Being a Dodger fan who is watching this year's team fall into a black hole, I am beginning to think about next season. And, of course, with the McCourt case on trial, the next season is pretty much up in the air.
From the latest items over at Dodger Divorce ... it would appear that Frank McCourt is the owner of the Dodgers in regards to the team's relationship to Major League Baseball. However, the marital property rights agreement which addresses assets within the context of their marriage remains in question. It would appear the McCourt attorney who prepared it is claiming that Frank's claim is what was intended. However, Silverstein's mixing up the words exclusive and inclusive and then fixing it without explicitly informing both parties was made clear under Boies questioning.
Suffice to say that seems very fishy and at least poor legal/business practice.
I would suspect that having these facts come out in court is driving the parties to try to settle out of court.
I would guess Team Frank's lawyers fear that Judge Gordon will toss the MPA out because of lawyer incompetence in which case he would have to give up 50% of the team. While Team Jamie's lawyers would be telling her, you could get 50% or nothing if you let Judge Gordon decide or you can cut a deal for something in between 0 and 50%.
Showing posts with label LA Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LA Law. Show all posts
LA Law: McCourt Trial and the Dodger Debts
LAT on the story ... excerpt:
Since buying the Dodgers for $430 million six years ago, Frank McCourt has so heavily leveraged the team — $433 million in debt as of last year — that he has struggled to find additional financing.
The debt load has limited how the Dodgers can pay their players and could affect the team's ability to sign talent.
McCourt was turned down at least three times — by Citibank, by a Chinese investment group and by a Southern California infomercial king — in trying to secure additional financing last year, according to documents filed in the divorce case between him and his estranged wife, Jamie.
$433,000,000 in debt!
Further down the article it says:
$72 million operating revenue
$8.4 million net profit
$28 million debt service (38.8%)
$34 million revenue-sharing payments.
Hmmm ... how is the USA doing right now?
If these numbers are reliable ...
$2.1 trillion tax revenue
$200.5 billion interest on debt (9.5%)
The US Government isn't yet at a place where it is likely to default on its debts. The McCourt's in the eyes of the potential lenders are at risk of default.
Thus, somewhere between 9.5% and 38.8% debt servicing as percentage of revenue, lenders begin to get nervous.
Since buying the Dodgers for $430 million six years ago, Frank McCourt has so heavily leveraged the team — $433 million in debt as of last year — that he has struggled to find additional financing.
The debt load has limited how the Dodgers can pay their players and could affect the team's ability to sign talent.
McCourt was turned down at least three times — by Citibank, by a Chinese investment group and by a Southern California infomercial king — in trying to secure additional financing last year, according to documents filed in the divorce case between him and his estranged wife, Jamie.
$433,000,000 in debt!
Further down the article it says:
$72 million operating revenue
$8.4 million net profit
$28 million debt service (38.8%)
$34 million revenue-sharing payments.
Hmmm ... how is the USA doing right now?
If these numbers are reliable ...
$2.1 trillion tax revenue
$200.5 billion interest on debt (9.5%)
The US Government isn't yet at a place where it is likely to default on its debts. The McCourt's in the eyes of the potential lenders are at risk of default.
Thus, somewhere between 9.5% and 38.8% debt servicing as percentage of revenue, lenders begin to get nervous.
LA Law: Jury Duty, Part V, Day 4
Day 4 began with the prosecution saying they had no questions for jurors 16-18. I was prospective juror #18.
The questioning at times could be quite intense.
The judge usually was pretty mild. He might press a bit to clarify what a juror wrote on the questionnaire. The prosecution usually was too. Mostly seeking clarification. At times, the defense seemed to push harder to get the juror to reveal their views on things.
Once something gets out in the open like the jurors strong views for or against capital punishment, the questioning ceases.
In the huddles with the judge, defense and prosecution to decide which jurors are removed for cause, I'm guessing the lawyers for the respective sides are trying to convince the judge to excuse a juror for cause rather than having to use one of their own peremptory challenges. Apparently, both sides are allocated a finite number of peremptory challenges.
During peremptory challenges, they look over their notes about the existing jurors in the box and also look around at the remaining prospective jurors probably trying to figure out whether who is in the box is the "best" option or they should try to question a few more prospective ones.
In the end, the job of the two sides would be to identify jurors who would be sympathetic to their side but fair enough to both sides so one side or the other won't seek to remove them. We wouldn't want jurors who automatically assume the defendant is guilty. Likewise, we don't want jurors who would assume law enforcement officials fudge the facts to make the arrests.
Without "mind reading" machines, how do we identify fair jurors?
And so we answer 30+ pages of questions and get questioned by the judge, the defense and the prosecution. And somehow, a jury of 12 people (plus 6 alternates) gets selected and they decide guilty or not guilty? And if guilty, is the defendant guilty of the special circumstances? And if so, then they have to decide with one voice, whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.
Even sitting as a prospective juror, I felt the weight of this burden. As a someone who supports the death penalty, was I willing to sit on a jury for 2 months (thus missing work) and sharing the responsibility of perhaps actually imposing a death sentence? The answer was yes, I was willing, not gladly, but out a civic duty.
In the end, I was prospective juror #3 for about 2 hours on the 4th day of jury selection when I was excused by the prosecution in peremptory. I hypothesized that I was excused due to the CSI Effect. In my questionnaire, I indicated that I did watch those kinds of TV shows and my molecular biology background probably added to the prosecution concerns about wanted too much of this kind of evidence to support their case.
In my conversations with other prospective jurors (we didn't discuss any specifics of the case), none of us wanted to be on the jury but I think we were all moved by Judge Wesley's passionate speech at the beginning of jury selection about it being a civic duty and how the disruption of our lives pales in comparison to the sacrifice of military personnel and their families.
I had only thought about the death penalty in the abstract and really didn't understand how it worked and I think many of us were in that situation.
Is the system "fair"?
I suppose one wonders in the absolute abstract sense.
Is it "fair" in comparison to what? Fair as it is now to some other hypothetical ways we could handle these kinds of cases? I'm sure people disagree.
But I don't see how else to do it until we have mind reading machines and video cameras everywhere ... we have this system where two sides contend to convince 12 ordinary people.
UPDATE: Since I was not selected to be on the jury, I can now read the news about the case.
UPDATE: The jury found the defendant's guilty on all charges.
UPDATE: The jury has voted for the death penalty.
The questioning at times could be quite intense.
The judge usually was pretty mild. He might press a bit to clarify what a juror wrote on the questionnaire. The prosecution usually was too. Mostly seeking clarification. At times, the defense seemed to push harder to get the juror to reveal their views on things.
Once something gets out in the open like the jurors strong views for or against capital punishment, the questioning ceases.
In the huddles with the judge, defense and prosecution to decide which jurors are removed for cause, I'm guessing the lawyers for the respective sides are trying to convince the judge to excuse a juror for cause rather than having to use one of their own peremptory challenges. Apparently, both sides are allocated a finite number of peremptory challenges.
During peremptory challenges, they look over their notes about the existing jurors in the box and also look around at the remaining prospective jurors probably trying to figure out whether who is in the box is the "best" option or they should try to question a few more prospective ones.
In the end, the job of the two sides would be to identify jurors who would be sympathetic to their side but fair enough to both sides so one side or the other won't seek to remove them. We wouldn't want jurors who automatically assume the defendant is guilty. Likewise, we don't want jurors who would assume law enforcement officials fudge the facts to make the arrests.
Without "mind reading" machines, how do we identify fair jurors?
And so we answer 30+ pages of questions and get questioned by the judge, the defense and the prosecution. And somehow, a jury of 12 people (plus 6 alternates) gets selected and they decide guilty or not guilty? And if guilty, is the defendant guilty of the special circumstances? And if so, then they have to decide with one voice, whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.
Even sitting as a prospective juror, I felt the weight of this burden. As a someone who supports the death penalty, was I willing to sit on a jury for 2 months (thus missing work) and sharing the responsibility of perhaps actually imposing a death sentence? The answer was yes, I was willing, not gladly, but out a civic duty.
In the end, I was prospective juror #3 for about 2 hours on the 4th day of jury selection when I was excused by the prosecution in peremptory. I hypothesized that I was excused due to the CSI Effect. In my questionnaire, I indicated that I did watch those kinds of TV shows and my molecular biology background probably added to the prosecution concerns about wanted too much of this kind of evidence to support their case.
In my conversations with other prospective jurors (we didn't discuss any specifics of the case), none of us wanted to be on the jury but I think we were all moved by Judge Wesley's passionate speech at the beginning of jury selection about it being a civic duty and how the disruption of our lives pales in comparison to the sacrifice of military personnel and their families.
I had only thought about the death penalty in the abstract and really didn't understand how it worked and I think many of us were in that situation.
Is the system "fair"?
I suppose one wonders in the absolute abstract sense.
Is it "fair" in comparison to what? Fair as it is now to some other hypothetical ways we could handle these kinds of cases? I'm sure people disagree.
But I don't see how else to do it until we have mind reading machines and video cameras everywhere ... we have this system where two sides contend to convince 12 ordinary people.
UPDATE: Since I was not selected to be on the jury, I can now read the news about the case.
UPDATE: The jury found the defendant's guilty on all charges.
UPDATE: The jury has voted for the death penalty.
LA Law: Profile of Judge Scott Gordon in LAT (McCourt Case)
As a Dodger fan, the problems of the ownership has indicated trouble ahead for the organization.
LAT's Bill Shaikin has been on the story of the McCourt divorce case.
Here, he profiles the judge presiding over the case.
UPDATE: If you are really interested in the following the case, check out Dodger Divorce which is a blog devoted to covering the trail written by Joshua Fisher who describes himself:
A writer and law student with experience in finance, bankruptcy, and international law, Joshua has spent considerable time in Minnesota, Los Angeles, and Kansas City. His tentative retirement plan is to own and operate an independent league baseball team. In his free time, Joshua researches and writes for his own website, www.dodgerdivorce.com, and follows the Kansas Jayhawks with religious fervor. Joshua can be reached via Twitter (@DodgerDivorce) or e-mail (Joshua.Fisher.baseball [AT] gmail [DOT] com).
LAT's Bill Shaikin has been on the story of the McCourt divorce case.
Here, he profiles the judge presiding over the case.
UPDATE: If you are really interested in the following the case, check out Dodger Divorce which is a blog devoted to covering the trail written by Joshua Fisher who describes himself:
A writer and law student with experience in finance, bankruptcy, and international law, Joshua has spent considerable time in Minnesota, Los Angeles, and Kansas City. His tentative retirement plan is to own and operate an independent league baseball team. In his free time, Joshua researches and writes for his own website, www.dodgerdivorce.com, and follows the Kansas Jayhawks with religious fervor. Joshua can be reached via Twitter (@DodgerDivorce) or e-mail (Joshua.Fisher.baseball [AT] gmail [DOT] com).
LA Law: Jury Duty, Part IV, Day 3
Day three of my jury service was my first day present at jury selection.
I was one of the 75 people of panel B. The day before, the jury selection started with the 75 people of panel A.
So when me and my panel B mates arrived, there were 18 jurors (6 alternates) in the box and the remainder of panel A in the seats.
Jurors can be excused by the following methods:
(1) By agreement of judge, defense and prosecution for hardship and by the judge for cause.
Of the hardship cases, in open court, it was granted to one juror who was the sole breadwinner of the family with a pregnant wife about to give birth. In another, the juror was hugely pregnant and presented the court with a letter from her OB/GYN.
There were probably other cases successfully made in the questionnaires. In those cases, at the beginning, the clerk read the juror ID numbers and those jurors left right away. I suppose some might have been excused for cause as well.
Excusal for cause came up after a huddle of the judge, prosecution and defense after all three parties had questioned prospective jurors 13-18 in the box.
Usually, these jurors fell into these categories: very strongly in favor of the death penalty, very strongly opposed to the death penalty or got very emotional during questioning.
The excused jurors from the jury box was then refilled.
If jurors were not excused for hardship or cause, then jurors could be excused at the request of the prosecution or the defense. At this step, the two sides alternate in making the request to remove a juror sitting seats 1-12. As each was excused, someone from seat 13-18 filled the newly vacated seat.
The 6 empty seats of 13-18 then gets refilled from the unseated panel of prospective jurors.
Excused jurors were in similar categories to those released for cause: strongly in favor of the death penalty, strongly opposed to the death penalty or got emotional during questioning.
It was hard to know which of those three conditions were so strong that the juror was excused for cause as opposed to being removed by peremptory challenges.
Additionally, at peremptory, jurors with law enforcement backgrounds or who had immediate family member in law enforcement were excused. Anyone who had direct experience with the criminal justice system or had such family members were excused. Since the case involved gangs, anyone who knew gang members were excused.
In most cases, it was fairly easy to guess a the possible reason why the defense or prosecution issued the peremptory.
By the end of day 3 of my service, I was prospective juror #18.
I was asked about my profession by the judge and whether I thought I could be a fair and impartial juror.
The defense lawyer for defendant #1 (the one who had the most charges) asked about who Dennis Prager was since I had written in my questionnaire that my views were influenced by Prager!
I said, he is a radio talk show host on 870AM. He talks about a variety of subjects and I heard him talk about the death penalty a few times.
He asked about my response to the question of whether I would trust the testimony of a gang member. I had written that the defendant being a gang member would be one factor of many factors in evaluating testimony. The lawyer wanted to know what I meant.
I replied that as a scientist, we evaluate multiple lines of information in our work. Thus, I'd look at how consistent the testimony was, does it track with the testimony of other people and whether there was physical evidence to support the testimony.
He then asked what if there was not supporting sources?
At this point, the judge intervened, I will be instructing jurors on how testimony should be evaluated. Move on to the next question.
The lawyer said, no further questions.
The lawyer for the second defendant asked about my profession just as the judge did. I gave bit more information about my work than in my first reply. He then asked, would it be a hardship to serve on this jury?
I replied that we depend on competing for grant money so it is like a small business and that to stop working in the lab for potentially 60 days would be challenging.
He said, no further questions.
The prosecution asked questions of prospective jurors 13-15.
Thus, ended day 3.
I was one of the 75 people of panel B. The day before, the jury selection started with the 75 people of panel A.
So when me and my panel B mates arrived, there were 18 jurors (6 alternates) in the box and the remainder of panel A in the seats.
Jurors can be excused by the following methods:
(1) By agreement of judge, defense and prosecution for hardship and by the judge for cause.
Of the hardship cases, in open court, it was granted to one juror who was the sole breadwinner of the family with a pregnant wife about to give birth. In another, the juror was hugely pregnant and presented the court with a letter from her OB/GYN.
There were probably other cases successfully made in the questionnaires. In those cases, at the beginning, the clerk read the juror ID numbers and those jurors left right away. I suppose some might have been excused for cause as well.
Excusal for cause came up after a huddle of the judge, prosecution and defense after all three parties had questioned prospective jurors 13-18 in the box.
Usually, these jurors fell into these categories: very strongly in favor of the death penalty, very strongly opposed to the death penalty or got very emotional during questioning.
The excused jurors from the jury box was then refilled.
If jurors were not excused for hardship or cause, then jurors could be excused at the request of the prosecution or the defense. At this step, the two sides alternate in making the request to remove a juror sitting seats 1-12. As each was excused, someone from seat 13-18 filled the newly vacated seat.
The 6 empty seats of 13-18 then gets refilled from the unseated panel of prospective jurors.
Excused jurors were in similar categories to those released for cause: strongly in favor of the death penalty, strongly opposed to the death penalty or got emotional during questioning.
It was hard to know which of those three conditions were so strong that the juror was excused for cause as opposed to being removed by peremptory challenges.
Additionally, at peremptory, jurors with law enforcement backgrounds or who had immediate family member in law enforcement were excused. Anyone who had direct experience with the criminal justice system or had such family members were excused. Since the case involved gangs, anyone who knew gang members were excused.
In most cases, it was fairly easy to guess a the possible reason why the defense or prosecution issued the peremptory.
By the end of day 3 of my service, I was prospective juror #18.
I was asked about my profession by the judge and whether I thought I could be a fair and impartial juror.
The defense lawyer for defendant #1 (the one who had the most charges) asked about who Dennis Prager was since I had written in my questionnaire that my views were influenced by Prager!
I said, he is a radio talk show host on 870AM. He talks about a variety of subjects and I heard him talk about the death penalty a few times.
He asked about my response to the question of whether I would trust the testimony of a gang member. I had written that the defendant being a gang member would be one factor of many factors in evaluating testimony. The lawyer wanted to know what I meant.
I replied that as a scientist, we evaluate multiple lines of information in our work. Thus, I'd look at how consistent the testimony was, does it track with the testimony of other people and whether there was physical evidence to support the testimony.
He then asked what if there was not supporting sources?
At this point, the judge intervened, I will be instructing jurors on how testimony should be evaluated. Move on to the next question.
The lawyer said, no further questions.
The lawyer for the second defendant asked about my profession just as the judge did. I gave bit more information about my work than in my first reply. He then asked, would it be a hardship to serve on this jury?
I replied that we depend on competing for grant money so it is like a small business and that to stop working in the lab for potentially 60 days would be challenging.
He said, no further questions.
The prosecution asked questions of prospective jurors 13-15.
Thus, ended day 3.
LA Law: Jury Duty, Part III, Day 2
After receiving the summons, I called in as required. I reported to the courthouse as instructed, was placed on a prospective jury panel and we were told when to call back again.
Thus, I called on the evening they indicated and was told to report to the courthouse.
From what I had heard, panel A was 75 prospective jurors, panel B was 75 prospective jurors and panel C was 50 prospective jurors. I was on panel B.
After taking roll, we filed into the courtroom. The clerk reported to the judge which jurors had not shown up. The judged issued contempt of court citations to those who missed the roll call. In the end, I think those citations were removed when those jurors eventually arrived later.
The judge addressed the big elephant in the room: I am pretty sure no one has volunteered to be here to be on a case that may last 60 days. He tackled the subject head on by saying jury duty is a responsibility of citizenship. He stressed that there are military personnel who risk their lives and their families endure long separations which are truly huge sacrifices.
Thus, in comparison, jury duty service pales in comparison. He said an opportunity would be provided for prospective jurors to make their hardship situations known but current practice was that few would be granted.
He also said that California law requires that prospective juror privacy be protected as much as possible. Thus, each juror will be identified only by the last four digits of their juror identification number found on the badge.
The judge then turned the floor over to the prosecution and the defense lawyers to briefly describe the case. The prosecutor described the crime the two defendants were alleged to have committed. The first murder occurred by gunfire when one of the defendants was accused of firing into a crowd of young people killing one and wounding several others. The second murder occurred by multiple stabbing where both defendants were alleged to have joined others in the murder of a gang member whom the gang thought had cooperated with the police's investigation of the initial shooting. The prosecution cited that the murders were committed with special circumstances and if the jury finds that defendant number one guilty with one or more of the special circumstances, they would seek the death penalty.
The was a faintly audible reaction among the prospective jurors as the prosecutor described the brutal murders. Additionally, in some cases, there was visible discomfort on some of the faces of the prospective jurors.
The attorney for defendant number one gave only a brief statement saying indeed the crimes described were awful but that the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his client committed the crimes as described.
The attorney for the second defendant also spoke briefly saying that the story was more complicated than the prosecution described. He emphasized that his client was charged only with the second murder and that in the context of the gang, his client was present at the scene due to coercion.
The judge spoke about the history of the death penalty in California. He pointed out that there was a time when there was no death penalty in California. But in the 1970s the voters, by initiative, restored the death penalty. The law made the option of the death penalty available only if special circumstances were demonstrated. Additionally, the law mandated that only the jury could impose the death penalty. The judge said in all other criminal cases, the judge decided the punishment. Thus, the case would have a trial phase where the prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty of the crimes and if the defendant committed the crime with one or more of the special circumstances. If special circumstances were found, the second phase would be the punishment phase where the jury wwould decide life in prison with possibility of parole or the death penalty.
The judge continued, I have asked the attorneys to describe the case briefly because we are now going to ask you to fill out a 30+ page questionnaire. Because you now know some of the circumstances of this case, the questions will make sense to you. Please fill them out as completely as possible and be as honest as possible because your answers will be provided to all the attorneys and will guide all three parties (judge, defense and prosecution) in the jury selection phase with an examination process called voir dire. Jurors will be excused from this case by one of three methods: (1) a genuine hardship is recognized by all three parties; (2) for cause that is recognized by all three parties; and (3) by peremptory challenges from either the prosecution or the defense.
We went outside and filled out the 30+ page questionnaire. It covered a wide range of topics including: impressions of law enforcement, experience with gang members, viewing of crime dramas on television, sources of news, opinions about psychology, role in supervising others at work and as expected, numerous questions pertaining to the death penalty.
We turned in the forms and were sent home from day two of jury duty service with a date to return to continue with jury selection.
Thus, I called on the evening they indicated and was told to report to the courthouse.
From what I had heard, panel A was 75 prospective jurors, panel B was 75 prospective jurors and panel C was 50 prospective jurors. I was on panel B.
After taking roll, we filed into the courtroom. The clerk reported to the judge which jurors had not shown up. The judged issued contempt of court citations to those who missed the roll call. In the end, I think those citations were removed when those jurors eventually arrived later.
The judge addressed the big elephant in the room: I am pretty sure no one has volunteered to be here to be on a case that may last 60 days. He tackled the subject head on by saying jury duty is a responsibility of citizenship. He stressed that there are military personnel who risk their lives and their families endure long separations which are truly huge sacrifices.
Thus, in comparison, jury duty service pales in comparison. He said an opportunity would be provided for prospective jurors to make their hardship situations known but current practice was that few would be granted.
He also said that California law requires that prospective juror privacy be protected as much as possible. Thus, each juror will be identified only by the last four digits of their juror identification number found on the badge.
The judge then turned the floor over to the prosecution and the defense lawyers to briefly describe the case. The prosecutor described the crime the two defendants were alleged to have committed. The first murder occurred by gunfire when one of the defendants was accused of firing into a crowd of young people killing one and wounding several others. The second murder occurred by multiple stabbing where both defendants were alleged to have joined others in the murder of a gang member whom the gang thought had cooperated with the police's investigation of the initial shooting. The prosecution cited that the murders were committed with special circumstances and if the jury finds that defendant number one guilty with one or more of the special circumstances, they would seek the death penalty.
The was a faintly audible reaction among the prospective jurors as the prosecutor described the brutal murders. Additionally, in some cases, there was visible discomfort on some of the faces of the prospective jurors.
The attorney for defendant number one gave only a brief statement saying indeed the crimes described were awful but that the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his client committed the crimes as described.
The attorney for the second defendant also spoke briefly saying that the story was more complicated than the prosecution described. He emphasized that his client was charged only with the second murder and that in the context of the gang, his client was present at the scene due to coercion.
The judge spoke about the history of the death penalty in California. He pointed out that there was a time when there was no death penalty in California. But in the 1970s the voters, by initiative, restored the death penalty. The law made the option of the death penalty available only if special circumstances were demonstrated. Additionally, the law mandated that only the jury could impose the death penalty. The judge said in all other criminal cases, the judge decided the punishment. Thus, the case would have a trial phase where the prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty of the crimes and if the defendant committed the crime with one or more of the special circumstances. If special circumstances were found, the second phase would be the punishment phase where the jury wwould decide life in prison with possibility of parole or the death penalty.
The judge continued, I have asked the attorneys to describe the case briefly because we are now going to ask you to fill out a 30+ page questionnaire. Because you now know some of the circumstances of this case, the questions will make sense to you. Please fill them out as completely as possible and be as honest as possible because your answers will be provided to all the attorneys and will guide all three parties (judge, defense and prosecution) in the jury selection phase with an examination process called voir dire. Jurors will be excused from this case by one of three methods: (1) a genuine hardship is recognized by all three parties; (2) for cause that is recognized by all three parties; and (3) by peremptory challenges from either the prosecution or the defense.
We went outside and filled out the 30+ page questionnaire. It covered a wide range of topics including: impressions of law enforcement, experience with gang members, viewing of crime dramas on television, sources of news, opinions about psychology, role in supervising others at work and as expected, numerous questions pertaining to the death penalty.
We turned in the forms and were sent home from day two of jury duty service with a date to return to continue with jury selection.
LA Law: Jury Duty, Part II, Day 1
I called in the first evening and they said I didn't need to report.
I called in the second evening and they said, please report to the courthouse.
I arrived the next morning and took a seat in the jury assembly room and started to read and nearly fell asleep!
Near lunch time, the PA announcer said, we are assembling a jury panel. She told us the judge anticipates the case will last 60 days! A groan quietly went through the jury assembly room. The lady then gave various reasons why someone could be excused (various financial hardship factors) which would be checked. None of the stated reasons applied to me. And, of course, I heard my name called.
We gathered together and we were told: you are excused for the day, please call in on such-and-such an evening and you will be given instructions as to what to do. He said there was a 50-50 chance that the case might not go to trial.
Thus, the first day of my jury service came to an end.
I called in the second evening and they said, please report to the courthouse.
I arrived the next morning and took a seat in the jury assembly room and started to read and nearly fell asleep!
Near lunch time, the PA announcer said, we are assembling a jury panel. She told us the judge anticipates the case will last 60 days! A groan quietly went through the jury assembly room. The lady then gave various reasons why someone could be excused (various financial hardship factors) which would be checked. None of the stated reasons applied to me. And, of course, I heard my name called.
We gathered together and we were told: you are excused for the day, please call in on such-and-such an evening and you will be given instructions as to what to do. He said there was a 50-50 chance that the case might not go to trial.
Thus, the first day of my jury service came to an end.
LA Law: Jury Duty, Part I, the Summons
About every 2-3 years, I get a letter in the mail regarding jury duty.
Jury service for the Los Angeles County can be fulfilled usually in the following ways:
1) Calling the designated phone number for 5 days and being told, thanks for calling in, you do not need to report to the courthouse.
2) Upon calling in being told you must come to the courthouse where you spend one-day where you may be called into a jury panel. If you don't get on a jury or jury panel by the end of the day, your service is completed.
3) While at the courthouse, you get assigned to a jury panel for a trail. You may or may not actually wind up on the trial jury but you go through jury selection and if you are excused at some point in the process you have fulfilled your jury service.
4) Complete one trial as a juror.
There are a series of online orientation videos you have the option to view before going to the courthouse. If you have to report to the courthouse, you could view the videos at the courthouse but have to report earlier in the morning unless you have seen the videos online.
Recently, I was on jury duty and fulfilled it by #3 above.
It was a fascinating process and I plan to write more ...
Jury service for the Los Angeles County can be fulfilled usually in the following ways:
1) Calling the designated phone number for 5 days and being told, thanks for calling in, you do not need to report to the courthouse.
2) Upon calling in being told you must come to the courthouse where you spend one-day where you may be called into a jury panel. If you don't get on a jury or jury panel by the end of the day, your service is completed.
3) While at the courthouse, you get assigned to a jury panel for a trail. You may or may not actually wind up on the trial jury but you go through jury selection and if you are excused at some point in the process you have fulfilled your jury service.
4) Complete one trial as a juror.
There are a series of online orientation videos you have the option to view before going to the courthouse. If you have to report to the courthouse, you could view the videos at the courthouse but have to report earlier in the morning unless you have seen the videos online.
Recently, I was on jury duty and fulfilled it by #3 above.
It was a fascinating process and I plan to write more ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)