Out here in the wild, wild west the Union Pacific installs dual gates that block the entire roadway so people can't go around them -- but I still saw an idiot on a bicycle in downtown Benson, Arizona, race an Amtrak train to the crossing. He won by only a few inches.
usersatch greyhounds Be assured. Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again. This is such a weak and tired argument! You can blame attorneys all you want. Juries are the triers of fact. Attorneys just present the facts of the case TO the jury. It is up to the jury to decide whether what they present is believeable or not. If you have a problem with the outcome of a case, blame the jury!!! Attorneys do NOT decide the case! A bad attorney, however, can make or break a case (read the prosecutors in the OJ Simpson case). So blame sympathetic juries AND bad lawyers. If a jury or juror is bored or non-sympathetic, blame society, not the legal system. If the result is "stupid", it means the jury is "stupid". Just remember, YOU are not in the box, hearing the entire case. As an attorney myself, I can tell you that you try your best argument and see if it "sticks". If the jury buys it, great for your client. Attorneys only get away with what the juries allow them to get away with (that and the procedural rules of the judge). As for inadmissible evidence, it is what it is. There are certain rules to follow. If you cant find an exception to get it in, you need to find another line of work. My condolences go to the familes and to the crew. It's a sad thing that the engineer, et al, have to suffer the rest of their life just because of someone else's stupid, youthful indiscretion.
greyhounds Be assured. Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again.
Be assured.
Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again.
This is such a weak and tired argument! You can blame attorneys all you want. Juries are the triers of fact. Attorneys just present the facts of the case TO the jury. It is up to the jury to decide whether what they present is believeable or not. If you have a problem with the outcome of a case, blame the jury!!! Attorneys do NOT decide the case! A bad attorney, however, can make or break a case (read the prosecutors in the OJ Simpson case). So blame sympathetic juries AND bad lawyers. If a jury or juror is bored or non-sympathetic, blame society, not the legal system. If the result is "stupid", it means the jury is "stupid". Just remember, YOU are not in the box, hearing the entire case.
As an attorney myself, I can tell you that you try your best argument and see if it "sticks". If the jury buys it, great for your client. Attorneys only get away with what the juries allow them to get away with (that and the procedural rules of the judge).
As for inadmissible evidence, it is what it is. There are certain rules to follow. If you cant find an exception to get it in, you need to find another line of work.
My condolences go to the familes and to the crew. It's a sad thing that the engineer, et al, have to suffer the rest of their life just because of someone else's stupid, youthful indiscretion.
What about the jury questionaires that are used to screen out anybody with a brain in their head and to pack the jury with idiots who actually believe the party with the most money is always at fault?
I'll start believing in the system again when there is better way to select juries.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
ButchKnouse usersatch greyhounds Be assured. Some lawyer will convince a jury that the gates weren't down. The testimony of the engine crew will be thown out because it will be assumed they are lying. It's Anoka all over again. This is such a weak and tired argument! You can blame attorneys all you want. Juries are the triers of fact. Attorneys just present the facts of the case TO the jury. It is up to the jury to decide whether what they present is believeable or not. If you have a problem with the outcome of a case, blame the jury!!! Attorneys do NOT decide the case! A bad attorney, however, can make or break a case (read the prosecutors in the OJ Simpson case). So blame sympathetic juries AND bad lawyers. If a jury or juror is bored or non-sympathetic, blame society, not the legal system. If the result is "stupid", it means the jury is "stupid". Just remember, YOU are not in the box, hearing the entire case. As an attorney myself, I can tell you that you try your best argument and see if it "sticks". If the jury buys it, great for your client. Attorneys only get away with what the juries allow them to get away with (that and the procedural rules of the judge). As for inadmissible evidence, it is what it is. There are certain rules to follow. If you cant find an exception to get it in, you need to find another line of work. My condolences go to the familes and to the crew. It's a sad thing that the engineer, et al, have to suffer the rest of their life just because of someone else's stupid, youthful indiscretion. What about the jury questionaires that are used to screen out anybody with a brain in their head and to pack the jury with idiots who actually believe the party with the most money is always at fault? I'll start believing in the system again when there is better way to select juries.
And all this time I thought that such questionares were used to determine which jurors did not have a brain, and would just use emotion to give me that new vacation home I always wanted. Shucks.
Gabe
P.S. You believed in the system . . . phhhhhh . . . . by the way what do you propose as its replacement?.
What is really needed now,,,,, are prayers for the families and friends of the dead, the train crew and passengers,,,, and all the witnesses and first responders who had to see it all.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Boyd What is really needed now,,,,, are prayers for the families and friends of the dead, the train crew and passengers,,,, and all the witnesses and first responders who had to see it all.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
The comment concerning the use/structure of jury questionnaires is curious in the extreme. In my experience anyone who would believe that comment has never actually served time on a jury. I've been in the box 3 times in my life and while this is indeed a small sample I did the box time in three different states - two criminal and one civil. In each case the questions focused on conflict of interest (relations to anyone involved, job similar to anyone involved, etc.) and, in the case of the criminal cases - had you or any close relative ever been the victim of a similar crime or of any crime. The only questions concerning occupations focused on medical, law enforcement, or judicial and the medical only came up in the civil trial. No other questions were asked.
FYI in one of the criminal cases two prospective jurors had served jail time and while one was disqualified the other sat on the jury. That particular group of prospectiive jurors did not have anyone in law enforcement but several had spouses or other relations who were and at least one of those individuals also sat on that jury. I don't remember the occupations of everyone with whom I sat but I do recall we had the spouse of a police officer, the former inmate who was now a machinist, a medical doctor, a high school science teacher, a statistician, an advertising executive, and a civil engineer.
As has been noted - the judge presides, the lawyers present, and the jury listens and assesses what was presented and renders a verdict. In each situation in which I served I was impressed by the way all of my fellow jurors viewed their responsibility. Everyone was very much aware of the fact that whatever we decided it was going to have a major impact on peoples lives. The discussion in the jury room was to the point and very very frank. People referred to the notes they had taken and more than once we asked for portions of the testimony to be read back to us because of conflicts between note takers. In all three cases I thought the verdicts we reached were as fair and as impartial as humans could make them.
Are there idiot jurors, stupid judges, and sleazy lawyers? Of course there are - but the big question is - are these people typical? Based on what I've experienced I'd have to say - no.
The already posted surveillance video of the teens driving around an already stopped and waiting vehicle, on what would appear to be a 2 lane road, is proof enough, in my mind, that the crossing protection was functioning in advance of the train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I can't say that I was specifically not chosen for a jury one time because of my occupation but all remarks led me to believe it was true. The defense attorney asked if I my occupation had a constant reinforcement with safety and safety-related materials. I replied that it did and when he was given so many prospective jurors to excuse, I was one of them. Coincidence?
I suppose I cut the comment concerning occupations a little too short. In every case they did ask your occupation but the only ones that I saw that elicited additional questions were as mentioned in the first post. As for your case - one person, one lawyer's choice, one data point and no additional information about the occupations of any of those who were chosen nor information about the kind of case - with this data it could have been anything - one possibility, of course, is that they were trying for a dumbing down but there are any number of others. In any event I don't see how this single sample could possibly be viewed as proof of the assertion
"What about the jury questionaires that are used to screen out anybody with a brain in their head and to pack the jury with idiots who actually believe the party with the most money is always at fault?"
Getting back to the point this thread - I took a look at the video clip from the camera - unless the three juries I served on were wild exceptions to the rule I would have a very hard time believing a typical jury would find for the driver. Now, before everyone starts chiming in with all of those McDonald coffee stories - remember the point of the first post was the question of what constitutes typical jury selection/behavior - as I said, based on what I've seen, the statement quoted above does not describe typical.
In the final analysis - I must say I'm very sorry for the suffering that drivers actions caused on all sides - the engineer, the passengers in the car, the families and spouses of those involved, etc. I've read a number of first person accounts by railroad engineers which have included descriptions of grade crossing accidents. Just recalling the written description of some of the accidents is enough to make me cringe - I can only guess what it must do, on a daily basis, to the engineer who lived through it.
At the risk of antagonizing the various attorneys on this forum, I find the contingency fee to be an inherent conflict of interest. When the size of the attorney's paycheck is directly linked to the size of the settlement, it can encourage an attorney to bleed the defendant for as much as he can rather than get a fair and just settlement.
RudyRockvilleMDMany states restrict the number of teens that can drive with other teen age drivers in one car, family members not included. Didn't the driver learn about the danger of driving around lowered crossing gates?
A. Most teens can't stand that law, and if they ignore it, it wouldn't surprise me.
B. It's just like when 30, 40, 50 year olds plow through the crossing bell sounding, lights flashing, gates down. They're impatient, or not paying attention to what's going on.
It's a shame really.
Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.