Another sure sign that parody and satire are dead.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...ge-what-is-a-senator

Senator Menendez Juror Asks Trial Judge: ‘What Is a Senator?’

On their first full day of jury deliberations at the bribery trial of Senator Robert Menendez, a juror asked the judge a basic question: What is a senator?

U.S. District Judge William Walls declined to answer the question, and he refused that juror’s request for a transcript of Monday’s closing argument by Menendez’s attorney, Abbe Lowell. The panel had returned to the Newark federal courthouse Tuesday, after spending about 75 minutes deliberating the day before following summations by Lowell and a rebuttal argument by a prosecutor. Walls told jurors that they should rely on their individual and collective memories to determine how to define a senator and what was in the transcript.

The New Jersey Democrat is accused of taking bribes from Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen in the form of private jet travel, a Paris vacation and campaign contributions in exchange for pushing the doctor’s business interests at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Defense lawyers say they were just favors among good friends.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BamaJeepster,

Well, our “justice” system makes it clear that the more ignorant someone is of anything meaningful, the more suited he is for jury duty. Sounds like this guy is close to perfect.

God almighty.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
God almighty.

Some of the Senators think they are, but not exactly.

A jury of your peers? Wow, just wow!

I get the question by a dumb person asking for the definition of a senator (I have worked with Naval Aviators )but could one of our legal beagles here explain why the closing arguments' transcript would not be provided?

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
A jury of your peers? Wow, just wow!

Is that standing or squatting?

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I get the question by a dumb person asking for the definition of a senator (I have worked with Naval Aviators )but could one of our legal beagles here explain why the closing arguments' transcript would not be provided?

Opening and closing arguments are just that - arguments. The jury is supposed to weigh the evidence or ask for the judge's instructions, not examine the words or arguments of the lawyers.

Senator - a player on the professional baseball team based in Washington, DC from 1901 to 1960.

Doesn't surprise me.

I sat on a jury once, defendant was accused of possessing a short barreled shotgun (among other charges) because it was found in his backpack, in his car. By found I mean he told detectives it was his and where it was when they were searching his car.

One of my fellow jurors, during deliberations and after he had confessed to everything on the stand, asked the judge what the definition of possession was.

Multiple attorneys have told me that voir dire (jury selection) is the most difficult skill of trial to master.

You are not selecting for people you want on the jury, you are selecting against people you do not want. Often this takes the form of bias hunting. Intellectual capacity and education take a back seat to whether someone can objectively view the evidence. There's a lottery aspect to it too, in that when you eliminate a potential jurist another one takes that seat in the box. But you have no guarantee that the replacement will be smarter, less biased, or pay better attention than the one you just booted.

I have never heard an attorney say that he got all the jurors he wanted.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I get the question by a dumb person asking for the definition of a senator (I have worked with Naval Aviators )but could one of our legal beagles here explain why the closing arguments' transcript would not be provided?

1) Because it’s argument, not evidence.

2) Because even if it were testimonial (which it’s not), the jurors in most jurisdictions are charged with relying on their own memories and/or notes taken during testimony to evaluate the testimonial evidence. (Primarily for the reason that you observe a lot more from watching and listening than you do from reading words on a page.)

-Rob

part of closing argument from defense:

"Gifts to cultivate friendship are not bribes."

Now the question about "senator" sounds crazy, but there is one possible context. Dr Melgen is from Florida. During the trial there was discussion about the NJ senator being interested in helping all Americans

(okay, that's not very convincing. still sounds crazy)

Menendez is guilty. Let's hope the jury delivers justice

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
Multiple attorneys have told me that voir dire (jury selection) is the most difficult skill of trial to master.

You are not selecting for people you want on the jury, you are selecting against people you do not want. Often this takes the form of bias hunting. Intellectual capacity and education take a back seat to whether someone can objectively view the evidence. There's a lottery aspect to it too, in that when you eliminate a potential jurist another one takes that seat in the box. But you have no guarantee that the replacement will be smarter, less biased, or pay better attention than the one you just booted.

I have never heard an attorney say that he got all the jurors he wanted.

Edward Bennett Williams the Washington DC trial lawyer who rose to prominence handling white collar criminal cases, died in 1988. The NY Times obit carried this:

quote:

Mr. Williams was also admired as an uncommonly shrewd judge of human nature, one who eschewed the use of sociological or psychological studies to pick a jury. ''I have never taken more than a half day to select a jury, and I have never lost a case because I didn't have time to pick a jury,'' he said. ''I think this is one of the shortcomings of our criminal justice system - judges tolerate too much in the jury selection process.''

Williams almost never lost a trial. The key was very thorough preparation, and a photographic memory. It was said him that it was about as likely that the prosecutor would be found guilty as Williams’ client.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
Multiple attorneys have told me that voir dire (jury selection) is the most difficult skill of trial to master.

You are not selecting for people you want on the jury, you are selecting against people you do not want. Often this takes the form of bias hunting. Intellectual capacity and education take a back seat to whether someone can objectively view the evidence. There's a lottery aspect to it too, in that when you eliminate a potential jurist another one takes that seat in the box. But you have no guarantee that the replacement will be smarter, less biased, or pay better attention than the one you just booted.

I have never heard an attorney say that he got all the jurors he wanted.

Edward Bennett Williams the Washington DC trial lawyer who rose to prominence handling white collar criminal cases, died in 1988. The NY Times obit carried this:

quote:

Mr. Williams was also admired as an uncommonly shrewd judge of human nature, one who eschewed the use of sociological or psychological studies to pick a jury. ''I have never taken more than a half day to select a jury, and I have never lost a case because I didn't have time to pick a jury,'' he said. ''I think this is one of the shortcomings of our criminal justice system - judges tolerate too much in the jury selection process.''

Williams almost never lost a trial. The key was very thorough preparation, and a photographic memory. It was said him that it was about as likely that the prosecutor would be found guilty as Williams’ client.

I agree that thorough preparation is key. In criminal cases especially, I belive voir dire and jury questionnaires are essential in selecting a fair and unbiased jury panel. I think the claim about jury selection is the height of hubris if Williams actually made the statement. That being said, I’ve never had jury selection go an entire day even in felony cases with complex and/or highly emotional charges. But, the jury questionnaire made the process easier and faster. To be fair, however, Williams died prior to CSI and the internet. We live and practice in a different world than he did.

I’ve come to appreciate that there are some individuals who have talents far, far above us ordinary mortals. When they are able to use those peculiar talents in the most efficient activities, they reach extraordinary levels of performance.

Judging by the several books I’ve read recently, Williams may have been one of these. There is no point in trying to do things like Williams did, any more than there is in trying to be Johnny Bench, or Tom Brady, or John Lennon.

Williams was representing some defendants in a gambling case. While he was in the midst of his 2 1/2-3 hour summation and final argument, one of the defendants nudged the other and said, “Hey, maybe we’re not guilty after all!”

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I’ve come to appreciate that there are some individuals who have talents far, far above us ordinary mortals. When they are able to use those peculiar talents in the most efficient activities, they reach extraordinary levels of performance.

”

That is a fair point.

Well, which ever defense lawyer let me on to their criminal assault jury sure as hell didn't know crap about picking jurors.

They pretty well fucked up with the rest of the jury, too.

This will be an interesting case. I think Menendez is dirty as hell, but I also think that the prosecution's case sucks. For the most part, the law tries to tie a payment to a particular result, or action. In this case, there is no indication that any particular "gift" Melgen made was related to any particular piece of official action or inaction on the part of Menendez.

It's more like a bought and paid for relationship, rather than a bribe for a particular favor. Which is to say, how is it unlike everything else that happens in Washington, or Tallahassee, or any other capital city in the US. Every politician needs cash to get elected. Most of them have large donors. Most of them pay particular attention to what those large donors want from a law, policy, and favor standpoint. If a donor can get a politician or one of their senior staffers to answer the phone, they are going to ask for favors; help getting a passport expedited, assistance with an IRS problem, a visa for a "friend", quick EPA clearance, no antitrust problem when they buy a competitor, or just a "tip" that some company is going to get a massive defense contract.

It's endemic. And if Menendez is guilty, so is most of the rest of Washington.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I get the question by a dumb person asking for the definition of a senator (I have worked with Naval Aviators )but could one of our legal beagles here explain why the closing arguments' transcript would not be provided?

Because the arguments are not evidence, it's just each sides interpretation of the evidence. Juries may only consider evidence.