For all of you attorneys, and there are a lot of you here, I know, I've met you bcd

[JennsLolli]

You probably have seen them and just not known it. Unless you ask everyone what they do, which is possible. Either way, you're bound to meet them soon. =) I'm fond of professors and artists myself.

[Mr Peabody]

Hunter, for the record I hate jury consultants. They have kept me off every jury that I have been called to duty for. They do not want anyone who can think logical or has any understanding of the law. They only allow folks who can be swayed by their emotions on that jury. One defense attorney got his client fried because of this attitude.

[Centaur]

Originally Posted by JohnnyYanks

Shakespeare had other ideas.

A common misconception. The quote, by Shakespeare's ficitonal depiction of Jack Cade (instigator of the Jack Cade Rebellion) to which you allude is regularly taken out of context. Cade, hoping to overthrow Henry VI, the rightful king of England, and take his place after Henry's army has been weakened by losses against France and some of the lesser nobles have attempted their own revolt against the Crown, announces a litany of impractical reforms he would institute such as abolishing money, paying for eveyone to feast daily, and making small beers illegal so everyone must drink large ones. The town butcher then states, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," to pave the way for this improbable dictatorship.

As with most of the Bard's historical plays, this one was half history, half fiction. What is known is that the Cade Rebels beheaded a local baron following a show trial so they could loot the town. Shakespeare's audience would not have considered Jack Cade a protagonist, but rather a violent opportunistic fool. Lacking even the organized armies of the nobles, his rebellion never stood a chance of succeeding, and was little more than a riot that further nuisanced the king as further evidence that he was unable to control his realm.

[HunterGrace]

Mr Peabody

Hunter, for the record I hate jury consultants. They have kept me off every jury that I have been called to duty for. They do not want anyone who can think logical or has any understanding of the law. They only allow folks who can be swayed by their emotions on that jury. One defense attorney got his client fried because of this attitude.

Don't hate the jury consultant because he knows how to pick a jury! Logical people won't be swayed by emotion. As a woman of logic, I wouldn't be picked as well. As a girl who could convince a woman in white gloves to carry my ketchup lollipop, I'd be the one who decided the whole case single handedly. However, should I find myself involved in a case with a lot of gray, emotional people are the only ones I would pick as well. Most people make decisions emotionally driven. A great jury consultant will capitalize on that. It's just logical!


Passion2015

Cmon ladies dont you mean you love me some money? If janitors would give you the money and gifts you want you all would be saying, l love me some janitors!!!!!! I mean reallly!!!!!

Bwahaha, rich lawyers? Not until they are in private practice and have been at it a very long time. The percentage of wealthy lawyers is low. Most lawyers are in heavy student loan debt.


Bobave

That's a bad joke - because it's true. The few times I've had to engage attorney services, my own attorneys screwed me worse than the opposing attorneys did

It's the 95% that give the 5% of them a bad name.

Aphrodite

When I first started in this 'profession', I got very nervous when I saw clients who were attorneys and had to get past the urge to put a book down the back of my pants

Then I realized lawyers are just people too and need lovin' like everybody else...before the spanking begins.
Okay, I jest!

Sorry, I couldn't resist...didn't mean to hijack your thread, HG

Hijack away, Aphrodite. BTW, love your new song Dark Horse

[Mr Peabody]

Originally Posted by HunterGrace

Mr Peabody

Don't hate the jury consultant because he knows how to pick a jury! Logical people won't be swayed by emotion. As a woman of logic, I wouldn't be picked as well. As a girl who could convince a woman in white gloves to carry my ketchup lollipop, I'd be the one who decided the whole case single handedly. However, should I find myself involved in a case with a lot of gray, emotional people are the only ones I would pick as well. Most people make decisions emotionally driven. A great jury consultant will capitalize on that. It's just logical!

Hunter,
Those emotional people can be swayed by the defense lawyer's passionate speeches (in response to the DA's overworked factual presentation). But they can be more swayed by the logical juror in deliberation. Most attorney's have an extremely bloated opinion of themselves. In the murder trial which I alluded to, the DA invested a lot of time an effort because of news coverage and for political reasons. I knew that the 70yr old defendant would no longer be a danger to society. But after I was eliminated from the jury, he got fried because the of that lawyers' ego.
My advice is: Don't be so quick to kick out the intelligent jurors who know how f**kin out of whack the legal system is and have no respect for it. In many cases, they can be your best ally.
In any case, have you been sitting in on high profile court cases, taking notes on judges, and picking "fantasy league" jurys?

[nuglet]

I've always been rejected with a simple statement, intentionally. I would not find anyone guilty of anything. I've seen to much corruption in courts and by LE that I honestly express that I don't believe in the system of justice we practice. I have personal reasons as well. I've thought about getting on a jury for the sole purpose of NOT convicting but that wouldn't be fair either. I've watched a lot of jury trials, but never been on a jury.

[Zhivago52]

A good jury consultant must have a sixth sense in how to "read" people....body language, etc. Providers I would think have these traits and would do well in this business.

[agentx]

Hunter:

Not sure (unless it was a big national law firm) that there were be sufficient reason to hire a full-time jury consultant in-house. Cases can go on for years and most firms hire the consulting firms because voir dire (jury selection) happens for only a couple of weeks out of every case. You'd have to have a huge caseload of smaller (less $$) cases to go through to make an in-house jury consultant work, I would guess.

Jury selection is ultimately up to the judge - s/he decides if a person is not empaneled due to cause or by the limited number of strikes each side gets. Jury consultants are helpful in determining which potential jurors are problematic. It's a game and I think all non-prejudicial jurors should have the right to sit. But that's the system.

[Loxly]

Well... at least there's one question that never need be asked of lawyers. Boxers or Briefs?

I once got to sit on a jury. Was only asked one question and that was from the judge. He had all the questionaires so it was pretty quick getting everyone else. Turned out I was the only one with a pen so I got elected as forman.

We no sooner got into the jury room and everyone was saying guilty, myself included. But I asked everyone if we could do a vote just to make it official. Then we stalled for about 15 minutes just to let the guy squirm a little waiting for us.

Was nice that both the Judge and Bailiff came in to thank us at the end of our tour of duty. They also gave us some great insite to what was going on behind the scenes.

[HunterGrace]

Originally Posted by agentx

Hunter:

Not sure (unless it was a big national law firm) that there were be sufficient reason to hire a full-time jury consultant in-house. Cases can go on for years and most firms hire the consulting firms because voir dire (jury selection) happens for only a couple of weeks out of every case. You'd have to have a huge caseload of smaller (less $$) cases to go through to make an in-house jury consultant work, I would guess.

Jury selection is ultimately up to the judge - s/he decides if a person is not empaneled due to cause or by the limited number of strikes each side gets. Jury consultants are helpful in determining which potential jurors are problematic. It's a game and I think all non-prejudicial jurors should have the right to sit. But that's the system.

I was thinking more along the lines of being hired by several lawyers and allowing them to advertise that they have an in-house jury consultant. I agree that most lawyers won't need a full time jury consultant, however, a jury consultant does more than just pick the jury. They can be quite useful during the trial. When I was working on the APD officers against the City, I was able to read the jurors while the attorney was giving his opening argument. From there I was able to tell him "juror 9 wasn't convinced. I think she must've had an experience that has her not trusting attorneys or not trusting the system or something. You'll need to make eye contact with her and smile to build rapport so she'll put her guard down and be open to the information you are giving." "Juror 5-generally happy, engaged, the others look up to him" "Juror 1-bored, not listening, introvert, will follow the crowd"

But ultimately, if yall convince me that there is no money in it, I'm going to skip jury consulting and go directly into campaigning for an elected position. And I'll even out myself for the publicity! "Smoking hot former escort teases and denies when asked to vote against smoking in public." "Whether running for office or walking the street, this lady of the night blows the polls percentages in a big hard way.

[agentx]

Sounds like that might work. You would effectively be freelancing and a consultant on your own but sounds like that's what you want. And I do think there is money in it - talked to a woman at a party a few weeks ago who is a jury consultant here. She's doing well. Good luck!

[Toyz]

I wanna write the campaign's speeches.

" Ladies & gentleman the challenges before us are hard. We face stiff competition from our detractors... those that want us to be limp & impotent. Its a deep dark shaft we are peering into & we must thrust back with all of our might". "Merely laying there moaning about it will not get us to the happy ending we seek"

"ASK NOT WHAT YOUR HOOGAR CAN DO FO YOU BUT RATHER WHAT YOU CAN DO FO YO HOOGAR"

[HunterGrace]

Originally Posted by Toyz

I wanna write the campaign's speeches.

" Ladies & gentleman the challenges before us are hard. We face stiff competition from our detractors... those that want us to be limp & impotent. Its a deep dark shaft we are peering into & we must thrust back with all of our might". "Merely laying there moaning about it will not get us to the happy ending we seek"

"ASK NOT WHAT YOUR HOOGAR CAN DO FO YOU BUT RATHER WHAT YOU CAN DO FO YO HOOGAR"

That thar sum funny shit. You are hired, money is no object.