Quote:
Originally Posted by aussenseiter
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I think she being sentimental, not literal.
|
Either way, I find it interesting
I don’t know that much legal stuff, but I did serve on 2 different juries, one criminal 2 day’er and one civil one day’er. In the criminal I was nominated as lead juror to organize the group and read our conclusion, because I was apparently pretty good at keeping the group talking, productive, on topic, and mediating any arguments/disagreements
Prior to any of this, as both attorneys decide on jury members we are all given a list of topics that the case pertains to (some pretty indirectly) and asked to announce any pre-existing biases. This seems like a quick way to get home because at least one of the attorneys isn’t going to like any biases whatsoever and I believe both have to agree on the selection (although my memory hazy, it’s been years)
Yet, an attorney in court announces what could be construed as an obvious bias, and gets away with it? I understand maybe it was meant in the figurative sense such as “I am for democracy” or some cheesy virtuous shit like that. But to wear a shirt of an obvious political movement which the defendant has been in a physical and legal feud with for years, the optics of that seem astoundingly bad to me
/shrug