantly less enforcement actions than clients who agree to be witnesses, report potential crimes, or otherwise take steps to be a good citizen." (Paraphrased, but I've received advice like that across many areas of justice/regulation)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Yup. I’ve come across frauds in my work that my lawyers plead with me not to report. I didn’t listen to them once and learned my lesson.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Any details you'd be willing to share?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Not sharing proof of ownership because it’s super confidential should be the red flag it obviously is.
scarface_74 2y ago
Now try to stay as far away from the criminal justice system if you “don’t look like you belong”. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/28/ving-rhames-police-gunpoint-home https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/28/ving-rhames-... He was in his own house minding his business.

busyant 2y ago

I met a product liability attorney years ago. He said something to the effect of… “The jury NEVER understands expert witness testimony. I had a juror tell me that she ‘voted’ for my side because she liked my necktie. So… I always wear a nice tie at trial!” He thought it was hilarious.

eszed 2y ago

Second this motion. I was on a jury which hung (didn't reach a verdict) because the last two hold-outs for conviction revealed only after we'd returned the (non)-verdict that their reasoning had been (and I'm not making this up) "he looks like a criminal". Before you get distracted by that (admitted outrage), there were a couple of other weird dynamics at play: 1) The lead cop even gave those two holdouts the squicks. I was good, and didn't google his name until after the whole trial was over, but he'd been the subject of multiple lawsuits - including wrongful death, in which he rolled up to a scene being controlled by other officers and started shooting 8 seconds after getting out of his car. No one on the jury (said they) trusted him. 2) The case was horrifically over-charged. The defendant was shady, and was probably looking for a car to break into when the cop rolled up. However, there was nothing (besides prejudice and supposition) linking him to the drugs the dog found thirty feet away, and describing the items they found in his backpack as "deadly weapons" strained credulity. There might have been something there ("carrying burglary tools"? Is that a thing?) on which I would have voted to convict, but not the case presented. Still, it was a coin toss. The first vote was eight to four to convict, and it all could easily have gone another way.

recursivecaveat 2y ago
It's illegal to "possess burglary tools with the intent to commit a burglary". Why that it is I am not sure, you would think it would just be evidence of intending to commit the actual crime. Maybe it is like a notion of pre-medition and professionalism or an excuse to grab people before the act. Though as far as I know there's no "possessing murder weapons with intent to murder" charge: just attempted murder and degrees of murder.