Hashemian Blog
Web Tools, Financial Markets, Technology
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Jury duty, Part II - The opening statements
On the morning of the first day of the trial we arrived at the court and proceeded to the same location as the selection day. We didn't know each other yet, we only knew that were selected for jury for the trial.
After some time passed, we were called in as a group by the bailiff and followed him through a hallway to the deliberation room. A small room that barely fit a table and the chairs around it. We soon learned that this room doubled as a holding area for the jury prior to the court going into session. As it was the case during the whole trial, we were always the last to be ushered in and the first to be excused out of the court.
The trial finally commenced and we were taken to the court room. The proceedings opened with the customary roll call and swear in and the judge began by allowing us to take our seats. There in the jury box, overlooking the court, the judge, the clerk, the stenographer, the plaintiff, the defendant, and their lawyers, it finally sunk in that I was now ensconced in the judicial process. The judge started with the usual pep talk of gratitude that we were there to perform our duties and admonished us about mentioning or researching anything about the case until he sends us off to deliberate.
We then received an overview of how civil cases work. Unlike criminal cases (in those cases the plaintiff is the state and the lawyer is the prosecutor), guilt is not to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case guilt is proven by the preponderance of the evidence. In other words it is a subjective process as to the credibility of each side. And even then, a percentage of fault can be assigned to either side, which is then used to compute the damages assessed.
The opening statements went as expected. The plaintiff's lawyer spoke of the injuries sustained to his client, and the defendant's lawyer did his best to offer his client's innocence. The battle had begun.
Jury duty, Part I - The summonsJury duty, Part II - The opening statementsJury duty, Part III - The testimoniesJury duty, Part IV - The deliberationJury duty, Part V - The verdictJury duty, Part VI - The discharge < Jury duty, Part II - The opening statements>
// posted by rh
Monday, February 14, 2005
Jury duty, part I – The summons
In my February 2nd jury duty blog, I had griped about being selected for jury duty. At that time I had hoped that it would mean a wasted day in the courthouse where you just sit around the entire day and then learn that you weren't selected for any trials.
After arriving at the courthouse, I and the rest of the summoned people were herded into a room, where a pleasant jury administrator gave us an orientation and played an educational video about the jury process. She mentioned that most of us would not be picked for a case and that would still satisfy the obligation, meaning that those people were off the potential juror list for three years.
No such luck for me. I was indeed picked for one of the two cases going that day. One was a medical malpractice case slated to go for about 2 weeks, the other was an auto injury case estimated to last about 3 days. When I was called in to meet with the lawyers, I thought that perhaps I'd just play up my prejudices and get booted. But once in the room getting grilled, I decided to go with the flow and answer their questions fairly. I'm not a good liar anyways.
The questions were rather general, like how do you feel about lawsuit awards, and have you ever been injured in an accident. They also included a couple of fairly private, but not overly prying questions like age, marital status and children's ages, and whether I was happy to perform jury duty. I answered them honestly and, no, I wasn't happy about being there. Apparently they must have liked my answers, since shortly thereafter I was informed that I was selected.
I don’t know how the court systems operate in other states, but in Connecticut, and for this civil case, the jury was made up of 6 people and 2 alternates. We were 4 men, 2 women, and the alternates were both women. We were from a variety of backgrounds and ages. There was forklift operator, a civil engineer, an animal cop, a store manager, and so on. It was interesting to notice how random chance had brought us together to decide this case.
The case itself was a plain vanilla car accident. Woman1 had made a turn into a lane where woman2 was approaching and a collision had occurred. Woman2 was suing for medical bills and pain and suffering; economic and non-economic damages as we were told by the judge.
Up to this point my legal knowledge was pretty much at the level of old episodes of People's Court (remember Judge Wapner?), Perry Mason, and Law and Order. The first being a small claims court cut for TV, and the latter two being TV dramas of criminal cases. What we did in court bore little resemblance to my limited theatric knowledge of the justice system.
Jury duty, Part I - The summonsJury duty, Part II - The opening statementsJury duty, Part III - The testimoniesJury duty, Part IV - The deliberationJury duty, Part V - The verdictJury duty, Part VI - The discharge < Jury duty, part I – The summons>
// posted by rh
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Enough wardrobe malfunction
I'm not a sports fan and couldn't care less who the opposing football finale teams were, but even I got a glimpse of the Godaddy ad online. I also heard that Cindy Crawford and Dennis Rodman made appearances during the game commercials, but the consensus was that the ads were just too watered down. Advertisers were obviously too scared to raise the ire of the FCC after the Janet Jackson incident last year and they stayed on the cautious side. And for those who strayed a bit, their ads ended up in the censored list and didn't make it to the prime time.
One of the ads that partially aired was from Godaddy. It depicted a well-endowed and scantily-clad woman giving a testimony in front of a mock decency assembly. I like Godaddy. Their domain registration service is by far one of the best values in the business. I am already a customer, so the ad would have made no difference in my opinion. But despite the company CEO's railings against the establishment, the ad just didn't resonate with me. Obviously it was a jab at last year's "wardrobe malfunction" controversy, but it had little in terms of useful content, and the delivery was stale and lacked originality. If I hear the phrase "wardrobe malfunction" one more time, I'm going to get nauseous.
Enough already. We get the point a thousand times over. It's time to move on to more original phrases; a fresh approach. Wardrobe malfunction is so yesterday and if you still find it humorous, you're still stuck in last year's super bowl, whoever the opposing teams were. <Enough wardrobe malfunction>
// posted by rh
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Helmet law – the erosion of people's rights
We all agree that a society without laws is a society without order. Laws are rules that all citizens must follow in order to be a able to co-exist with their fellow citizens in harmony. They are the essence of the wishes and desires of the majority of people in the community.
But lately laws have become the tools in the hands of big corporations and zealous politicians to subjugate the community and arbitrarily impose their opinions on people. Such is the case of the recently proposed law in my home state of Connecticut to require motorcycle riders to wear helmets.
I know what some of you may be thinking now. Riders who don't wear helmets are endangering their lives and pose undue strain on the insurance companies. Okay, I'd like to see your reaction if laws mandated skiers to wear metal armor, or ice cream fans to test their blood sugar levels before being permitted to enjoy a scoop, or movie-goers present their latest heart check-up slip before being allowed to watch a horror flick.
You many think that my examples are absurd, but if the insurance companies were allowed to have their way, these and other insane ideas could easily become laws.
Regardless of your personal opinion on this matter (and I respect it, no matter what), people should not allow law-makers to impinge on their rights when it does not pose a threat to anyone other than a possible risk to the person riding. If we left every decision in our lives to the government, then what rights do we as citizens have left for ourselves, and how could we characterize our society as free. The seatbelt and helmet laws are just litmus tests for our limits as a society to more repressive laws that might be in the offing.
Wear you helmets because you want to, not because you are forced to. If you submit to coercion now, don't complain later if your rights are curtailed one by one until all is lost.
<Helmet law – the erosion of people's rights>
// posted by rh
Sunday, February 06, 2005
401k - the anti social security?
With the social security overhaul in the news lately, it's hard not to wonder if it will stick around for today's working generation. Many polls indicate that the younger workers believe that social security won't be there when they reach their retirement age. That is a worrisome notion for many of us who have paid into the system for years and continue to receive periodic reports from the government indicating the entitlement amounts when retirement comes around.
The sad fact is that the government is in a real quandary regarding this pillar of our society. Government spending continues to rise and the deficit is showing no signs of waning. It is only logical that the law makers begin to examine social security and make drastic adjustments to keep the system from unraveling.
For years government borrowing has been the de-facto answer to the incessant annual budget short-falls. But one can not believe that this can go on indefinitely. The vicious cycle of borrowing can not continue to support our insatiable appetite and the foreign entities that have been buying up our debt for years could begin to rethink their strategies vis-a-vis their investments in the US. If the US were a corporation, it's debt load would be an immense worry to the investors. At some point new monies will dry up, leaving the country with a hefty debt with no new sources of funding.
This situation leaves the law makers no choice but to look at the current spending and curb as much of it as possible and social security provides a tempting target to that end. As the government begins to examine the current values held in retirement accounts such as 401k, IRA, and Roth, it could find justification in cutting or eliminating the social security program. The true tragedy here is that those of us who have been squirreling money away for our golden age might have been inadvertently digging a hole for ourselves in giving the government the justification to cut our future social security benefits, citing our alternate means of drawing funds during retirement. It will be an unjust treatment for those of us who have funded it all of our working lives, but when the going gets rough, it's always the working class who's left holding the bag.
<401k - the anti social security?>
// posted by rh
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
The hidden side-effect of voting
Did you vote during the last presidential election? I did, and I realized that registering to vote gives you more than a power to voice your choice. It adds you to a list that can be used by a variety of government agencies for a number of purposes. One of those is for jury duty selection, and I was called for it for the first time ever.
Okay, I realize that jury duty is supposed to be an honor and a civic duty and what not. But really, how many of us really look forward to being called for it? I don't. Yet I wonder how after so many years, my name finally made it in the pool. It had to be the registration to vote. The truth is that until the last presidential election, I had never voted, and therefore never bothered to register. Once I did however, my name went into the list, and jury duty found me.
This is not unlike companies selling their customer lists to others for the purpose of marketing, but at least in this case the government is not secretive about it. I should have done my homework to understand the process better. I'm not sure if knowing this information would have stopped me from voting, but since my chosen candidate didn't make it, it makes this jury duty call even harder to bear.
<The hidden side-effect of voting>
// posted by rh
|
Links
Technorati Profile
TMCnet.com
ARCHIVES
09/01/2003 - 10/01/200303/01/2004 - 04/01/200404/01/2004 - 05/01/200405/01/2004 - 06/01/200406/01/2004 - 07/01/200407/01/2004 - 08/01/200408/01/2004 - 09/01/200409/01/2004 - 10/01/200410/01/2004 - 11/01/200411/01/2004 - 12/01/200412/01/2004 - 01/01/200501/01/2005 - 02/01/200502/01/2005 - 03/01/200503/01/2005 - 04/01/200504/01/2005 - 05/01/200505/01/2005 - 06/01/200506/01/2005 - 07/01/200507/01/2005 - 08/01/200508/01/2005 - 09/01/200509/01/2005 - 10/01/200510/01/2005 - 11/01/200511/01/2005 - 12/01/200512/01/2005 - 01/01/200601/01/2006 - 02/01/200602/01/2006 - 03/01/200603/01/2006 - 04/01/200604/01/2006 - 05/01/200605/01/2006 - 06/01/200606/01/2006 - 07/01/200607/01/2006 - 08/01/200608/01/2006 - 09/01/200609/01/2006 - 10/01/200610/01/2006 - 11/01/200611/01/2006 - 12/01/200612/01/2006 - 01/01/200701/01/2007 - 02/01/200702/01/2007 - 03/01/200703/01/2007 - 04/01/200704/01/2007 - 05/01/200705/01/2007 - 06/01/200706/01/2007 - 07/01/200707/01/2007 - 08/01/200708/01/2007 - 09/01/200709/01/2007 - 10/01/200710/01/2007 - 11/01/200711/01/2007 - 12/01/200712/01/2007 - 01/01/200801/01/2008 - 02/01/200802/01/2008 - 03/01/200803/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
|
