Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Texas Court Holds First U.S. Jury Trial Via Videoconferencing

Not okay.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6Last Saturday at 5:51 AM

They should vote for Death & then someone should flush the toilet.

by Anonymousreply 1Last Friday at 4:44 AM

That's the jury? Dont they have to remain anonymous?

by Anonymousreply 2Last Friday at 5:03 AM

This sets a dangerous precedent, as does the notion of Congress passing laws remotely. No surprise Texas is the first to do it. An unconstitutional hoodwinking is taking place with the consent of the panic stricken public....

by Anonymousreply 3Last Friday at 5:19 AM

SSDI determinations are done by video sometimes to utilize judges from other areas, with some benefits. However, SSDI cases in person have a 3% increase in approval, rather than the video conference, and disability lawyers prefer when it's done in person. They also provide the choice to clients, so choosing in person over video is your right (video conference can just move things along quicker). That's just with one judge vs an entire jury.

I could see some benefit with this when juries outside of jurisdictions are needed, and maybe people would participate more if they weren't forced into dealing with tedious inconveniences, like parking, driving expenses, and so on -- but at the same time, I agree, there could be a risk of negative outcomes using this method.

Juries are a right and supposed to protect people, but the process has been in need of serious reexamination as it is, before heading into uncharted territory such as this.

by Anonymousreply 4Last Friday at 6:28 AM

[quote]Juries are a right and supposed to protect people, but the process has been in need of serious reexamination as it is, before heading into uncharted territory such as this.

I agree. Inside a court room, you can't google information about the trial and are a captive audience.

Also, I have no empirical evidence, but big trials like OJ and Weinstein are already a circus surrounded by media frenzy. Seems like this would add to that, not to mention "watching" a trial on your computer like you were watching an episode of Perry Mason only adds to the melodrama. As it is, people have taken decades of court dramas into the courts and have completely unrealistic expectations about what happens, what the burden of proof is, and how lawyers act.

by Anonymousreply 5Last Friday at 6:50 AM

Someone votes for the Death 💀 Penalty when they’d rather shoot their wife who’s nagging at them in the background!

by Anonymousreply 6Last Saturday at 5:51 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!