[speaker001:] Well, this is kind of ironic because I work in T I -s legal department.
[speaker002:] Do you?
[speaker001:] And although we don't have any criminal actions here, we do have other, um, lawsuits that do go to trial from time to time.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] And, uh, when was it, a couple weeks ago I was asked to go to, uh, jury duty I, I wasn't selected but, um, for some of our cases in particular we have, um, very technical cases from time to time because of like our patents and such.
[speaker002:] Sure.
[speaker001:] And it's very difficult for lay people for somebody who might just, you know happen to be selected in our jury, to understand what we're talking about.
[speaker002:] Well, I do think that the cases like the, uh, oh, say something like Texaco versus Pennzoil,
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] or, or the Texaco Pennzoil problem,
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] uh, is ridiculous for people just taken off the street to understand, and,
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] really should have some better way where people who understand both the circumstances and the complex issues involved, should handle cases like that.
[speaker001:] Yeah, you know, some I don't, you always have the option, now in criminal I guess you always have a jury, but in civil cases you have the option of whether you want a jury or not.
[speaker002:] Oh, is that right?
[speaker001:] Yeah, and in some incidences I think they ought to, ought not to have a jury,
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] um [LAUGHTER].
[speaker002:] Okay, boy. Or, uh, or there should be some way where it could be opted for them not to have a jury. Uh, I was only on one jury ever,
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] so far in my life, and, uh, it really was a pretty trivial, case and it seemed to me all the time I was thinking of all these people in the courtroom over the case that involved, oh, a couple thousand dollars I think,
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] it was, it was really just, uh, uh, terrific waste of everybody's time and money.
[speaker001:] Um.
[speaker002:] And it finally ended up that, uh, even though we had reached a verdict before we were allowed to give it, they settled the case.
[speaker001:] Oh.
[speaker002:] They wo-, they had settled while we were deliberating.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] Now, the one thing I did approve of there was that we didn't have to be unanimous because it was a civil case.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] And, uh, we were split, uh, ten to two so, it was, uh, a good thing that, [LAUGHTER] it wasn't a total waste of time to have a hung jury on a case that trivial.
[speaker001:] Yeah, well, um, I've never fully served, I mean, I've been asked twice to go down but I didn't get elected on the panel, but, I know, that, um, for a lot of the civil cases it's rare, I mean, if your a lawyer, um, there, you could be a lawyer who never actually gets into the courtroom [LAUGHTER], there's a lot of attorneys like that, that never get to the courtroom. Some, their kind of law doesn't get them to the courtroom, but even in, um, litigation which is doing lawsuits, is a lot of times that you never get to the courtroom itself and,
[speaker002:] Well, I think that the trial in a sense, is kind of a threat to hold over people to try to get them to reach an agreement out of court,
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] because it does cost so much money.
[speaker001:] But it's a shame that, oh, it's not so bad for the court system because the money there isn't being spent but there's awful lot of money in time and effort spent in preparing for trial only to then finally get scared enough by going to the court and usually it's the scare kind of, of the jury because you really don't know one way or the other how that jury is going to feel.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] You could feel that you really have a very strong case and that you're very much right but the jury may or may not see it that way,
[speaker002:] Sure.
[speaker001:] so you get a little antic-, you know, anxious there and go well, you know,
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] I don't feel that sure and who knows what the jury will say because sometimes, you know, the juries come down with a result and you go, gee [LAUGHTER].
[speaker002:] Yeah, I was a witness in a case, in a criminal case.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] And it was absolutely horrifying to me how that operated because so much evidence was excluded,
[speaker001:] Um.
[speaker002:] and that the jury was never allowed to hear and they convicted the defendant, I, on as far as I could tell, very flimsy evidence and two perjured testimonies.
[speaker001:] Oh, really?
[speaker002:] And I knew the people involved, both the people who d and the people who, uh, were defendants.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] And, yeah, I think that was just a, a horrible miscarriage of justice because of the, uh, you know, staying by the absolute strict rules and not allowing things to be presented to the jury, that, uh, were highly irrelevant to the case and could, I thought, have established the defendant's innocence.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] So, uh, I do, although I'm a lawyer's daughter and I have lawyer's,
[speaker001:] Oh really?
[speaker002:] and judges on both sides of the family, and uncles and cousins and things like that, I really think that we have gotten into much, too legalistic of society and that we, we spend far too much on the fine points of the law and far too little on achieving justice.
[speaker001:] Yeah, and it seems a lot of times that, uh, especially in criminals that, their rights are so protected but what about the rights of, you know, the rest of society, I mean, we're protecting this person's rights who has broken the law,
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] um, and we protect him so much, but what about the rest of the society, you know, what are we doing for them, we're kind of, you know, forgetting about them and, I think sometimes that a criminal should kind of, if he breaks law, especially it he's a repeater, the law shouldn't just always cover for him,
[speaker002:] Well, and then in a lot of,
[speaker001:] that some of his rights as should be taken.
[speaker002:] Yeah, in criminal cases, uh, for instance, you can't bring up prior convictions unless they are somehow directly related to the case. And it seems to me that a jury can make a much more rational decision if they know somebody had fifteen convictions for a similar crime,
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] now it's possible that he didn't commit the but [LAUGHTER], the likelihood certainly tilts it.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] With a record like that. And,
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] that was one of the things that we're not allowed to, was not allowed in the, uh, trial I went to, though, uh, one of the two people who gave the perjured testimony, had a long criminal record and had been, you know, a real sleaze bag.
[speaker001:] Um,
[speaker002:] And he came in and was presented to the court as a standing young man who had, uh, been in seminary to become a priest, and,
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER].
[speaker002:] you would have thought the guy was just pure as the driven snow, but I happen to know his background and I know that he would have sold out his mother for, uh, uh, shorter sentence.
[speaker001:] Jeez.
[speaker002:] And, you know, it's, it's really annoying when the, I asked the defense attorney later why he didn't bring up all this other trouble the guy had been in. He said that, that was barred, uh, by the court.
[speaker001:] Um,
[speaker002:] So, we do have some problems and it seems to me that, uh, maybe it's time to just scrap all the case law and go back to general principles [LAUGHTER].
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER].
[speaker002:] and start over. And then make a legal system that carefully protects people but, uh, where you,
[speaker001:] Yeah, I'd even go for, for trying to get some truth out of the witness stand if they come up with some pretty reliable, uh, um, lie detector tests that we can see right then and there whether they're lying or telling the truth.
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER].
[speaker002:] Yeah, that would be wrongful.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] Yeah, you know.
[speaker002:] Sure would.
[speaker001:] Yeah, I witnessed one trial many years ago when I was first, um, studying to be a paralegal and, uh, uh, they barred priors on this, uh, person and they never then told us, I guess, because priors had a reason as to why these two people were very much in hatred of each other.
[speaker002:] Um.
[speaker001:] And they never told us why these two people had such a vendetta against each other and the crime was, uh, uh, attempt to commit murder, you know,
[speaker002:] Um.
[speaker001:] but they never told us why these people were mad at each other and gee, you know, that's,
[speaker002:] And you think that would be relevant.
[speaker001:] Yeah, you know, because they, they told us in school that, you know, crime has to be an intent, you know, has to be not just the act but you have to intend to do it because there could be accidental kind of things, you know,
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] but they never told us why these two people, hated themselves or if one had done something to, you know, really aggravate the other there was never any motive,
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] given and, and I had a tough time with that and, and being a person who saw what the jury didn't plus what the jury did, because we were just observing, you know, there in the courtroom,
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] at the end of it all, I still didn't know [LAUGHTER].
[speaker002:] Yeah, right.
[speaker001:] I still have a lot of reasonable doubts and I've seen everything presented and, you know, they just haven't done a real complete case here to my thinking.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] I don't know that I want to,
[speaker002:] I think so, and I,
[speaker001:] sit on a jury like that and you'd still, you know, I want ask some questions here [LAUGHTER].
[speaker002:] Yeah, that's something I thought would be a very good idea of when juries come in they are told just to shut up and listen.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] And it seems to me that you'd get a lot more, uh, information if your questions were heard,
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] if you were allowed to ask the witnesses things, or if, or the lawyers things or even the judge.
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] But particularly the witnesses.
[speaker001:] Right. Yeah, allow them to, uh, go back and, and deliberate and, uh, you know, after each days proceedings come out with some questions that they want answered like the next day, bring those people back,
[speaker002:] Or if they would allow them to, uh, give broader answers, they, it's really kind of, uh, choreographed. It's like a script has been written when people testify. They aren't testifying really in their own words,
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] Yeah, I can remember, uh, friends of Daddy...