Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff you should know, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's
Speaker 2: Chuck and Jerry's hanging out too, if she exists, and
Speaker 2: this is stuff you should know.
Speaker 1: That's right, And as he briefly saw, I'm in my
Speaker 1: new studio. Fun episode number one after all these years,
Speaker 1: a fresh start.
Speaker 2: That's very nice. So let's mark this occasion jury Jury's
Speaker 2: is the first episode in your new studio.
Speaker 1: That's right, and it's funny. My chair, I ordered a
Speaker 1: special little like chair for my new studio that matched
Speaker 1: the rest of it.
Speaker 2: Then it's red velvet like the rest of your study.
Speaker 1: It's close and it it arrived fifteen minutes ago.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, Like is it all in one piece? Are
Speaker 2: you sitting in it?
Speaker 1: Or yeah? It was all in one piece, thankfully. And
Speaker 1: the guy dropped it on the porch and I was like,
Speaker 1: you're just in time, and he went for what I
Speaker 1: was like, never mind, and I took it downstairs and
Speaker 1: like like I haven't even farted in it yet.
Speaker 2: Oh boy, well make sure you do during this first episode.
Speaker 1: It's fresh as a daisy.
Speaker 2: Let everybody know when you do, too, Okay, I will
Speaker 2: all right, Chuck, have you ever been on a jury? No.
Speaker 1: I think we've talked about this at some point. But
Speaker 1: I was called once only believe it or not, at
Speaker 1: my advanced age, and that was only a couple of
Speaker 1: years ago. And that thing where you know you can
Speaker 1: call in and they can say don't come. I called
Speaker 1: in and they said you gotta come, right, So I
Speaker 1: got to that next step where I go down there
Speaker 1: and in person, and then I actually got brought into
Speaker 1: a courtroom and it was a last second, like we settled,
Speaker 1: you can go home. Oh really, I was really close.
Speaker 1: I was like, all right, this is finally gonna happen.
Speaker 2: So is that something you want to do? And let
Speaker 2: me ask you this, would your answer now be different
Speaker 2: than it was before you research this?
Speaker 1: Maybe because I used to definitely not want to, and
Speaker 1: now I totally would want to, as long as it
Speaker 1: didn't screw up our work and our recording stuff, because
Speaker 1: that would really be awful.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we could make it work, though, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't know what if you get on one of those
Speaker 2: where you're like sequestered for a month, I don't know,
Speaker 2: We'll have to bring in told And I guess is
Speaker 2: the temporary sit in. No, I've been called once and
Speaker 2: I had just moved to a different county, Okay, and
Speaker 2: called and told them that, and they were like, go
Speaker 2: to hell, really, And I took that to mean I
Speaker 2: shouldn't come in.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, I thought you meant go to hell, like nice,
Speaker 1: try buddy, get in here anyway.
Speaker 2: No, it meant the opposite of that. And I was
Speaker 2: surprised that a government official, even at county level, would
Speaker 2: say something like that, right, But that's that's what happened.
Speaker 1: This is a banger of an article by Livia Though.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's about juris everything you ever want to know
Speaker 2: about juris, And there's actually a lot to know about jurys.
Speaker 2: It's not just like the process of juries. It's actually
Speaker 2: kind of pretty light as far as like understanding goes.
Speaker 2: But there's a lot about juris culturally, and if you
Speaker 2: step back and really think about what juries do. Our
Speaker 2: entire legal system, or the basis of our legal system,
Speaker 2: is largely predicated on twelve random people who have no expertise,
Speaker 2: typically in law or law enforcement or anything like that,
Speaker 2: are asked to sit down and hear the facts of
Speaker 2: a case that can be highly technical sometimes and then
Speaker 2: decide a person's guilt or innocence, sometimes to the degree
Speaker 2: that they will spend the rest of their life in
Speaker 2: jail or be put to death. Well again, zero training,
Speaker 2: zero experience. On one hand, it seems like total madness
Speaker 2: that we would do this, but if you really look
Speaker 2: at the reasoning behind it, it's saying like, we couldn't.
Speaker 2: This is so important, We wouldn't entrust it to a bureaucracy.
Speaker 2: We have to entrust it to your peers, to other
Speaker 2: people who could be in the same exact position that you,
Speaker 2: the defendant, are in someday, and we just need them
Speaker 2: to take things a little more seriously than usual and
Speaker 2: render a verdict.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it is a little scary when you
Speaker 1: think about it, but it also, as Livia points out
Speaker 1: kind of right away, it's really heartening that on the whole,
Speaker 1: like most people want to do a good job, and
Speaker 1: then they go in there and try to do a
Speaker 1: good job. I mean, you hear random news stories occasionally
Speaker 1: about these people that get on there that do something
Speaker 1: really stupid, either in the press or just period, and
Speaker 1: those are fewer and further between. I think when most
Speaker 1: people get on there, they're like, all right, this is
Speaker 1: like kind of a solemn duty almost that mayan country
Speaker 1: min my country entrusted me, and why I should try
Speaker 1: and do a good job as a citizen. Most people
Speaker 1: behave that way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I get the impression that people don't go
Speaker 2: into it necessarily thinking like that. But once you're in
Speaker 2: there and it's real and you're sitting in a courtroom.
Speaker 1: Like, I can't be the screw up right exactly exactly.
Speaker 2: You want to just kind of blend in, and to
Speaker 2: blend in you have to act real legal legal.
Speaker 1: I would have a hard time just with you know,
Speaker 1: I was a real class clown and you've seen me,
Speaker 1: and like when we used to have the big roundtable meetings,
Speaker 1: I just have a really hard time not cracking jokes, right,
Speaker 1: So that would the whole thing would be tough for me.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I could see a witness kind of like half
Speaker 2: tripping on the way to the witness box and you'd
Speaker 2: be like, boy, you're going. Then it's just dead silence
Speaker 2: in the courtroom after that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's me.
Speaker 2: So to kind of go back to the beginning, jurys
Speaker 2: are actually fairly old and they find their roots as
Speaker 2: at least as far as the United States legal system
Speaker 2: back in England, because the United States was birthed through
Speaker 2: the birth canal of the Atlantic Ocean out of the
Speaker 2: womb of England.
Speaker 1: That's right. And in twelve fifteen, the old Magna Carta
Speaker 1: said that you know what a free man. Of course
Speaker 1: those were the words I use back then, but a
Speaker 1: free person could not be imprisoned except by a judgment
Speaker 1: of his peers. And as far as modern sort of
Speaker 1: trials by jury that we could think of today, that
Speaker 1: basically started around the fifteenth century with the common law system,
Speaker 1: and before that it was just a bit of a hodgepodge.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's where twelve people who are called to
Speaker 2: hear the facts of the case, like we think of
Speaker 2: jury's today, like you said, but there were something similar
Speaker 2: for the few hundred years before that. I think in
Speaker 2: our Judicial Decisions episode we talked about King Henry the Second,
Speaker 2: who basically came to powers like Okay, this is kind
Speaker 2: of crazy, We're going to come up with one legal
Speaker 2: system for the whole country. Something that came out of
Speaker 2: that was the process of finding people who maybe like
Speaker 2: knew about a crime, who were witnesses to it, and
Speaker 2: it usually assembled up to about twelve honest people giving
Speaker 2: their kind of deposition and or rendering a judgment on it,
Speaker 2: and then all they could find maybe, I guess so
Speaker 2: out of like all those people that are only twelve
Speaker 2: honest with me, right well, they didn't say sober, they
Speaker 2: just said honest. Good point so, and from the very
Speaker 2: outset in the United States, even prior to it being
Speaker 2: the United States been in the colonies. We did another
Speaker 2: episode on America's first murderer, IRA back in the day,
Speaker 2: we actually meant United States first murderer.
Speaker 1: It was John Billington, right yeah, And this was you know,
Speaker 1: the Pilgrims at Plymouth basically said right away that we're
Speaker 1: going to do this new jury thing and it didn't
Speaker 1: take long. Sixteen thirty the first due that we know
Speaker 1: of at least killed somebody and was tried by jury
Speaker 1: for willful murder. I'm sorry to say, yeah, it is
Speaker 1: by plain and notorious evidence. And then there's a few
Speaker 1: amendments in the Constitution that grant trial by jury as
Speaker 1: a right. One is the sixth for criminal cases, the
Speaker 1: seventh for most civil cases, federal civil cases, that is.
Speaker 1: And even then it's not you know, we'll get into
Speaker 1: all this. It gets a little different with civil cases.
Speaker 1: And then the old grand jury, which we're also going
Speaker 1: to talk about, is for capital crimes or maybe an
Speaker 1: infamous crime, and that is covered by the fifth right.
Speaker 2: So you typically are considered to have a right to
Speaker 2: a jury, but not in every single case, like if
Speaker 2: it's not particularly I guess egregious case or a case
Speaker 2: where you could be convicted of anything less than six months,
Speaker 2: you can misdemeanor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great way to put but not all misdemeanors even.
Speaker 2: No, no, because you can get more than six months
Speaker 2: for some misdemeanors, trust me, but they but they typically are.
Speaker 2: They don't give you necessarily a jury for that. Also,
Speaker 2: if there's certain courts like drug courts, mental health courts,
Speaker 2: they're not meant to be adversarial. They're meant to be like,
Speaker 2: let's come together and figure out the best way to
Speaker 2: support this person to get them back on the straight
Speaker 2: and narrow, or to help them with their mental health,
Speaker 2: which apparently is not being addressed because they landed in
Speaker 2: this court. Those don't necessarily have juries. They almost never do.
Speaker 2: And the same with juvenile courts because they're not really
Speaker 2: supposed to be adversarial either. Unless a child has really
Speaker 2: screwed up and they're being tried as an adult, then
Speaker 2: they do have a right to a jury probably every
Speaker 2: single time, because if you're a juvenile being tried as
Speaker 2: an adult, it's probably a pretty big offense that you're
Speaker 2: being tried for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is that even considered juvenile courts like in that building.
Speaker 2: No, I know, it's just like a kid is now
Speaker 2: in the adult system.
Speaker 1: That's right. You can also say, you know what, I
Speaker 1: waved my right to a jury trial, don't want one.
Speaker 1: I want to go with the bench trial, which means
Speaker 1: you want your judge to basically kind of handle the
Speaker 1: whole thing, like whether or not you're guilty or innocent,
Speaker 1: and we'll get up we'll get into the ins and
Speaker 1: out to that a little bit later. But the judge
Speaker 1: also is going to handle handle the sentencing. In the
Speaker 1: case of almost everything, it's you know, the jury they're
Speaker 1: going to say, like, you know, what should this person
Speaker 1: serve because the jury probably be like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: you tell me. Except for and this is a really
Speaker 1: thorny kind of place here, capital punishment cases, the jury
Speaker 1: decides whether or not to impose the death sentence, which
Speaker 1: is I mean, I knew that, but it's to read
Speaker 1: it and to sort of really let that sink in
Speaker 1: is a lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, you said, we'll talk a little more
Speaker 2: about why you would want a bench trial. But under
Speaker 2: normal circumstances in a criminal case, there's two kinds of
Speaker 2: juris right. They're called the petty jury p E T
Speaker 2: I T like pettiphores, and then there's the grand jury.
Speaker 2: And it doesn't mean one's more important than the other.
Speaker 2: It's literally a reference to the number of jurors involved.
Speaker 1: Petit.
Speaker 2: I heard a legal person say petty. A couple of
Speaker 2: legal people say petty. Don't you say petty four?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you also say petit for small as in
Speaker 1: that grand.
Speaker 2: Yes, but there's usually an E on the end. There's
Speaker 2: no E on the end of this one, you know
Speaker 2: what I'm saying. So with a petty jury, you usually
Speaker 2: have twelve six for a civil case. A grand jury
Speaker 2: can have up to like in the twenties of a lot. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: for sure. It's a lot of people you have to
Speaker 2: go through and ask what their opinion is, you know, yeah,
Speaker 2: and pretend you care.
Speaker 1: And then you know it kind of varies between. You know,
Speaker 1: you have to have at least six for the federal
Speaker 1: civil juries, but that number can go up, and then
Speaker 1: the grand jury, which is a different kind of jury,
Speaker 1: And maybe we should just do one in grand juries
Speaker 1: by itself at some point, because I think it's pretty fascinating.
Speaker 1: But a grand jury isn't saying you're guilty or you're
Speaker 1: innocent of a crime. A grand jury says, hey, prosecutor,
Speaker 1: we think there is probable cause here, there's enough here,
Speaker 1: somebody can you should go indict this person, and it's
Speaker 1: still not illegal. It's just like a recommendation for indictment, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And they may also say, hey, this is not this
Speaker 2: is a pretty weak case. You should not indict this person,
Speaker 2: or they might actually the prosecutor might not be able
Speaker 2: to indict the person. I'm not one hundred percent sure
Speaker 2: if the grand jury says no, but their their role
Speaker 2: is and that's also a really ancient institution, the grand jury. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but their role is to basically cover people who may
Speaker 2: not have been even convicted of a crime, but the
Speaker 2: crime is serious that if they were publicly matched as
Speaker 2: a possible suspect, their life could be ruined, their reputation
Speaker 2: to be ruined. It affords that level of protection. It's
Speaker 2: also I guess we didn't say grand jury proceedings are
Speaker 2: totally secret. There's a prosecutor, the grand jurors, and a
Speaker 2: court reporter who's sworn to secrecy, and everything that goes
Speaker 2: on in there. Everybody who comes in or goes out,
Speaker 2: it's all very secret. And so one of the ways
Speaker 2: that grand jury is often used is to protect timid
Speaker 2: witnesses who might otherwise not give testimony. If you have
Speaker 2: undercover cops who have to give testimony, that's a really
Speaker 2: great place for them to do that. And then also
Speaker 2: again to just basically hear whether the prosecutor is a
Speaker 2: good enough case to indict the person or not. And then,
Speaker 2: like you said, it may go on to an actual
Speaker 2: jury trial, and those the jury trial is different in
Speaker 2: that those people are there to hear the facts of
Speaker 2: the case that is being tried against this person. They've
Speaker 2: been indicted, they're now being tried for this offense. And
Speaker 2: then the judge in that case. In a jury, they're
Speaker 2: just the legal referee. They're just hey, they're just pointing
Speaker 2: out like, okay, you're allowed to do this, you're not
Speaker 2: allowed to do that. They don't have anything to do
Speaker 2: with the facts of the case. They're just the ref
Speaker 2: The jury is the one hearing the facts of the
Speaker 2: case and rendering a verdict based on that right.
Speaker 1: So, oh man, that was good. You need to breeze
Speaker 1: if you have been accused of a federal felony, because
Speaker 1: you remember, there's state courts, there's federal courts, and the
Speaker 1: rules are different for both, although you know a lot
Speaker 1: of times they're also the same. But if you were
Speaker 1: accused of a federal felony, then you definitely have the
Speaker 1: right to the grand jury, but you can waive that.
Speaker 1: And then state courts also have their state grand juries,
Speaker 1: except for Connecticut and Pennsylvania or the two states that
Speaker 1: don't use grand juries for criminal indictments in their state.
Speaker 1: And then if you're on a jury, they used to
Speaker 1: call it the foreman. Of course they're getting with the
Speaker 1: times and now they call it a four person it's basically,
Speaker 1: uh kind of like the referee or manager of the jurors,
Speaker 1: and they're the ones in the room that voted on,
Speaker 1: usually by the jury members. Sometimes they're chosen by the judge,
Speaker 1: but more often than not seeing jury members, you know,
Speaker 1: voting very early on in the proceedings, after everyone learns
Speaker 1: the various personalities, and this is the person that they're
Speaker 1: kind of running the room when everyone's sitting around and talking.
Speaker 1: If people are getting out of line, they're like, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, we need to calm down. Clap loudly, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we need to figure this thing out. If they you
Speaker 1: represent the voice of the jury. So you're the one
Speaker 1: that's going to stand up and say guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 1: You're going to be dealing with the judge. Although you
Speaker 1: can request to individually see the judge. Any member of
Speaker 1: the jury.
Speaker 2: Can do that, right like the procedures, you just go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, judge, judge, hey, you're holding you.
Speaker 2: There's another big difference with a grand jury and a
Speaker 2: petty jury, and that is that a regular jury, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna stop calling petty jury, but a jury, they they
Speaker 2: sit through one trial and it can be anywhere from
Speaker 2: a day to a few days to months. Very rarely,
Speaker 2: I think I saw most trials last less than a week.
Speaker 2: A grand jury, you are seated for sometimes up to months,
Speaker 2: and you meet on a weekly basis to hear the
Speaker 2: different prosecutors' cases. So you're hearing multiple cases throughout a meeting,
Speaker 2: and then you're meeting multiple times over the course of months.
Speaker 2: So it's a it's a really different animal for sure, and.
Speaker 1: Also sequestered for that.
Speaker 2: No, you're not. You're sworn to secrecy, but you're not
Speaker 2: as far as I know, you're not. You're not sequestered.
Speaker 2: But because it's so involved and you're so it goes
Speaker 2: on for so long, it's typically made up of people
Speaker 2: who have a lot of like free time, like we're retired.
Speaker 2: People frequently make up like large proportions of grand juries
Speaker 2: and things like that. Yeah, no shade or anything like that.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, like, there's there's it's not necessarily a
Speaker 2: perfect representation of the community like a jury's supposed to be.
Speaker 2: But then again, I don't think any jury really is.
Speaker 1: Right, because you know, these are people that quote have
Speaker 1: time on their hands end quote.
Speaker 2: Right, it's five or fifteen. What are we gonna order dinner?
Speaker 1: All right, Uh, let's take a break. Ah, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk about to me, my most shocking stat
Speaker 1: in this episode. All right, we're back, and this shot me.
Speaker 1: I knew that trials happened less frequently than I probably thought,
Speaker 1: but I figured it was like, I don't know, half
Speaker 1: and half, maybe forty percent of the time you go
Speaker 1: to trial, sixty percent you cop a plea. I was
Speaker 1: newhere close, and we'll go by a couple of years here.
Speaker 1: Civil trials in nineteen sixty two in federal court, where
Speaker 1: twelve percent went to jury trial. Today federal civil dispositions
Speaker 1: are one percent. Yeah, and then criminal you think, well,
Speaker 1: criminal has got to be a lot more than that.
Speaker 1: In the early eighties, criminal court was about twenty percent,
Speaker 1: and now two percent of criminal cases go before a jury.
Speaker 1: And we're going to talk about all the reasons why,
Speaker 1: but the biggest reason is ninety percent of the time
Speaker 1: they take that plea deal. Eighty percent of the time
Speaker 1: the case is dismissed, and so you're down to two two.
Speaker 2: Yeah. State courts is very similar, although it varies from
Speaker 2: state to state, especially when it comes to civil lawsuits.
Speaker 2: But with civil trials in particular, probably the biggest reason
Speaker 2: why it's gone so far downhill as far as the
Speaker 2: number of cases that make it to trial is because
Speaker 2: there's the procedural rules of discovery have been established where
Speaker 2: you have to basically each side shows their hand. Discovery
Speaker 2: is so extensive and so sweeping that before you ever
Speaker 2: get to trial, you know exactly how weak or how
Speaker 2: strong your opponent's case is, so they don't actually even
Speaker 2: bother to go to trial. Once discovery is over and
Speaker 2: you see who's got the better case, then you move
Speaker 2: on to a settlement phase. Typically, if the settlement doesn't
Speaker 2: come to fruition, which it almost always does, they come
Speaker 2: to a negotiation and an agreement and that person pays
Speaker 2: that person. Again, this is a civil case. If it doesn't,
Speaker 2: if they can't come to an agreement, then it goes
Speaker 2: to trial. They almost always come to an agreement because
Speaker 2: one side is clearly almost always better off than the
Speaker 2: other side as far as legal standing goes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it's funny. I never thought about it
Speaker 1: until you said they have all their cards out. It'd
Speaker 1: be like a game of poker played face up right,
Speaker 1: You get dealt and they're like, why bother even playing
Speaker 1: this hand? Yeah, we know what you have. But I imagine
Speaker 1: sometimes even there are like you have poker players, there
Speaker 1: would be prosecutors or defendants that say, I'm really good
Speaker 1: at bluffing. I'd kind of like to go through with this.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, see see how I do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sure all the Morgan and Morgan people love
Speaker 2: to bluff, right, But it's kind of like, if you're
Speaker 2: going to use a poker analogy, it's almost like you
Speaker 2: would fax the other poker player that you just pull
Speaker 2: the jack of clubs essentially, you know, just little by little. Yeah,
Speaker 2: lawyers loved to fact, they love to bluff, they love
Speaker 2: to fax, and they love to drink until they get
Speaker 2: ruinously drunk every day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, in charge by the hour. The Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: encouraged summary judgments, so that's also kind of you know,
Speaker 1: sped things along. And then contracts. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: civil cases that are based around disputes like contract disputes,
Speaker 1: and a lot of contracts these days. Contracts these days.
Speaker 1: Why does it sound so wrong?
Speaker 2: It's so right though.
Speaker 1: It is though, they have like direct language in there
Speaker 1: that says hey, and especially when you're dealing with big corporations,
Speaker 1: they're very fond of saying like, hey, if if anything
Speaker 1: ever happens between us, you're signing something here that says
Speaker 1: that we don't have to go to jury trial because
Speaker 1: and we'll talk more about corporations, but Historically people aren't
Speaker 1: shy about sticking it to a corporation.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, corporations do not like to go in front
Speaker 2: of jury's But that contract thing, it's like you very
Speaker 2: frequently agree to goes to go to arbitration or mediation. Right.
Speaker 2: So that's the civil side, right Chuck. Yeah, Okay, so
Speaker 2: when it comes to the criminal side, it actually gets
Speaker 2: a lot darker because the the reason why so many
Speaker 2: people kap a plea ninety percent you said, kapp a
Speaker 2: plea is twofold one is they issued sentencing guidelines in
Speaker 2: the eighties that really like there's like you can really
Speaker 2: go to jail for a really long time for a
Speaker 2: variety of crimes. But they included a little plumb in
Speaker 2: there that said, if you quote accept responsibility for your
Speaker 2: crime and plead guilty, you're going to get a much
Speaker 2: lower sentence or lesser sentence. And here's what it is.
Speaker 2: So there's like a menu that prosecutors. If you ever
Speaker 2: watch Law and Order, they always do this, like every
Speaker 2: episode they'll tell you like what you can get if
Speaker 2: you go to trial, and then they'll tell you what
Speaker 2: they'll give you if you kop a plea. There's actually
Speaker 2: like guidelines that say that it's not necessarily like the
Speaker 2: prosecutor of the DA who's saying like, I don't know,
Speaker 2: let's say a month or something like that, there's guidelines
Speaker 2: for that. And so most people are like, I'm not
Speaker 2: gonna roll the dice here, because there is a study,
Speaker 2: Chuck that found that convictions after being tried, if you
Speaker 2: go to trial and you're convicted, you typically get five
Speaker 2: times greater the sentence than you do if you cop
Speaker 2: a plea deal. And believe me, the prosecutors are telling
Speaker 2: people that every single time.
Speaker 1: I have never seen Law and Order. What I bet you,
Speaker 1: I bet you anything. This is how they say it.
Speaker 1: If you plead, you'll get three to five maximum. But
Speaker 1: if you don't, and they always say this, you're staring
Speaker 1: at eight to ten. They always say you're staring.
Speaker 2: At They don't actually on Law and Order, but I
Speaker 2: could see where you were.
Speaker 1: I thought you always stared at a big sentence. What
Speaker 1: else are you gonna do?
Speaker 2: They say, you're looking down the barrel at That's what
Speaker 2: Law and Order is doing for U. Wait, wait, no,
Speaker 2: we can't go any further. I'm sorry, you've never seen
Speaker 2: an episode of Law and Order, not one, this show
Speaker 2: that's been around for literally thirty years.
Speaker 1: It doesn't ever seen it. It's been around, but it's
Speaker 1: so good, Chuck, I've never seen Judge Judy.
Speaker 2: All right, No, I mean just but it's not really good. Now.
Speaker 1: Just because it's been around doesn't mean I've seen it,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 2: No, that's true. If you add the fact that it's
Speaker 2: been around thirty years to the fact that it's been
Speaker 2: good for the majority of those thirty years, uh huh,
Speaker 2: then it's it's strange. I'm not saying like you're ridiculous
Speaker 2: for not having seen it. I'm just surprised.
Speaker 1: It's all sure well, or the very Lisa hasn't been on,
Speaker 1: like when emme at somewhere for Christmas vacation or something
Speaker 1: with a family member.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there is a stretch where I don't even know
Speaker 2: if A and E's still around, But there's a stretch
Speaker 2: where A and E showed basically nothing but Law and
Speaker 2: Order all day every day. Yeah, they would just play
Speaker 2: it like they started the first one and just play
Speaker 2: themsequentially and then start over when they got to the
Speaker 2: most recent one.
Speaker 1: Those are called the years that Chuck didn't watch A
Speaker 1: and E.
Speaker 2: Gotcha?
Speaker 1: The other thing that can cut down on some criminal
Speaker 1: cases sorry going to trial is that there's more pre
Speaker 1: trial detention these days. So somebody sitting around in jail
Speaker 1: waiting for a trial as much likelier to say, you know,
Speaker 1: I'd rather just go home and cop the plea.
Speaker 2: That's where it gets really dark, because pre trial detention
Speaker 2: is meant to protect the community from people who might
Speaker 2: otherwise comit another crime while they're on pre trial release,
Speaker 2: or if they're a flight risk and they may not
Speaker 2: show up at trial. That's it, but it seems to
Speaker 2: be used as a tool with prosecutors to lean on
Speaker 2: people to take a plea by saying you could be
Speaker 2: in here for months, for years before your your trial
Speaker 2: comes up, and they'll be like, well, I just I
Speaker 2: don't want to sit around that long, Let's just take
Speaker 2: the plea. That's that's pretty bad that they do that.
Speaker 2: And actually they found that if you are given pre
Speaker 2: trialed attention, you're three times likelier to take a plea
Speaker 2: than somebody who is not detained pre trial.
Speaker 1: Right, But the I mean that part makes sense, but
Speaker 1: are those people do they not qualify as one of
Speaker 1: the two reasons, I mean, like not.
Speaker 2: To somebody is convinced to judge that, but it doesn't
Speaker 2: necessarily mean that they are in every case. No, I
Speaker 2: don't think that if you really sat down and look
Speaker 2: case by case, that anywhere near one hundred percent of
Speaker 2: them are a flight risk or risk to the community necessarily.
Speaker 2: But that risk to the community in particular, that is
Speaker 2: so sweeping in scope that yeah, you can basically you
Speaker 2: could anybody who's who's convicted or not convicted but charged
Speaker 2: with the crime enough that they can keep you in
Speaker 2: jail until your trial. You can make a case as
Speaker 2: a threat to the community.
Speaker 1: Right, I got you. If you are chosen for a
Speaker 1: jury it's probably because you're either on a voter roll,
Speaker 1: you have paid taxes, or you drive a car and
Speaker 1: you have a driver's license. There's the old wives sale
Speaker 1: that if you don't register to vote, you're never going
Speaker 1: to get called for jury service. And that's not true.
Speaker 1: You got to be eighteen, you got to live you know,
Speaker 1: you got out because you didn't live in that county.
Speaker 1: You have to live in that judicial district for at
Speaker 1: least a year. And then as far as whether or
Speaker 1: not you need to be able to speak English, you
Speaker 1: have to be able to speak English enough to fill
Speaker 1: out your juror qualification forms. I would guess without help.
Speaker 1: Didn't say that, surely that would be my guess.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because they're not going to let your twelve year
Speaker 2: old daughter, American born daughter come to trial with you,
Speaker 2: you know, right, Although they do make accommodations for people
Speaker 2: with certain disabilities.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. If you're blind, if you are hard of hearing,
Speaker 2: they will provide an oral interpreter or a sign language
Speaker 2: interpreter for you. I read one lawyer talked about a
Speaker 2: case where juror had back problems, so they'll let her
Speaker 2: lay down for the entire trial. If you want to
Speaker 2: be on a jury, they will go to pretty great
Speaker 2: links to accommodate you to make sure you can. The
Speaker 2: thing is most people don't want to be on a jury,
Speaker 2: so there's all sorts of creative ways to get out
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 1: Would be mony of the judge was like, four, person,
Speaker 1: will you read the verdict? Then you just hear your voice.
Speaker 1: It's is like, all right, I'm getting up and you
Speaker 1: see somebody with bed ed rise from behind the jury box.
Speaker 1: What are some other means?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Here we go. If you have been convicted of a felony,
Speaker 1: and you haven't had your rights restored yet if you're
Speaker 1: currently charged with a felony. I think active military usually don't.
Speaker 1: If you're a cop or if you're a government official,
Speaker 1: maybe some other public employees might be exempt. If you're
Speaker 1: over seventy, a lot of times you can get out
Speaker 1: of it. If you've been on a jury in the
Speaker 1: past two years, you can probably get out of it.
Speaker 1: If you have a hardship, like you know, if you
Speaker 1: go in there and you're like, hey, listen, I can't
Speaker 1: miss work because I'm a single parent and I worked
Speaker 1: by the hour, and I literally wouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: put food on the table for my family, right. They
Speaker 1: consider stuff like that. Even though you do get paid,
Speaker 1: it's just almost always, it's just not very much. It's
Speaker 1: like thirty to fifty to sixty bucks a day.
Speaker 2: Now, and some employers will pay you for the time
Speaker 2: you're away. They should, they should, And I was trying
Speaker 2: to find which ones do. The only one I could
Speaker 2: find that stated it does is Amazon. But get this,
Speaker 2: they they doc you the pay that the government paid you.
Speaker 2: So like if you got paid fifty dollars a day,
Speaker 2: you get your regular pay minus fifty dollars the government.
Speaker 2: It's like, how much does it cost you even pay
Speaker 2: that much attention? You know, it's a little crazy, but
Speaker 2: they're the only ones who definitely say, yes, you don't
Speaker 2: lose any time, you don't lose any money. So hats
Speaker 2: off to them for that at least. But I thought
Speaker 2: that that was a little penny pinching if you ask me.
Speaker 1: It was. And you know, I get cases where it's
Speaker 1: like a small business, where it would create a legitimate hardship, yes,
Speaker 1: to pay someone for not being there. So I'm not
Speaker 1: just saying across the board, but if you're a big company,
Speaker 1: then you should not say sorry, go serve your civil
Speaker 1: duty and good luck paying your bills this month.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then you end up in court for stealing
Speaker 2: bread because you had to be on a jury and
Speaker 2: your job wouldn't pay you while you were.
Speaker 1: On said jury stealing bread.
Speaker 2: Turn into Jean val John.
Speaker 1: I get that rev good.
Speaker 2: Also, federal employees are guaranteed to be paid for their
Speaker 2: service on a jury, their regular pay, I should say,
Speaker 2: from their job, right. But the thing is is actually
Speaker 2: not likely, necessarily statistically speaking, that you're going to ever
Speaker 2: serve on a jury. I think A twenty twelve survey
Speaker 2: found that twenty seven percent of all US adults said
Speaker 2: they'd served on a jury at some point in time
Speaker 2: in their life. So it's not like a given that
Speaker 2: you're going to serve on a jury. And actually, I
Speaker 2: think about thirty two million people are called for jury
Speaker 2: duty in the United States every year, that's federal and
Speaker 2: state courts. Eight million of them report, right, So that
Speaker 2: means what twenty four twenty six million, No, twenty four million,
Speaker 2: I got it, finally actually even show up.
Speaker 1: Just that's or don't share me, I should say, I
Speaker 1: would be so afraid to just not show. Yeah, for sure,
Speaker 1: I'm too much of a rule follower to just roll
Speaker 1: the dice like that exactly.
Speaker 2: But of those eight million that do show up, only
Speaker 2: twenty two percent of them are selected as rural jurors
Speaker 2: rule y.
Speaker 1: Oh man, I was watching those episodes not too long ago,
Speaker 1: Rule juror. Yeah, none of them knew how to sport.
Speaker 1: It was even what she was saying, right, Yeah, they
Speaker 1: like had to find the box, right.
Speaker 2: So uh yeah, I think I saw in five point
Speaker 2: thirty eight you have like a point zero nine percent
Speaker 2: chance of ever being selected for jury duty or sorry,
Speaker 2: in a given year.
Speaker 1: By the way, that was a thirty record difference of
Speaker 1: people are frustrated.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, now go check it out.
Speaker 1: Now, we should talk about a very interesting part of
Speaker 1: the jury process, which is called jury selection, or if
Speaker 1: you're old school or French, you might call it wadir.
Speaker 1: And I watched a lot of attorney videos about vadir.
Speaker 1: And again, this is the process by which attorneys can
Speaker 1: go in ask questions of a potential jury pool to
Speaker 1: whittle it down to the twelve plus a few alternates.
Speaker 1: And I was naive enough to think up until today
Speaker 1: that all they were trying to do invadir was to
Speaker 1: just get impartial people in there that wouldn't have a
Speaker 1: real slant in the case. And what I learned from
Speaker 1: watching every attorney video that I saw was they are,
Speaker 1: every single one of them are looking to get jurors
Speaker 1: on their jury who will be sympathetic to their case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're trying to do to slant the case.
Speaker 1: Are trying to the jury box as much as possible
Speaker 1: in their favor.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the var dear process is actually pretty controversial,
Speaker 2: but they can ask you all sorts of questions. I've
Speaker 2: read that there's questionnaires that they give out now that
Speaker 2: are asking increasingly like bizarre questions like what's the last
Speaker 2: three books you read? I saw a question that one
Speaker 2: prosecutor very frequently uses as who who do you respect?
Speaker 2: That somebody we all know more than anybody else, And
Speaker 2: she said that most people, No, most people say their grandmother,
Speaker 2: and she just dismisses them immediately because they clearly can't
Speaker 2: follow directions because it said who we all know? Right?
Speaker 2: Oh right, yeah, so they question right. They'll also scrape
Speaker 2: your social media.
Speaker 1: They will.
Speaker 2: They'll they'll do whatever research they can on you to
Speaker 2: see how you're going to vote, or to try to
Speaker 2: just kind of suss out based on who you are,
Speaker 2: how you present yourself, whether you're going to be rational,
Speaker 2: and if you are going to be rational, which direction
Speaker 2: you would be likely to go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Olivia found a guy, an attorney who basically sort
Speaker 1: of gives advice to other attorneys and what to do,
Speaker 1: and he's like, here, you know, most people won't come
Speaker 1: right out and say they have bias, So just get
Speaker 1: them in a conversation, get them chit chatty, get them talking,
Speaker 1: and they'll probably reveal something they don't want you to
Speaker 1: know or pay attention to their body language, look at
Speaker 1: their personality, like if they're really super opinionated, then they
Speaker 1: might be more likely to hang a jury, or if
Speaker 1: they're really withdrawn and awkward around people, they might be
Speaker 1: more likely to hang a jury. And again, he was
Speaker 1: the one that said get on Facebook or Twitter or
Speaker 1: whatever and dig up their pass right exactly.
Speaker 2: And so you also want to kind of lead them
Speaker 2: in ways that they are not expecting to reveal their biases, because,
Speaker 2: like you said, they're not going to just be like,
Speaker 2: I actually have a problem with poor people, they would say.
Speaker 2: So instead of asking them like, do you have a
Speaker 2: problem seeing poor people as your equal, you would say like,
Speaker 2: I think we can all agree that we have trouble
Speaker 2: seeing poor people as our equals, right, And then just
Speaker 2: see who nods emphatically. We're all guilty of this, right, right, exactly.
Speaker 2: That's kind of what they would do. And then interesting,
Speaker 2: you know, everybody raise your hand, that kind of thing.
Speaker 2: So they're really trying to massage out of you who
Speaker 2: you really are in ways that you might not even
Speaker 2: realize you are until they get to the people that
Speaker 2: are they think are least likely to vote against their client.
Speaker 2: And I saw it described as not selecting a jury.
Speaker 2: You actually deselect potential jurors until you end up with
Speaker 2: twelve people left plus the alternates.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good way to look at it. There's
Speaker 1: something else called peremptory challenge that and here's it's legally speaking,
Speaker 1: you can't eliminate someone on the basis of race or sex.
Speaker 1: And a peremptory challenge is when you say, listen, I
Speaker 1: just want to throw this person out, and I don't
Speaker 1: want to give a reason why. We each get a
Speaker 1: certain number of these that we don't have to explain.
Speaker 1: And that gets really tricky when you're talking about race
Speaker 1: or sex, because basically, all you have to do if
Speaker 1: the other attorney says, well, wait a minute, I object
Speaker 1: to your peremptory challenge of this potential jur because they're black,
Speaker 1: and that's the only reason you did that, And all
Speaker 1: the other prosecutor whoever defendant, has to do is say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: that's not the reason. It's because of this right, and
Speaker 1: they basically are. I mean, it's not rubber stamped, but
Speaker 1: that's kind of all you have to do is just
Speaker 1: defend it with one other reason.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's all based on an eighty six Supreme Court
Speaker 2: case called Batsan versus Kentucky, where prosecutors used preemptive challenges
Speaker 2: to remove all four African American potential jurors from the
Speaker 2: jury and the defendant was an African American accused of burglary,
Speaker 2: so they tried to basically root out anybody that they
Speaker 2: thought would would vote against the guy's prosecution based on race,
Speaker 2: and so that now it's called the Batsan challenge. The
Speaker 2: Supreme Court said, you can't do that, but they follow
Speaker 2: it up in nineteen ninety five on another one where
Speaker 2: a prosecutor dismissed the two African American potential jurors from
Speaker 2: the jury pool because of their long hair and go tee,
Speaker 2: and the Supreme Court said, that's fine, you can do that.
Speaker 2: You know, you don't have to give a reason that
Speaker 2: even makes sense. You just have to give a reason
Speaker 2: that's not based on race.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, there are classes in training and there
Speaker 1: are manuals for prosecutors that basically say, here's how to
Speaker 1: get a black person off your jury. Blame it on this,
Speaker 1: blame it on this, blame it on this, and you'll
Speaker 1: be fine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the US legal system has like a long
Speaker 2: standing history of like new and creative ways to keep
Speaker 2: minorities off of juries because they feel, especially if you're
Speaker 2: a prosecutor, if you can get white men in there,
Speaker 2: you're probably going to get a conviction.
Speaker 1: Yeah. There was a twenty twenty twelve study and this
Speaker 1: is North Carolina death penalty cases, and it found that
Speaker 1: black people were removed from juries twice as often as
Speaker 1: members of other races. And I think now, even like
Speaker 1: if your support like the Black Lives Matter movement, it's
Speaker 1: being debated right now, whether that's enough just cause to
Speaker 1: get someone booted from a jury.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think there's a lawsuit from a potential jury
Speaker 2: that was dismissed because of that that's not been decided yet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's just so disrespectful.
Speaker 2: And then it also just presumes that you know, black
Speaker 2: jurds wouldn't be able to set aside any bias like
Speaker 2: any other jur would be able to and just do
Speaker 2: their civic duty. It's just pretty despicable all around. But
Speaker 2: it's really really common from what I can tell, as
Speaker 2: far as trials go. Criminal trials.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's talk about this one more thing before we
Speaker 1: go to break it is the second great band name
Speaker 1: I failed to mention the first, but I think Voasder
Speaker 1: is a great band name. Oh yeah, because I don't
Speaker 1: even think we've said what it meant in French that
Speaker 1: means to speak the truth.
Speaker 2: It's maybe the best band name we've ever run across, Chuck,
Speaker 2: So it's.
Speaker 1: Kind of a hyphalutin band name, like, oh, you know
Speaker 1: what it means to speak the truth in French. But
Speaker 1: the next great man name is death qualified. Yeah. This
Speaker 1: is if you are in a death penalty case. In
Speaker 1: a capital case, a perspective juror is supposed to be
Speaker 1: death qualified, meaning that you shouldn't be on the jury
Speaker 1: if you are someone who will absolutely refuse to impose
Speaker 1: the death penalty because of your moral and ethical stance
Speaker 1: on the death penalty.
Speaker 2: And that is a whole other ball of wax, because
Speaker 2: if you root out the people who are opposed to
Speaker 2: the death penalty, all you have left on the jury
Speaker 2: are people who are in favor of the death penalty, right,
Speaker 2: So they're not only more likely to convict, they're more
Speaker 2: likely to recommend death, which you don't really want. Like
Speaker 2: any you don't want it skewed one way or the other.
Speaker 2: In a case like that. But then secondly, also I've
Speaker 2: read that just being talked to about the death penalty
Speaker 2: and asked whether you would be able to render a
Speaker 2: judgment that recommended the penalty of death if it came
Speaker 2: to that apparently has the effect on jurors of basically
Speaker 2: making them think that the court thinks this guy is
Speaker 2: so guilty that we have to talk about the death
Speaker 2: penalty now, right, and that it actually stacks the deck
Speaker 2: again against the defendant's favor as far as that goes,
Speaker 2: because they just go into it thinking that they're guilty,
Speaker 2: and then all they're focused on is whether or not
Speaker 2: they're going to give the guy the death sentence.
Speaker 1: Right. There was a case in nineteen sixty nine Witherspoon v.
Speaker 1: Illinois where the Supreme Court said that even if you
Speaker 1: have an opposition philosophically or ethically to the death penalty
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't be able to serve run
Speaker 1: a jury in a capital case where you basically are saying, well, listen,
Speaker 1: I may not believe in it, but I'm willing to
Speaker 1: support the laws that are in place as being you know, valid,
Speaker 1: and so I will support those laws.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was a very trick. Do you think you'd
Speaker 2: be able to do it?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't want to answer that, Okay, I.
Speaker 2: Asked myself, and I don't think I would. I'm not
Speaker 2: opposed to the death penalty, and necessarily I'm kind of
Speaker 2: like wishy washy on it, but I don't think I
Speaker 2: could recommend somebody be put to death. I just don't
Speaker 2: think I could do it.
Speaker 1: It's pretty heavy.
Speaker 2: It's super heavy. Although I mean, context is everything, right,
Speaker 2: if this is like some ridiculously heinous crime and the
Speaker 2: person I thought the person deserved to die, maybe I could.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Now I understand why you didn't want
Speaker 2: to answer that question after I've done my shpiel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's heavy.
Speaker 2: It is very heavy.
Speaker 1: Too heavy for this sunny afternoon for me to make
Speaker 1: that decision, right. Uh. I will make a decision on
Speaker 1: the break though, because we are forty five minutes in
Speaker 1: and we haven't even taken our second break sustained.
Speaker 2: Wow, Chuck, we are forty five minutes and time flies
Speaker 2: when you're talking about legal procedure. So another this is
Speaker 2: what I was talking about at the very beginning. There's
Speaker 2: so much interesting cultural stuff going on. With juris that
Speaker 2: I had no idea about. And one thing that's kind
Speaker 2: of come up recently is whether or not a jury
Speaker 2: has to be unanimous, which I always thought it did,
Speaker 2: but that's not always been the case actually, and it's still.
Speaker 1: Not now now, I think. In twenty nineteen, the American
Speaker 1: Bar Association said that this is happening more and more
Speaker 1: non unanimous verdicts, and these are usually in misdemeanor or
Speaker 1: civil cases, and it's like a depends on the state
Speaker 1: in the jury, but it's usually like three fourths or
Speaker 1: maybe five six if it's just a six person set
Speaker 1: of juries, set of juries, set of jurors. And you know,
Speaker 1: I didn't know that. I thought it was kind of
Speaker 1: across the board unanimous these days. In twenty twenty, Scotis
Speaker 1: said that the sixth Amendment does require unanimous verdicts in
Speaker 1: felony cases in the state in federal courts. But when
Speaker 1: they made this law in twenty twenty, Oregon and Louisiana
Speaker 1: were the only states that allowed non unanimous felonies. Everyone
Speaker 1: else basically said you had to be unanimous on felonies,
Speaker 1: and I think only I think only Oregon changed that
Speaker 1: since then, that Louisiana dug in.
Speaker 2: No, they both changed it. But Oregon said all those
Speaker 2: people who were convicted non unanimously. Trial in Louisiana said.
Speaker 1: Nah, that's really thorny two.
Speaker 2: But those those non unanimous laws are from the thirties
Speaker 2: that were meant to help dilute the jury so that
Speaker 2: if you did end up with minorities on the jury,
Speaker 2: you could let all the white people agree to have
Speaker 2: the minority defendant, you know, put to death or something
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 1: Right, And speaking of capital sentencing, there are twenty seven
Speaker 1: states that have the death penalty, and almost all of
Speaker 1: them require unanimous vote for the death sentence except four
Speaker 1: drum Roll Alabama, and very recently Florida passed legislation that said, nah,
Speaker 1: we can put someone to death. It doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be unanimous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're like Supreme Court, you said that it has
Speaker 2: to be unanimous with felony cases. You didn't say anything
Speaker 2: about death sentencing. So now in Florida, as little as
Speaker 2: eight of the twelve jurors agreeing that the person should
Speaker 2: be put to death means you will be put to death.
Speaker 2: You can get the death sentence if three fourths of
Speaker 2: the Yeah, reforce of the jury says, yeah, isn't that crazy,
Speaker 2: And it was based as a reaction on well it
Speaker 2: was past, I should say, as a reaction yeah, to
Speaker 2: Disney taking a stand on don't say gay. It was
Speaker 2: meant to be a real shot across Disney's bow. No,
Speaker 2: it was a response to the Parkland shooter, the Marjorie
Speaker 2: Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in twenty eighteen. The jury
Speaker 2: could not agree on giving him the death sentence, so
Speaker 2: he got life instead, and a lot of the state,
Speaker 2: both liberal and conservative, were like, that is wrong. So
Speaker 2: I think people who had wanted to pass that law
Speaker 2: for a really long time saw their chance and they
Speaker 2: did so. Yeah, that's how it is in Florida right now.
Speaker 1: One of the last sort of technical things we could
Speaker 1: cover here is something called jury nullification, and that is
Speaker 1: a long standing tradition dating back to when colonial jury said,
Speaker 1: you know what, these British taxes and laws aren't fair,
Speaker 1: and so we're gonna even though the law says that
Speaker 1: they're guilty, we're going to refuse to send a guilty verdict.
Speaker 1: And that has happened a lot over the years. During abolition,
Speaker 1: the fugitive slave clause said you have to you have
Speaker 1: to help apprehend runaway slaves as a citizen if you
Speaker 1: know that they're out there and you know about it.
Speaker 1: And there were abolitionists who are like, no, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: use my right for jury nullification to acquit these people,
Speaker 1: because no one should have to apprehend runaway slaves.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, conversely, it's also been used by
Speaker 2: white juries to avoid convicting people who were involved in lynchings,
Speaker 2: so it definitely cuts both ways. And then also it's
Speaker 2: a way to kind of erode at laws that are
Speaker 2: viewed as unjust or unfair, like it was used a
Speaker 2: lot in prohibition cases issues a lot with marijuana possession.
Speaker 2: And you said something about the jury exercising their right.
Speaker 2: Some legal theorists say this is the right of the jury,
Speaker 2: like it's up to them to make a decision and
Speaker 2: to vote by their conscience, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Other people are like, no, they're supposed to make a
Speaker 2: verdict based on the law and their understanding of the law,
Speaker 2: and they're flouting that in this case. But I think,
Speaker 2: I mean, as it stands, it's not something that gets
Speaker 2: promoted a lot, but it is allowed. Like you can't
Speaker 2: really do anything about it. You could appeal, I think,
Speaker 2: but I don't know how often they do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like, it's not the kind of thing that they will,
Speaker 1: like you inform the jury of how it all works.
Speaker 1: They don't say. And by the way, there's also this option.
Speaker 1: It's just I guess you just got to know about it.
Speaker 1: I imagine the abortion laws they're going to be is
Speaker 1: going to put this to the test in the near future.
Speaker 2: I guess it depends on the state.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you know, Yeah, and then this last bit
Speaker 1: is fairly reassuring. I think. O Livia has this section
Speaker 1: here titled should we trust juries? And we should generally
Speaker 1: trust juries. There's been all kinds of studies and reviews
Speaker 1: and things, and they all basically usually say the same thing,
Speaker 1: which is, in general, juries are going to be or
Speaker 1: durors are going to be fairly rational, they're going to
Speaker 1: be methodical, and they're going to take it seriously.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And they found like they love studying juries because
Speaker 2: there's a lot of really interesting psychology to be found in,
Speaker 2: like psychology of crowds and stuff by studying juries. And
Speaker 2: they found that typically juries, when they do deliberations, go
Speaker 2: one of two ways. They either go verdict driven, where
Speaker 2: they basically take a straw pole and then they say, Okay,
Speaker 2: most people think he's guilty, but these people think he's innocent.
Speaker 2: Let's figure out how to get to either all innocent
Speaker 2: or all guilty unanimous vote. Or they go evidence driven,
Speaker 2: where they kind of lay all the evidence on the
Speaker 2: table and they go through it together and then come
Speaker 2: to a conclusion of inno sense or guilt. And it's
Speaker 2: interesting that that's it, Like, those are the two like
Speaker 2: and that people have organically figured out how to do that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and then it's basically like there's two paths and each
Speaker 2: jury kind of figures it out on their own.
Speaker 1: Yeah. As far as being in the room and changing
Speaker 1: someone's mind, what Olivia calls the twelve angry men scenario
Speaker 1: from the famous movie, that doesn't happen that often, and
Speaker 1: that's the case where it's like one juror really sways
Speaker 1: the rest of the jury in a different direction. Something
Speaker 1: that does happen about ten percent of the time is
Speaker 1: that the jury will end up with a different verdict
Speaker 1: than what they previously kind of like near the beginning
Speaker 1: of deliberations, thoughts like the whole jury will end up
Speaker 1: sort of changing their mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they found that pro aquittal factions that are equal
Speaker 2: in size to pro conviction factions are four times likelier
Speaker 2: to sway the jury toward acquittal. There's just what's called
Speaker 2: a leniency effect that the jury as a whole is
Speaker 2: more likely to acquit than individual jurors. Yeah, pretty interesting stuff.
Speaker 2: We talked a little bit about why you would want
Speaker 2: to waive a jury trial, and there's it's strategically speaking,
Speaker 2: it makes sense in some cases.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, I mean, statistically speaking, you are better off
Speaker 1: with a judge, believe it or not. I think thirty
Speaker 1: eight this was in twenty eighteen. A Few Research Center
Speaker 1: report said that thirty eight percent of those who were
Speaker 1: tried by a judge were acquitted, compared to fourteen percent
Speaker 1: in front of a jury. And you know, if you're
Speaker 1: meeting with your representative and like, you know, what should
Speaker 1: I do? What should I do? They're going to say, hey, listen,
Speaker 1: a judge is probably gonna believe cops more than a
Speaker 1: jury might. If you have a really emotional case, a
Speaker 1: jury is going to be more swayed by that kind
Speaker 1: of thing. If you've got like a really good story,
Speaker 1: you might It's easier to get an appeal if you're
Speaker 1: in front of a jury trial, if it like technical
Speaker 1: mumbo jumbo and it comes down to that, then a
Speaker 1: bench trial was probably better because you might just end
Speaker 1: up confusing the jury. And generally, you know, it's a
Speaker 1: shorter experience, it's a little less oh, I don't know, dramatic.
Speaker 1: I guess when you don't have twelve people staring at you,
Speaker 1: you know, totally just one angry judge for sure.
Speaker 2: So it really does pay to really stop and think
Speaker 2: about what your case calls for, whether a bench trial
Speaker 2: or a jury trial.
Speaker 1: Just ask your lawyer that's right, I'll steer you in
Speaker 1: the right direction.
Speaker 2: There's another thing too, you kind of touched on. There's
Speaker 2: a myth of the runaway jury, which is a myth
Speaker 2: that was kind of developed by defendants of civil lawsuits,
Speaker 2: especially big, deep pocketed defendants of civil lawsuits, that these
Speaker 2: juries they don't listen to instruction, they do what they want,
Speaker 2: and they pay out these enormous, gobsmacking business killing awards
Speaker 2: to people who were you know who and fell in
Speaker 2: the Kroger or something like that. And apparently studies show
Speaker 2: that that's not really the case. That yes, jurys do
Speaker 2: tend to pay out more the larger the corporation is,
Speaker 2: or award more, I should say, the larger the corporation is.
Speaker 2: But runaway is definitely nowhere near a reality. They still
Speaker 2: typically act within the bounds of normalcy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they've done mock jury's where they've put it to
Speaker 1: the test, and yeah, you know, if you're I think
Speaker 1: the one that Lvia found there was an attorney who
Speaker 1: did one with a trip and fall cases and they
Speaker 1: were mocked jurors and none of it was real. But
Speaker 1: if it was like someone suing their neighbor, they awarded
Speaker 1: the plane of like twenty two grand. If it was
Speaker 1: your local mom and pop hardware store where you slipped
Speaker 1: and fell, they'd award you seventy grand. But boy, if
Speaker 1: it was home deep or lows one hundred thousand.
Speaker 2: Dollars, man, you know they'd be sweating that. There's also
Speaker 2: we talked about it before, but before we go, the
Speaker 2: McDonald's coffee case from nineteen ninety four, where a woman
Speaker 2: was awarded almost three million dollars for spilling McDonald's coffee
Speaker 2: in her lap, and it was basically touted as an
Speaker 2: example of runaway jury kind of stuff. But if you
Speaker 2: are unfamiliar with that case or you're still walking around
Speaker 2: thinking that it was a ridiculous award, you should definitely
Speaker 2: find I don't remember the name of it, but there
Speaker 2: was a great documentary done on it that really shows
Speaker 2: just how poorly the media did their job on reporting
Speaker 2: on that. Yeah, a good one.
Speaker 1: It's a good one.
Speaker 2: And then one more thing. The New York Times is
Speaker 2: a really cool interactive thing where you can go on
Speaker 2: and you go through like a kind of like an
Speaker 2: interactive jury selection and decide. It tells you whether you're
Speaker 2: likely or to be dismissed or chosen by the defense
Speaker 2: or the prosecution. It's pretty cool.
Speaker 1: I failed. What'd you get?
Speaker 2: I got dismissed too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I got dismissed. I felt bad too, because mine
Speaker 1: was like a corporate case and it said like you
Speaker 1: were more likely to come down in favor of the man. Basically, yeah,
Speaker 1: he was like, no, I'm not.
Speaker 2: No, let me retake minded too. It said the defense
Speaker 2: loves you, but then the prosecution just cut you.
Speaker 1: So yeah, oh what are you gonna do?
Speaker 2: So? Yeah, that's it. That's it about juries. Everybody, if
Speaker 2: you're ever called for jury duty, and you go, let
Speaker 2: us know how it goes. And since I said that, everybody,
Speaker 2: it's time for a listener Maya.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna call this just a quick NERF follow up. Hey, guys,
Speaker 1: love The episode on NERF brought back a lot of
Speaker 1: nostalgia from a kid being in the in the mid
Speaker 1: to late nineties. I know you mentioned the NERF balls,
Speaker 1: but you also spend a lot of time detailing the blasters.
Speaker 1: You may have overlooked two of nrf's biggest toys, the
Speaker 1: Nerf Fop and the Vortex Football. The NERF Hoop gave
Speaker 1: my brother and I hundreds of hours of fund in
Speaker 1: the basement pretending to be MJ or Kobe or Shack
Speaker 1: depending on the day. It allowed us to be NBA
Speaker 1: superstars in our own basement. So I've never heard of
Speaker 1: the NERF hoop. I don't think.
Speaker 2: I was just about to say, I can't believe we
Speaker 2: failed to mention the NERF Hoop.
Speaker 1: I don't. I didn't have one. So it was like
Speaker 1: I had versions of it. I guess, like you hang
Speaker 1: it on a door.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you had the serious Roebuck version probably, but at
Speaker 2: the sooner and then it came with one of those
Speaker 2: original nerf balls is like the basketball.
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe I did have one.
Speaker 2: If there was ever somebody in an eighties movie who
Speaker 2: was like trying to like hash out something in like
Speaker 2: a bowl session, cool, somebody was shooting hoops on a nerfop.
Speaker 1: Or they have one of those on like the edge
Speaker 1: of their waistbasket right for like you know, stuff for
Speaker 1: the cylindrical file. Yeah, the Vortex. I remember the Vortex
Speaker 1: with my dad.
Speaker 2: Just then.
Speaker 1: The Vortex was allowed to be allowed us to be
Speaker 1: NFL quarterbacks when we wanted to be throwing it further
Speaker 1: than we ever could a regular football. The Vortex howler
Speaker 1: was particularly fine as it whistled through the air, making
Speaker 1: unmistakable sound I could still pick out today. I remember
Speaker 1: the Vortex. I still have one. It's it's a little
Speaker 1: small football with a big long sort of rocket tail fit.
Speaker 2: And made a Wilhelm scream as it went through the air.
Speaker 1: It did, and you can really chunk those things here.
Speaker 2: A lot of fun.
Speaker 1: So this is a Sandwicher listening starting in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: and just passed into two. Sorry twenty eleven, So I
Speaker 1: guess they're going backwards and there. Yeah, I got you,
Speaker 1: I got you so start in twenty twenty. Started the
Speaker 1: show though in twenty two thousand and six and is
Speaker 1: now five years in up to twenty eleven. Yeah that
Speaker 1: was Kevin. Kevin from McKinney, Texas. Will hear this in
Speaker 1: by my math a couple of years.
Speaker 2: Very nice, Thanks a lot, Kevin, your time banned it
Speaker 2: And if you want to be like Kevin and point
Speaker 2: out that we forgot something about your childhood, we want
Speaker 2: to hear it. You can wrap it up, spank it
Speaker 2: on the bottom, and send it off to stuff Podcasts
Speaker 2: ieartradio dot com. Stuff you Should Know is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts my Heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.