[speaker001:] That's it.
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] What do you think are possible changes in the, uh, way trials are conducted these days? Do you like the way some people in there for instance, really take over and, uh, we have no way, uh, of knowing whether they are legitimately right or wrong and so forth.
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] What do you think about these things?
[speaker002:] Well, as I look at our trial systems, I think they've gotten to be quite a joke. The way the people can appeal and file for mistrials and they've taken a lot of the things that were set up to make it be a fair system and used it to their advantage. I think that a jury should listen to the courts, uh, to, to the hearings and to everything, but I think they should only weigh fifty percent of the decision. I think the judge should hold the, or maybe even forty-nine, and the judge should be able to rule one way or the other.
[speaker001:] Y-, so you're saying yo-, you think the judge should actually have the final say?
[speaker002:] I think he should.
[speaker001:] [Throat clearing].
[speaker002:] And I think that there should be more than one judge. There should be maybe two, at least
[speaker001:] Huh.
[speaker002:] that sit in and listen so that there's no way that you could have like a crooked judge. Do you know what I mean?
[speaker001:] Yes. I know what you mean.
[speaker002:] Um, and I think that there, it's important to have a jury, but I think the way that they go through so much time to get it a fair one. That's okay too. As long as it's not used to delay the trial so much. They need to have a fair jury but they only w-, you know, would cover fif-, forty-nine percent of the decision or fifty percent and then the two judges would go ahead and make the final decision.
[speaker001:] [Lipsmack] Well,
[speaker002:] How do you feel about that?
[speaker001:] I hadn't, uh, thought of it from that point of view before. I have been in a fairly important trial, and, uh, what bothers me is I was concerned of the ability of some of the people in the jury to adequately understand
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] what was being presented so that they themselves could make a proper and, uh, accurate decision. That's the part that bothered me about it. Um, I really think that the, the, the jury ought to have more say so in the selection or in the determination of whether they are guilty or not. But I also think that the jury should be, uh, very, very, uh, carefully, more carefully selected to make sure that they are entirely intel-, intelligent people and that they understand some of the details that are involved so that they can make accu-, accurate decisions.
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] I hate to see people brought in who basically have lived out in the country and don't know much about any of this stuff, and, and they just make a decision based on whether they like the dress she wore that day or whether that guy smiled or growled all the time.
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] That's no way to make a decision on some terrible problem.
[speaker002:] Right. Well, what if they used, you know, I just had a thought come as you were talking. What if they used law students and had that be credit hours to sit in trials?
[speaker001:] That would be certainly nice sh-, let's say we, we would have fifty percent of them law students,
[speaker002:] Yeah, at least.
[speaker001:] anyway.
[speaker002:] At least,
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] on the jury.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] And that would give them,
[speaker001:] [Throat clearing] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] experience in the courtroom, and it could count as some aspect or hours going into their major.
[speaker001:] That's a very neat idea, and they would learn a lot about being lawyers later in life
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] when they see what it is like to be in the jury side of a trial.
[speaker002:] That's right. That would be a really good thing to do.
[speaker001:] That would be a, a really good thing to do.
[speaker002:] [LAUGHTER].
[speaker001:] So it's [LAUGHTER],
[speaker002:] I have a girlfriend that just went through a three year trial,
[speaker001:] Huh.
[speaker002:] and what happened was her husband was, uh, involved in a motorcycle accident where a drunk driver ran the stoplight and he ran into the motorcycle.
[speaker001:] Huh.
[speaker002:] But the reason, the actual reason that the motorcycle person, her husband, was killed was because his brakes went out on his motorcycle. He was just taking it home from the place. It was brand new, and his brakes did not work.
[speaker001:] For goodness sakes.
[speaker002:] And this expensive, big company that owned these motorcycles, um, railroaded this into three years worth of trials for this lady and she had a son that was just only two years old when it happened
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] and they were following him home in the car. Saw the whole thing happen.
[speaker001:] Oh, they saw the husband,
[speaker002:] That's right.
[speaker001:] get,
[speaker002:] They were following him home from the motorcycle shop.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] And they railroaded this whole trial into mistrials, um, this and that and the other. Every time she'd get a verdict that would be in her favor of her,
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] of a settlement,
[speaker001:] They would find something wrong with it.
[speaker002:] Until finally they won and,
[speaker001:] Did they really?
[speaker002:] said that it was the drunk driver's fault and she would have to sue him. *needs slash unit
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] Which I would think it would be some his fault, but I just felt like justice wasn't served because they had the money, the big lawyers, and she didn't,
[speaker001:] That is a shame. You'd think there would be enough, uh, people who saw the accident other than his wife,
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] to, to also, uh, make statements, and they have nothing to gain one way or the other. So if they say a certain way, then why not believe them.
[speaker002:] Right. And I don't know all the details on that, but I certainly think that we've come up with a good idea with the, [lipsmack] the stu-, the students coming into the jury.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] And I don't think that it would be such a bad idea even if the judge didn't have the final say.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.