4 ms·

So we don't do jury trials in criminal cases where the jury can get the crime (96% pleas), but when it is about complex and bullshit IP laws, where even very sa

So we don't do jury trials in criminal cases where the jury can get the crime (96% pleas), but when it is about complex and bullshit IP laws, where even very savvy person will be confused - fire away. Something is very wrong with that system.

MichaelApproved 12y ago
Most criminal cases plea out because sentences have increased dramatically over the last few decades. You can plea down to a small sentence or take your chances with 15-20 years in prison, if you're convicted. Prosecutors know this and pump up a case with as many charges as possible so you won't be tempted to take it to trial. You can argue that juries aren't savvy enough to judge a complicated IP case and I'd agree with you but that's what the appeals court is there for. If the jury got it wrong, you can appeal to judges who, presumably, have a better understanding.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > You can argue that juries aren't savvy enough to judge a complicated IP case and I'd agree with you but that's what the appeals court is there for. If the jury got it wrong, you can appeal to judges who, presumably, have a better understanding. The appellate court for patent cases is the Federal Circuit, which is full of former patent lawyers who don't really understand software and like validating ridiculous software patents. After that you can only appeal to the Supreme Court, and only if they take the case and you haven't been bankrupted yet.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Most criminal cases plead out because the accused are guilty.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    How do you know that?
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I used to work for a court. Believe it or not, prosecutors have better things to do than try and make marginal cases. The vast majority of time when they bring the case, the evidence is overwhelming. Now, you may or may not agree with the law (maybe having a kilo of crack in your car trunk shouldn't be a crime), but that's a separate issue from whether a jury trial would be more effective in truth finding.
    - mindslight 12y ago
      Let's not kid ourselves - most people [arrested by the police, charged with a crime, sent to prison] are guilty. This is what makes preserving justice for the exceptions such a hard problem.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        I totally agree with that last sentence.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Everyone is guilty of something the way the law system is made.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    That doesn't mean they didn't deserve a trial. Especially as the judiciary primarily upholds procedural rights by disregarding ill-gotten evidence. (And to preempt the inevitable complaint about trials being too expensive - if that much of the population is committing crimes, then perhaps it's time for some to be decriminalized or at least prioritized. A jurisdiction desiring to prosecute so much should be forced to raise taxes to cover its true expense - and that includes funding a defense attorney for everyone.)
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Wait, are you sure that everyone should have a trial? The majority of criminal cases are open-and-shut straightforward (remember, we only hear about the interesting cases). What's the purpose of requiring a trial when the outcome is foreordained? Obviously, it's impossible to know exactly who does and doesn't need a trial, which is why everyone is entitled to one. But incentives to keep pointless trials from bogging down the system make sense, too. The majority of crimes are also not Silverglate "transporting the wrong species of kiwi across state lines". A plurality of incarcerated people in IL and IN are in for domestic violence; the majority are in for violent crimes.
      - mindslight 12y ago
        Doesn't the setup of that incentive strike you as perverse? Years of someone's life versus government operating expenses? If the goal were efficient government, there are much more straightforward ways to achieve that. If the defendant is guilty and deserves the punishment they stand to receive at trial, then the prosecutor is doing society a disservice by letting them off easy for expedience. On the other hand, if the plea sentence is adequate punishment/rehabilitation/etc, then why are they being threatened with a much larger sentence? It seems to me that the feedback loop on sentences operates on the time specific criminals spend in jail being deemed too short during campaign season. As such, the plea sentence (ie "worst case") reflects what society deems appropriate (modulo the problems with democracy). Everything above the offered plea really is just an added threat to encourage a defendant to forgo the trial and submit to the judgment of the prosecutor. If the case is really so open-and-shut, then it should not take terribly long for a proper court to see so as well.
vqc 12y ago
I don't think this is a fair assessment. According to this http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas-remains-at-the-top-for-patent-lawsuits-5728614.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas-..., at least 95% of patent cases in ED Tex are settled or dismissed before getting to trial.
- talmand 12y ago
  Is that because there is actual infringement of a valid patent or the patent holder is offering a settlement that's lower than the court costs to attack the patent?
  - vqc 12y ago
    There are a lot of possible reasons. There are a huge number of ways one party can "win" before a trial. And even if both parties make it past all those hurdles, no one will want to go to trial unless they are absolutely sure they will win: the cost of an adverse jury finding is too gigantic. All of this is to say, it is not the case that the legal system is gung-ho about giving juries complex IP issues while simultaneously avoiding juries for "easier to understand" criminal matters.

MichaelApproved 12y ago

Most criminal cases plea out because sentences have increased dramatically over the last few decades. You can plea down to a small sentence or take your chances with 15-20 years in prison, if you're convicted. Prosecutors know this and pump up a case with as many charges as possible so you won't be tempted to take it to trial. You can argue that juries aren't savvy enough to judge a complicated IP case and I'd agree with you but that's what the appeals court is there for. If the jury got it wrong, you can appeal to judges who, presumably, have a better understanding.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> You can argue that juries aren't savvy enough to judge a complicated IP case and I'd agree with you but that's what the appeals court is there for. If the jury got it wrong, you can appeal to judges who, presumably, have a better understanding. The appellate court for patent cases is the Federal Circuit, which is full of former patent lawyers who don't really understand software and like validating ridiculous software patents. After that you can only appeal to the Supreme Court, and only if they take the case and you haven't been bankrupted yet.
rayiner 12y ago
Most criminal cases plead out because the accused are guilty.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  How do you know that?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I used to work for a court. Believe it or not, prosecutors have better things to do than try and make marginal cases. The vast majority of time when they bring the case, the evidence is overwhelming. Now, you may or may not agree with the law (maybe having a kilo of crack in your car trunk shouldn't be a crime), but that's a separate issue from whether a jury trial would be more effective in truth finding.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    Let's not kid ourselves - most people [arrested by the police, charged with a crime, sent to prison] are guilty. This is what makes preserving justice for the exceptions such a hard problem.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I totally agree with that last sentence.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Everyone is guilty of something the way the law system is made.
- mindslight 12y ago
  That doesn't mean they didn't deserve a trial. Especially as the judiciary primarily upholds procedural rights by disregarding ill-gotten evidence. (And to preempt the inevitable complaint about trials being too expensive - if that much of the population is committing crimes, then perhaps it's time for some to be decriminalized or at least prioritized. A jurisdiction desiring to prosecute so much should be forced to raise taxes to cover its true expense - and that includes funding a defense attorney for everyone.)
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Wait, are you sure that everyone should have a trial? The majority of criminal cases are open-and-shut straightforward (remember, we only hear about the interesting cases). What's the purpose of requiring a trial when the outcome is foreordained? Obviously, it's impossible to know exactly who does and doesn't need a trial, which is why everyone is entitled to one. But incentives to keep pointless trials from bogging down the system make sense, too. The majority of crimes are also not Silverglate "transporting the wrong species of kiwi across state lines". A plurality of incarcerated people in IL and IN are in for domestic violence; the majority are in for violent crimes.
    - mindslight 12y ago
      Doesn't the setup of that incentive strike you as perverse? Years of someone's life versus government operating expenses? If the goal were efficient government, there are much more straightforward ways to achieve that. If the defendant is guilty and deserves the punishment they stand to receive at trial, then the prosecutor is doing society a disservice by letting them off easy for expedience. On the other hand, if the plea sentence is adequate punishment/rehabilitation/etc, then why are they being threatened with a much larger sentence? It seems to me that the feedback loop on sentences operates on the time specific criminals spend in jail being deemed too short during campaign season. As such, the plea sentence (ie "worst case") reflects what society deems appropriate (modulo the problems with democracy). Everything above the offered plea really is just an added threat to encourage a defendant to forgo the trial and submit to the judgment of the prosecutor. If the case is really so open-and-shut, then it should not take terribly long for a proper court to see so as well.

vqc 12y ago

I don't think this is a fair assessment. According to this http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas-remains-at-the-top-for-patent-lawsuits-5728614.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/East-Texas-..., at least 95% of patent cases in ED Tex are settled or dismissed before getting to trial.

talmand 12y ago
Is that because there is actual infringement of a valid patent or the patent holder is offering a settlement that's lower than the court costs to attack the patent?
- vqc 12y ago
  There are a lot of possible reasons. There are a huge number of ways one party can "win" before a trial. And even if both parties make it past all those hurdles, no one will want to go to trial unless they are absolutely sure they will win: the cost of an adverse jury finding is too gigantic. All of this is to say, it is not the case that the legal system is gung-ho about giving juries complex IP issues while simultaneously avoiding juries for "easier to understand" criminal matters.