Yikes!

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/

Public Enemy

From the jury selection process that took place over three days in June for the trial of Martin Shkreli, an investor and hedge fund founder who is facing eight counts of securities and wire fraud. In 2015, when Shkreli was CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company raised the price of its drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent. In 2016, Shkreli was widely criticized for defending the 400 percent increase in the price of EpiPen, an emergency allergy injection sold by Mylan. More than two hundred potential jurors were excused from the trial. Judge Kiyo Matsumoto presided. Benjamin Brafman is a lawyer representing Shkreli.

the court: The purpose of jury selection is to ensure fairness and impartiality in this case. If you think that you could not be fair and impartial, it is your duty to tell me. All right. Juror Number 1.

juror no. 1: I’m aware of the defendant and I hate him.

benjamin brafman: I’m sorry.

juror no. 1: I think he’s a greedy little man.

the court: Jurors are obligated to decide the case based only on the evidence. Do you agree?

juror no. 1: I don’t know if I could. I wouldn’t want me on this jury.

the court: Juror Number 1 is excused. Juror Number 18.

juror no. 18: Both of my parents are on prescriptions that have gone up over the past few months, so much that they can’t afford their drugs. I have several friends who have H.I.V. or AIDS who, again, can’t afford the prescription drugs that they were able to afford.

the court: These charges don’t concern drug pricing. Could you decide this case based only on the evidence —

juror no. 18: No. No.

the court: — presented at this trial and put aside anything you might have heard in the media?

juror no. 18: No. No.

the court: Sir, we are going to excuse you from this panel. Juror Number 25, come forward, please.

juror no. 25: This is the price-gouging, right, of drugs?

the court: This case has nothing to do with drugs.

juror no. 25: My kids use those drugs.

the court: As I said, the case does not concern anything that you might have read or heard about the pricing of certain pharmaceuticals.

juror no. 25: It affects my opinion of him.

the court: I am going to excuse you. Juror Number 40. Come on up, sir.

juror no. 40: I’m taking prescription medication. I would be upset if it went up by a thousand percent. I saw the testimony on TV to Congress and I saw his face on the news last night. By the time I came in and sat down and he turned around, I felt immediately I was biased.

the court: Sir, we are going to excuse you. Juror Number 47, please come up.

juror no. 47: He’s the most hated man in America. In my opinion, he equates with Bernie Madoff with the drugs for pregnant women going from $15 to $750. My parents are in their eighties. They’re struggling to pay for their medication. My mother was telling me yesterday how my father’s cancer drug is $9,000 a month.

the court: The case is going to come before you on evidence that you must consider fairly and with an open mind.

juror no. 47: I would find that difficult.

the court: And that’s based on your parents’ experience with medication?

juror no. 47: It’s based on people working very hard for their money. He defrauded his company and his investors, and that’s not right.

the court: Ma’am, we’re going to excuse you. Juror Number 52, how are you?

juror no. 52: When I walked in here today I looked at him, and in my head, that’s a snake — not knowing who he was. I just walked in and looked right at him and that’s a snake.

brafman: So much for the presumption of innocence.

the court: We will excuse Juror Number 52. Juror Number 67?

juror no. 67: The fact that he raised the price of that AIDS medication, like, such an amount of money disgusts me. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to forget that. Who does that, puts profit and self-interest ahead of anything else? So it’s not a far stretch that he could do what he’s accused of.

the court: Please go to the jury room and tell them you have been excused. Juror Number 70.

juror no. 70: I have total disdain for the man. When you go back to how he was able to put so many children —

the court: You have negative feelings?

juror no. 70: Very.

the court: Would those feelings prevent you from being fair to both sides in this case?

juror no. 70: I can be fair to one side but not the other.

the court: We will excuse you from this jury. Juror Number 77.

juror no. 77: From everything I’ve seen on the news, everything I’ve read, I believe the defendant is the face of corporate greed in America.

brafman: We would object.

juror no. 77: You’d have to convince me he was innocent rather than guilty.

the court: I will excuse this juror. Hello, Juror Number 125.

juror no. 125: I’ve read extensively about Martin’s shameful past and his ripping off sick people and it hits close to me. I have a mother with epilepsy, a grandmother with Alzheimer’s, and a brother with multiple sclerosis. I think somebody that’s dealt in those things deserves to go to jail.

the court: Just to be clear, he’s not being charged with anything relating to the pricing of pharmaceuticals.

juror no. 125: I understand that, but I already sense the man is guilty.

the court: Well, I’m going to excuse you. Juror Number 144, tell us what you have heard.

juror no. 144: I heard through the news of how the defendant changed the price of a pill by up-selling it. I heard he bought an album from the Wu-Tang Clan for a million dollars.

the court: The question is, have you heard anything that would affect your ability to decide this case with an open mind. Can you do that?

juror no. 144: I don’t think I can because he kind of looks like a dick.

the court: You are Juror Number 144 and we will excuse you. Come forward, Juror Number 155.

juror no. 155: I have read a lot of articles about the case. I think he is as guilty as they come.

the court: Then I will excuse you from this case. Juror Number 10, please come forward.

juror no. 10: The only thing I’d be impartial about is what prison this guy goes to.

the court: Okay. We will excuse you. Juror 28, do you need to be heard?

juror no. 28: I don’t like this person at all. I just can’t understand why he would be so stupid as to take an antibiotic which H.I.V. people need and jack it up five thousand percent. I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there —

the court: Sir, thank you.

juror no. 28: Is he stupid or greedy? I can’t understand.

the court: We will excuse you. Juror 41, are you coming up?

juror no. 41: I was looking yesterday in the newspaper and I saw the defendant. There was something about him. I can’t be fair. There was something that didn’t look right.

the court: All right. I’m going to excuse you. Juror Number 59, come on up.

juror no. 59: Your Honor, totally he is guilty and in no way can I let him slide out of anything because —

the court: Okay. Is that your attitude toward anyone charged with a crime who has not been proven guilty?

juror no. 59: It’s my attitude toward his entire demeanor, what he has done to people.

the court: All right. We are going to excuse you, sir.

juror no. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.

quote:

juror no. 52: When I walked in here today I looked at him, and in my head, that’s a snake — not knowing who he was. I just walked in and looked right at him and that’s a snake.

brafman: So much for the presumption of innocence.

It sounds like Brafman and Shkreli are cut from the same cloth - snarky and disdainful of anyone outside their rarefied circles.

The defense should have gone for a bench trial.

Voir dire should have been conducted in chambers.

quote:

Voir dire should have been conducted in chambers.

I guess inquiring minds want to know. Does have entertainment value though.

They say Karma gets you in the end. I hope he gets a large, horny cellmate named Karma,

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

Voir dire should have been conducted in chambers.

I guess inquiring minds want to know. Does have entertainment value though.

Voir dire is the process of asking a prospective juror one or more questions to determine if they would be a fair and impartial juror. Historically, all questions were done, like in this case, in front of the entire jury pool and the public. However, now there is a trend to move most questions into the judge's chambers (office) so as to preserve the prospective juror's privacy, promote their desire to be more candid and prevent jurors from "teaching" each outher what to say to get out of serving. I would wager good money that several of those responses were planed so as to get out of being on the panel.

quote:

However, now there is a trend to move most questions into the judge's chambers (office) so as to preserve the prospective juror's privacy, promote their desire to be more candid and prevent jurors from "teaching" each outher what to say to get out of serving. I would wager good money that several of those responses were planed so as to get out of being on the panel.

It makes sense to me to have it in Chambers. When they introduced cameras into the courtroom it changed things in my opinion, and NOT in a positive way. It did allow the public to understand more about the judicial process but it had the effect of changing the process. I am curious as to why jurors did not complete written questionnaires prior to the Voir Dire. Am I missing something..?

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
It makes sense to me to have it in Chambers. When they introduced cameras into the courtroom it changed things in my opinion, and NOT in a positive way. It did allow the public to understand more about the judicial process but it had the effect of changing the process. I am curious as to why jurors did not complete written questionnaires prior to the Voir Dire. Am I missing something..?

The 2 times I served on jury duty the judge asked several basic questions like "Do you know the defendant, do you know the lawyers involved, do you know the investigators". Basic things like that. After anyone was weeded out, the pool selected to potentially hear the case were then questioned by the lawyers on each side, who could strike a certain number jurors each.

I'm sure the processes could be different in different jurisdictions, but that's the way it was done around here.

quote:

juror no. 70: I can be fair to one side but not the other.

I am not sure whether this person was a professional comedian, but definitely not juror material.

Who uses profanity in a court of law during an official proceeding? Juror number whatever said what's-his-name looks like a "dick". Juror should be excused just for being an idiot, not for their bias.

I guess that's just par for the course up in that Hell hole of NYC.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Who uses profanity in a court of law during an official proceeding? Juror number whatever said what's-his-name looks like a "dick". Juror should be excused just for being an idiot, not for their bias.

I guess that's just par for the course up in that Hell hole of NYC.

Unfortunately, you see it everywhere. I have personally witnessed a judge being called a "punk a$$ Ki@@ Jew" and another one being called a "punk ass mother fuck$$" by defendants.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
Voir dire should have been conducted in chambers.

36 Chambers?



Because, you know:



Or, perhaps, in this case:

It's one thing for some thug being sent up the river to do it. It's quite another for a citizen who has been summoned to court, not to face charges or as an unwilling witness, but rather, as a vital instrument in our legal process.

It's astonishingly disrespectful, and in my book, anyone who would casually do such a thing in a court of law is nothing more than stupid, uncultured trash, and they should be excused in that basis.

There have been cases when I might have liked to have some stupid, uncultured trash on the jury because that would make them sympathetic to my client.

I have been through jury selection 3 times. The first 2 times, I was excused immediately. In fact, the second time, I was excused the second my first foot landed within the jury box. It was so fast, even the judge laughed. But, the 3rd time was in Alameda County, home to SF's favorite cities of Berkeley and Oakland. I was confident, based on my past, that I would be released soon. As I watched to parade of clowns, misfits and miscreants get dismissed, I realized that I may be, in fact, one of the few left standing. As it turns out, I was, and I served on the jury simply because I refused to stoop to the behavior of the other potential jurors. Didn't work out for the defendant, guilty on the most serious 2 of his 3 charges, and I am proud to say I had a significant influence during deliberations that lead to his conviction.

Some of the excused jurors were just un-suitable, not by their overt effort to get off the jury, but merely by who they were. Alcoholics, drug users, etc. Then, there were the bad attitudes. I wish the judge had let a few of those cool their heels in jail for a day, just so they could re-think their behavior in court, instead of being rewarded for it.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
There have been cases when I might have liked to have some stupid, uncultured trash on the jury because that would make them sympathetic to my client.

That says a lot about your profession.

I'm not talking about the lawyers or their oftimes shaky ethics and skewed outlook on the world. I'm talking about private citizens appearing before a judge in voir dire and talking like that. It's disrespectful and they should know better and act accordingly, but they can't if they're stupid and uncultured.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
That says a lot about your profession.

I'm not talking about the lawyers or their oftimes shaky ethics and skewed outlook on the world.

No it doesn't, it says a lot about how people make decisions, and my job is to forecast which decision makers (jurors) will favor my client. Sometimes that is the less cultured and less educated among us.

Blanket insults are not called for.

I agree that using that language to the court is rude. But if it offers me useful information, I owe my client the duty to use it for his benefit. My duty is not to make sure the courtroom is maintained under a strict sense of decorum.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
My duty is not to make sure the courtroom is maintained under a strict sense of decorum.

You are the one who brought lawyers into this. I was talking about the court, the judge, and private citizen during voir dire, and you felt the need to interject yourself and your profession into it. Read what I posted. Show me where I said anything about lawyers until you piped up.

I brought lawyers into a thread about criminal trials and jury selection? That isn't a stretch.