The idea of losing comes, in part, from a lack of preparation, which is a failure of self respect.  Think of it as if you were a boxer.  You have not trained.  You have two inches of belly fat hanging over your shorts.  Your cheeks are baggy.  You puff going up the stairs.  You brag a lot because that is all you have.  This is a fighter who will lose because he does not respect himself sufficiently to prepare.  If he were the trainer he wouldn’t allow a boxer such as he to enter the ring—he would care too much about his profession as a trainer to let an unprepared fighter he trains get slaughtered. 

The refusal to prepare also reveals a lawyer who does not care deeply for the client.  Jurors recognize an unprepared lawyer.  It means the lawyer does not care much for this person whose life or welfare is in his charge.  If the lawyer does not care, why should the jurors?  The lawyer knows the client better than they.  Caring is contagious.  If the lawyer doesn’t care the jurors won’t care either.

I know lawyers with great talent who stagger out of bed in the morning not knowing for sure which case they are scheduled to try that day. But the fault is sometimes not the lawyer’s.  The cost of operating a law office and to make an acceptable living from the trial of cases is hard at best, particularly in the criminal field.  Most persons charged with crimes do not have the money to pay a lawyer for the necessary time it takes to adequately prepare a case – months, considering the investigation, the interviewing of witnesses, and the endless pretrial motions the lawyer faces in the modern trial, not to mention a trial that can last many weeks. 

To survive financially, many lawyers are required to take too many cases from poor paying clients.  Public defenders are often laden with scores of cases, many serious ones, without the time or resources to properly prepare while the prosecution may have all the time and resources necessary to win.  As a consequence too many persons charged with serious crimes do not receive an adequate defense.  They are often counseled to plead guilty, to make deals—the only bargaining chip they have—with their own lives. Take ten years from my life in exchange for the forty years that I will probably lose if I go to trial with an unprepared, unskilled, uncaring, overworked public defender or for that matter, a private attorney who has taken my case because he’s three months behind on the rent.  A money system favors money, not justice.

A few lawyers are skilled enough that they can win some of their cases with nearly no preparation at all, but they know that many a client has suffered as a result -- in a system that cannot provide justice for all, no matter how the myth is sold to the people.

I have said that when I enter the courtroom I do not consider the possibility I might lose.   To lose one must give permission to his opponent to beat him.  As a young lawyer I lost three civil cases in a row.  The pain of losing was so severe I could not bear the thought of ever losing again.  It became a life or death issue for me.  Life as a loser became so unacceptable that I would rather quit the profession than continue down that road.  I realized that preparation was a critical key.

I also began to understand that if one has a full sense of self, not a blown up conceit, but a person who makes mistakes, who is afraid, who can feel and care, who is as real as he can be, who is on the road to becoming a person—that person will be hard to beat in a courtroom or anywhere.  He is not an intellectual muscle man or a phony sweet pea with the supercilious smile and a nose worn smooth from toadying the judge.  He can be trusted and he speaks a language that jurors understand.

How do you beat such a lawyer? Be more of a person than he. I let my opponent worry about losing. It will take him into strange and dangerous places.

Anyway, I had all these vivid visions of me being Juror Number so and so, on some famous murder trial in our small town. (Yes, even small towns have murders.) In fact, an elderly woman from our church, was actually murdered quite a few years ago. My husband and I led the Intercessory Prayer team, and there were only about 7 of us that attended prayer meeting regularly. She was one of them. This dear, sweet older lady lived alone, near the church, and usually left church (before it got dark) to avoid being out late in the evening. She was a bit of a loner at times, but she also worked with the ladies auxiliary group at the hospital, doing volunteer work. At any rate, she was murdered (raped and strangled) and the killer has never been found. It was a terrible scenario. So I have actually had someone I knew pretty well murdered. It is a frightening and absolutely horrifying thing, and I am not making lightly of it in any way.

However, in my excitement, this morning I was full of questions for my husband, a lawyer. My biggest one was, did he think that an attorney's wife had an even remote chance of serving on a jury. I was Juror number 4 on the summons, and I said to him, "They'll probably say, 'And what does your husband do for a living?' Then I'll say, "He's a lawyer, and the gong will sound, and they'll call Juror number 5."  LOL! (I made a mental note to quickly add that my husband specialized in adoptions--just in case they thought he might be a criminal attorney.)

"How long before you know if you're chosen?" I asked. "Oh, you'll know immediately," my husband answered.

"Really? How humiliating if you're not chosen!" I squealed, adding, " I'm so nervous. I feel like I'm trying out for American Idol (The Jury Version)."

(He told me that I was crazy, and we had a good laugh.)

The summons said that you shouldn't dress casually...women should wear a dress or pantsuit, and men should wear a coat and tie. (I knew that wasn't going to happen in our NW Florida beach town, where the weather was in the 90's. But I fixed myself up to look very professional... just in case it mattered.)

When I arrived, I had to go through the metal detector. (This I had already done numerous times at airports, so it was nothing new.) But as often happens to me at airports, I got beeped.  (Thinking to myself that I was not off to a very good start, I wondered what was the problem this time.) The lady security officer said it was my shoes (which we were not required to remove), and she let me go on. (I found this strange, as there was not one bit of metal on those particular shoes.)

I gathered up my belongings from the plastic bowl, and passed through the entrance to the Courthouse Annex. (Not long ago, our small town had no security at the courthouse, but then many attorneys and judges started getting shot across the U. S., and all that changed.) As I mentioned, my husband is an attorney, so I am very grateful for security. While he focuses more on adoptions right now, there was a time when his practice was predominantly family law, and domestic situations are ripe for the unexpected, and full of hostility. Our town is changing the location of the courthouse soon, and they plan to have better security at the new location for judges, attorneys, and everyone.

So immediately I saw a sign that said, "Jury Assembly Room." A woman checked our summons at the door, and another man from the Clerk's office, scanned our summons as we entered the room. (So funny--It was the man who has cut my husband's hair for years.) He and his ex-wife used to own a salon. But for many years now, he has worked in the Clerk's office, since his divorce. He is now remarried. (But he still comes to our house to cut Rob's hair. How's that for Southern hospitality?)

It seems that there was a tenseness in the air, as we all found a seat. The moment we entered that room everything changed. We stood a little taller, and for the most part, became very silent. (It was sort of like being in the Principal's office.) Others drifted in-some past the 8:30 a.m. deadline. We were then sworn in as a group, and asked about 8 questions that proved we were legally qualified to be Jurors. If anyone could not answer appropriately, they were to raise their hand after all the questions were asked.

Only one man was disqualified at that point. I heard him quietly say to the man addressing us, that he had been convicted of a felon many years ago, and his rights were never reinstated. He was quickly dismissed.

Then we were told that we would watch a short program on being a Juror, that would answer most of our questions. Once again, the tone was very solemn, and we were reminded by a man on the video, that the U. S. is one of only a handful of countries, that has a jury system. We were told that it works because of our willingness to be a part of the system. We were reminded that it was an important part of being an American. (I sat straighter in my chair, and fidgeted a little.)

We were then allowed to take a short break, and most of us went to the restroom, and then got a soda out of the vending machine.

Once we reassembled, we were told that 2 judges required juries today, and that through random selection, 26 of our group would go to the first courtroom. (Being an attorney's wife, I recognized the names of the judges.) I was not one of the 26 called by name, and was already a little disappointed. But then he said that all of us (that were left) could go to the other judge's courtroom, for the jury selection process. (Now we're getting somewhere!)

He read us a note from both judges, saying that they were discussing motions, and that we would more than likely be required to wait awhile. (No one knew how long.)

We were left with the TV blaring on the Fox News channel. Everyone laughed when this unusual "monster" came on the screen. It was something that had washed up recently (I forget where), and there was speculation that it was a monster of some sort, or a dog (a very bloated one) or a raccoon (not even close) or a king-sized turtle without the shell. (I hardly think so.) The beautiful blond woman commentator just had to observe out loud, that the only thing we could see (and know) for sure, was that it was a male. (This resulted in subdued nervous laughter throughout the room.) Brother!

So we sat, and we sat, and we sat. As I mentioned, we had to be there at 8:30 a.m., and we watched as the hands on the clock kept moving, and finally a policeman (in full uniform with a gun) came and got the now notorious chosen 26, and escorted them away.

That's okay, I thought. I'd heard through the local grapevine that our group's judge was much more feisty and cantankerous, and I was sure that we would have the most lively courtroom experience. So I drank my coke and waited. And waited, and waited.

Two hours and ten minutes from the time we arrived, the same policeman came back in, and turned off the TV, and told us that he had good news.  (I could hardly wait.) But then he said (smiling broadly) that all of our judge's cases had settled, and we were free to go, as we had now done our civic duty. (My heart sank.)

Most of the room cheered, or displayed a thumbs up sign. Almost everyone was grinning. (Except me.) I wanted to be a juror, and that was as far as I got. In all my years, I had never gotten a jury summons, and now I wouldn't even have the chance to go through voir dire.  (It means to speak the truth.) I was very curious about what they would ask. I wanted to know if an attorney's wife would ever be considered. I was looking forward to the whole process... but now it was over. As we went through the turnstile exit, I felt very disappointed.

But I was glad that I had not tried to be excused from jury duty (as so many do.) I was genuinely grateful that I still had an excitement about the jury system in our country, and that for the most part, the resposibility was taken very seriously, by those involved.

As I walked to my car, I once again stood a little taller, and felt proud to be an American--(can't you just hear Lee Greenwood singing?), where there is a fair system of justice. (No--it's not always perfect, but it is a good system, and for the most part, when jurors rise to the occasion, and put aside any prejudices and preconceived ideas that they might have, and listen to the judge's admonitions and guidelines, they get it right.) I still think it is an awesome responsibility and an exciting one...

Barry George, the man found guilty of killing TV presenter Jill Dando in 1999 has been found not guilty following a retrial of the case. George had an initial appeal for a retrial rejected in 2002, but a subsequent appeal in November 2007 led to his conviction being quashed. A retrial began on 9th of June with Mr Justice Griffith Williams ruling out evidence that a single particle of firearms discharge residue was found in the pocket of Mr George's coat. The single particle was key to the prosecutions case, but when it was revealed that it could have come from another source- the case against George collapsed.

Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Hilary Bradfield said it was right to bring the case, despite the not-guilty verdict after an eight-week trial.

"Mr George now has the right be regarded as an innocent man but that does not mean it was wrong to bring the case," she said. "Our test is always whether there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction -- it would be wholly wrong to only bring cases where we were guaranteed a conviction."

In September 2006, BBC's Panorama team investigated the evidence against Mr George in the Dando trial and found that it rested on a single piece of forensic evidence. It was revealed by firearms residue expert Professor Marco Morin, the single particle taken from Barry George's coat may not have even come from a gun. He says it should not have been introduced as evidence.

A juror spoke publicly for the first time of her feelings about the guilty verdict reached in July 2001 during the Panorama investigation. Juror Janet Herbert says: "I just felt shocked that on that little evidence anybody could be locked away for the rest of their life."

In a statement read by his solicitor outside court he said he was "overwhelmed" by the verdict, and thanked his family, his legal and medical teams and his supporters across the UK.

His solicitor Jeremy Moore said: "He is absolutely delighted but this is not a time for celebration. He has spent eight years in custody for a crime he did not commit and those years could have been spent trying to find the person responsible for the murder."

Some degree of understanding typically exists when caring about others.  The problem though is that understanding usually doesn't happen automatically.  When it does, it's most likely because of sharing the same characteristics (e.g., neurotypical, asperger, autistic, alcoholic, nationality, elderly, materialistic, similar upbringing, shared faith, etc.).  But then there are other characteristics that further divide the way the common ones might create an outcome (e.g., increased pride→ often rationalized as becoming a 'stronger' person, being humbled→ thereby increasing meekness, turning bitter→ due to one's perception of priorities in life, etc.).

Problems happen when people are not content with simply making judgments and carry it to the next step by wanting to also be the judge.  Only the judge is authorized to decide the sentence (the only trustworthy judge of mankind is the one who created man).  Judgements (acting as a juror, figuratively speaking) are not what has a person acting like god.  Assuming the role of judge is what makes one their own god.  This is what self-righteous people do.  Either a person trusts God and His Word or they must trust their own relative concepts of what's right verses wrong.

Readers of this blog can make judgments of me being aspergers rather than neurotypical, Christian rather than an unbeliever, conservative rather than liberal, Finn-American rather than another ancestry, aged rather than a child, etc. I can read other blogs and make my own judgments of those authors too.  That's okay, but when people act like god and believe it's their duty to judge another person, then the outcome of rationalization begins.

Rationalizing is destructive when one condemns another for being different. Condemning and having an opinion are not the same thing.  For example, I am (and will always be) of the option to call same-sex behavior a sin.²  A sin will always remain sinful and absolute (unchanging).  Sexual immorality is relative and constantly changing. The younger a person is, the less he can realize this. Fornication is a sin, along with adultery, prostitution, and pornography. Such terms are as concrete as day and night. All throughout time, day meant day and night meant night. How many people stop to think deeply about why this is?

My option of the view behind why certain things are left alone and accepted verses other things being controversial has to do with the characteristics that make up an individual.  The most vital characteristics are also the most hidden. No one has the ability to know another person. This inability to know even extends into one's own self. Not too often are confessions heard about this, but they do happen sometimes. For example, during National Geographic's episodes of Locked Up Abroad, often times the young women in those stories are shocked to discover how easily they deceived themselves into believing a lie simply because they wanted something.  It's easy for others to misjudge themselves by believing they're not foolish like those who make such mistakes.

That same ease to deceive one's own self is the culprit behind divisions that eventually lead to murder and war.  World peace, harmony, unity, etc. is IMPOSSIBLE.  Why don't the people, who protest every war, look at their own bumper sticker laden cars and see that same spirit of war as those who support troops?  The true peacemakers are quietly praying for others instead of aggressively seeking to trespass upon opposing viewpoints.  Free speech per se is not what's violent. Violence occurs when seeking to silence the 'repulsive' side.   During election time, it's typically the protestors for peace who try to take away the signs put up by those with opposing politics.

The more ungodly a society becomes, the more intolerant its members will be towards those who are different.³  Satan has done a masterful craft of deception to twist this around, thereby causing people to believe the opposite. People think because same-sex behavior is tolerated, diverse cultures are taught to be embraced (except for Christianity), and the use of the word 'sin' becoming exterminated from public use, that this is evidence that mankind is evolving towards world peace.  

True peace (for now) can only exist within one's own soul and that's impossible without salvation from the greatest enemy→ one's own sinfulness.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" — Romans 3:23

¹In this case, instead of a person taking an oath of allegiance to the law of the land, one remains loyal to his own acceptable legal system.  Unfortunately, most people (usually those who are more materially 'blessed') abide by the Hypocritical Rule of, "Don't treat others the way you want others to treat you."

²I'm exercising my first amendment rights.  This may tempt some bigots (prejudiced people who are intolerant of any opinions differing from their own) to make libelous links to my blog.  They might support neurodiversity; however, you'll be able to detect their intolerance towards those with a different faith and/or political view by how blind they are to their own hypocrisy.   

³This is not a pure statement.  It's generalizing.  Tolerance has increased in some areas, but overall it has not.  Intolerance today is more covert and subtle than in the past.

Sunday 7-27-8

Went in to serve my Jury Duty for the first time ever this morning.

Didn't know what to expect, honestly, but I love visiting downtown Denver. I feel safe strolling along by myself and was hoping to grab a few great pictures on the walk to and from the courthouse (it was rainy and overcast instead).

It was a tad boring. To be quite honest, I sort of wanted my juror number to be called so I could be questioned and have something to do other than nothing.

Did you know one of my biggest pet-peeves is being unproductive? This about had me by the throat.

Should've brought something other than the latest Rolling Stone and read it cover-to-cover. I think it was right around the Greenland/Global Warming article that I fell asleep sitting up in the last row of the Juror room. Yes.

Nothing else remarkably interesting. The guy sitting next to me was slightly friendly and asked if I was from Texas (what?). They finally dismissed us at noon and can't get me again until at least another 365 days :)

Dieter Bohlen hat eine eigene Agentur in Vorbereitung, die sich auf die Entwicklung von TV-Formaten spezialisieren soll. Bohlen also bald schon auf allen Kanälen...

"Um sich nicht allzu eng in das Korsett lizenzierter Fernsehformate wie "Deutschland sucht den Superstar" zwängen zu lassen, will Juror Dieter Bohlen nun seine eigenen TV-Formate entwickeln. Die Branche zeige sich interessiert, sagt er." Mehr gibt es bei DWDL.de.

The juror for the R. Kelly child pornography case reached a verdict today - NOT GUILTY!! Please check back for more updates!!

(tshirt of image above available here)

SYDNEY (Reuters) - An Australian drugs trial lasting more than three months and costing taxpayers over A$1 million ($947,000) has been aborted after a number of jurors were found to have spent up to half the time playing Sudoku puzzles.

Sydney District Court Judge Peter Zahra cancelled the trial of two men on drugs conspiracy charges after the jury foreperson admitted that four to five jurors had been playing the addictive number sequence game, local media reported. The judge was alerted after some of the jurors were observed writing their notes vertically, rather than horizontally. The game involves completing a grid of numbers in the correct sequence.

One juror said the game helped them to pay more attention by keeping their mind busy.

"Some of the evidence is rather drawn out and I find it difficult to maintain my attention the whole time," the juror was quoted saying by the Australian Associated Press.

A new trial is expected to begin in a few weeks once a new jury has been called.

(Reporting by James Thornhill; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Source

The qualities that I believe make a good juror are exposure to a variety of images and styles, being well read on critiques of a variety of art mediums, being open minded to styles that are different from your own, being analytical of the creative process. I think it also requires a bit of self confidence to speak what one feels and a willingness to suggest that an image can be improved.

My personal approach to being a juror is to talk freely about what I feel works and doesn't work in an image. I find that an audience, even if they disagree with my assessment, are amenable to it if I can explain clearly why I choose one image over another. Most audiences I believe are very aware if you're insincere and/or derogatory. I look for creativity first, visual impact, clear intension of content, and lastly technique. To me technique (focus, exposure, etc.) is only a means to an end. I look for technique sufficient to convey the visual intent. Primarily, I want the image to move me. I'll give more weight to imagery that seems to break new ground or is out of the ordinary. However, I don't appreciate different for the sake of being different.

Ultimately, I want the audience to take away that my choices are only that, my choices. I feel comfortable with my style as I keep getting asked back and always have a good number of people approach me afterwards thanking me for providing helpful input - even if I selected against their images.

********************************************************************************************

Fieger's lawyer, Gerry Spence, wrote in to U.S. District Judge Paul Borman, in a request that the location of the trial be moved, that "Scores of jurors expressed extreme dislike, animus and bias toward Mr. Fieger, his political activities, and his past representation of Dr. Kevorkian."  He said that on pre-selection questionnaires potential jurors indicated that Fieger irritates them, can't be trusted to be truthful all of the time (he's a defense attorney - no wonder!), and that he is most likely guilty (those are some smart jurors).  He quoted one of the jurors as saying, "It's difficult to listen to him -- arrogant, very abrasive, a pit bull probably guilty."  Spence later went on to write, "Given the wealth of prejudicial comments, bias, and feelings toward Mr. Fieger among the jurors actually summoned, Fieger requests that the court transfer the proeceedings [sic] to another distirct [sic] ... to guarantee Mr. Fieger his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial." (Free Press)

Judge Borman responded in a court hearing yesterday by saying that the request was "premature."  He also said that Fieger can't tell jurors that he was a victim of a Republican witch hunt carried out by the current administration's prosecutors.  Fieger is a known Democrat, and even ran as a Democrat for Governor in 1998.  Honestly, even if he was the victim of Republicans going after Democrats, he still did something wrong.

So, Mr. Fieger, it looks like the court room may not be the best place for you after all.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

B.  I went to Costco tonight and did something that I'm mortified to admit.  I ATE A SAMPLE.  It's true.  Husbadito stood back and witnessed the entire event.  I had a slice of an apple-pear, some type of bizarre apple and pear hybrid.  It was crisp and crunchy like an apple but had the grainy texture of a pear.  I know I'll hate myself in the morning, but I couldn't resist.

C.  Has Wordpress done something to the my blog?  It's all crazy-different when I post or look at my blog stats...but maybe it's just me.

Most of the careers that have been featured on the site so far require decades of training and practice, years of education, and total dedication to a lifelong career. But what if you're just not up to all that commitment and hard work? Is there is a cool job that doesn't require years of training and only lasts a few days?

Of course there is! Fellow blogger and cool jobster CurlyWurlyGirly has arrived with all the information you'll need to decide if jury duty is for you! Pull up a seat Law & Order fans...it's time to read about the adventures of Juror Number 7.

My job title and a short description of what I do:

For 4 days in February 2008, I enjoyed a brief stint as Juror Number 7 on a civil case. Said 'job' included being selected from a crowd of 300+ people, being subjected to hours of tedious questioning by lawyers to determine my worthiness to serve on said jury, trying to keep my yap shut when dining with the other jurors before it was time to deliberate, and fearing for my physical safety if we didn't find for the Plaintiff (he was a behemoth of a man and happened to live 2 miles from my house). I was also able to put my referee skills (in real life I work in a high school) to work to prevent the other jurors from fighting during deliberations. With 12 Angry Men in mind, I played the devil's advocate after all the other jurors had determined that they thought the defendant was not guilty. It was a grand time!

What I loved about the job:

I loved going to the judge's bench for a sidebar! I felt so special whispering to him and the other lawyers about an issue that might have precluded me from jury service--luckily it didn't. I also enjoyed all of the 'Perry Mason' aspects of the trial, like damning testimony and surprise witnesses (okay, we didn't really have any of those). Objections! Deliberations! It was almost too much for me to bear.

What I hated about the job:

Well, initially the pay wasn't great ($5 a day for the first 3) but on the fourth day I climbed the pay scale to a whopping $40 a day! I also dislike the fact that I won't be eligible for jury duty again for 3 years. Bummer!

What education, training, experience or just plain luck someone would have to get a job like mine:

I was lucky enough to be selected by our county through the jury lottery system. Don't ask how I won that--I've never won a dime in any other lottery.

A funny story about my job:

My husband was highly amused at the anxiety level that the trial produced. I was literally plagued with nightmares on the night before closing arguments and deliberations. I had a dream that the plaintiff was in the mafia and planned to have me hit if i didn't find in his favor.

An image of me doing my cool job:

sorry, no cameras allowed in the courtroom.

Above Photograph: "Threshold" by Daniel W. Coburn

My photograph entitled "Threshold" was chosen as winner in the Top 40 international juried competion at the Los Angeles Center for Digital Art. I am very excited to be part of this exhibition.

Los Angeles Center For Digital Art is dedicated to the propagation of all forms of digital art, supporting local, international, emerging and established artists. Los Angeles Center For Digital Art is located in the Gallery Row area of downtown Los Angeles, 107 West Fifth Street between Main and Spring.

Maps and Gallery Row information:

www.galleryrow.org
www.downtownartwalk.com

40 winners were selected from a pool of international applicants. The winning artworks will be shown in an international group exhibition at the Los Angeles Center for Digital Art gallery from April 10 - May 3, 2008.

Opening Reception: April 10, 2008 7-9pm
(in conjunction with Downtown Art Walk)

Although I first heard and wrote about this case over two years ago, and am pretty much hardened to the realities of crime by virtue of what I do for a living, this case still brings tears to my eyes. Here are some short excerpts of my previous entries, which can be read in their entireties here and here:

This monstrous stepfather stripped the little girl nude and beat her with everything he could get his hands on - a belt, a piece of wood, a bungee cord - right in front of her mother. And that bitch didn’t do a damn thing to protect her own little girl.

Then, he dragged the little girl into the bathroom, repeatedly dunking her head under cold water. It’s unclear what else he did to her in that bathroom, but loud banging noises and the little girl screaming for her mommy were heard throughout the apartment. Mommy didn’t help her. Mommy didn’t do shit. Mommy is a piece of shit.

Then he picked up Nixzmary’s limp lifeless body and threw her onto the floor in the “dirty room” like so much trash.

The attorney claims Nixzmary bought [the "World's Greatest Dad" mug] for her stepfather. The truth is, her whore of a mother had six children, all with different fathers, so who knows where that mug came from or who bought it. What we do know is that a seven-year-old who was being kept in “the dirty room”, treated like an animal, tortured, beaten, and eventually murdered was unlikely to have any money, or any way to buy that asshole a gift even if she wanted to do so.

Even if it can be proven that Nixzmary bought it for him, all it really proves is that Nixzmary was nowhere near the monstrous child her stepfather has painted her to be, in his incredibly sick and twisted quest to blame Nixzmary for her own death.

Well, I guess you have an idea how angry this particular case makes me.

Nixzmary's stepfather, Cesar Rodriguez, has been acquitted of second-degree murder, which would have carried a life sentence, but found guilty of first-degree manslaughter. He faces up to 25 years in prison. Jurors said they wanted to find him guilty of murder, but the prosecution didn't give them enough evidence to rule that way.

To find him guilty of murder, the jury had to find that he acted in depraved indifference to human life. To find him guilty of manslaughter, the jury had to find that he recklessly engaged in conduct which posed a risk of grave physical injury. There's not much difference between the two charges, but obviously the sentence is quite different. The only real difference is that the former is almost intentional (i.e., the person didn't care if the other person died) while the latter is accidental.

I very rarely question a jury's judgment, but in this case I do. If there was enough evidence in this case to find him guilty of first-degree manslaughter, then there's enough evidence to find him guilty of second-degree murder. He didn't care if Nixzmary died, and I suspect he'd have killed her outright if he thought he could get away with it.

Not at all surprisingly, his defense was that it was little Nixzmary's fault that he beat and tortured her, and that it wasn't him who struck the fatal blow to her little head. He blamed that on her mother, Nixzaliz Santiago, who goes on trial later this year. How convenient.

Is anything Cesar Rodriguez's fault? Apparently not in his mind. I hope the judge gives him the maximum sentence, and I hope the general population in the prison is informed of what he did, so he can get a little taste of what he did to Nixzmary. Truthfully, I hope another inmate kills him. That might be a terrible thing to say, but death is what I think he deserves for what he did to that child.

In fact, I think states need to seriously reevaluate the way they handle cases involving murder by child abuse, and especially murder by child abuse when the case involves torture of some type. I think that anyone who tortures a child - and the child dies either directly or indirectly as a result of what that person did - should be given the death penalty. My reasoning for this is that it is so abnormal to treat a child in that manner, that the murderer is a danger to society as a whole and thus should be permanently removed.

I think the baby raper I wrote about the other day should be executed as well, even though the poor little five-month-old baby miraculously lived. Some behaviors are just so repulsive, and are so clearly indicative of a sick, perverse mind, that we should not tolerate those who engage in those behaviors remaining in our midst.

_____________________________

Source: New York Times

However, be careful what you blog about on these websites.   

Jury Duty and Blogging Does Not Mix 

In one criminal case, a defendant on appeal sought a new trial because one juror maintained a blog.[1]  The defense lawyer discovered the juror’s blog after the trial.  On the first day of the case the juror blogged, “…I can’t talk about the case da**it, and that is so highly frustrating.”[2]   

After the guilty verdict, the blogger posted the following: “Well, it figures. Had a horrible time not being able to talk about the case. But now after finally having deliberations, it's like bleh, I don't want to talk about this sh*t anymore. * * * Basically, I feel like I was the only [person] playing devil's advocate and presuming this guy was innocent. * * * .”[3]  

The blogger also discussed how the evidence convinced him the defendant was guilty.   

The court quickly disposed of any claims of jury misconduct.  First, the blogger’s first posting did not show any bias.  Second, the blog postings were post-verdict and the blogger was free to discuss the case.[4]   

Blogging and Child Custody Cases  

A mother lost the custody of her child in part from her lifestyle she claimed on her MySpace blog.[5]  The lifestyle of a parent can be considered as evidence in child custody cases “to the extent it has a direct adverse impact on the child.”[6]   

The mother admitted in court that she wrote the blogs at issue and that they were public for anyone to view.[7]  Since these entries were public, there was no expectation of privacy.[8]  The MySpace blog entries stated the mother practiced sado-masochism and used illicit drugs.[9]  Moreover, her blog entries on drug use contradicted her in court denials of using illicit drugs.   

The Court found that the mother’s lifestyle could have an adverse impact on her child and custody was awarded to the father.   

Duty of Attorneys 

Attorneys have new issues to consider in light of blogs.  In the first example, asking questions during jury selection on whether any prospective juror maintains a blog can help avoid jury misconduct.  Due to the high usage of blogs, Courts should also instruct jurors not to discuss the case on a blog.   

Lawyers should find out if their clients maintain a blog.  More importantly, lawyers should find out what is being admitted on those blogs.  Knowing a client has admitted some form of wrongdoing is better to find out in your office than as a “surprise” during a deposition.  There are even horror stories of deponents actually admitting statements that contradict with deposition testimony shortly after the deposition.  

Blogs are beginning to impact cases.  Most lawyers rather be the ones making the impact instead of receiving it. Understanding how blogs can help your case can put you in the first group instead of the second. 

These new citizens are also new voters, new jurors and even new potential military draftees. The oath they take as they become Americans is very specific:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I gotta tell you, the room itself was cold; someone had the a/c blasting! But the warmth you felt as those thousands of people and their families waved American flags just made you feel all tingly inside. Pride, perhaps.

Im Jahre 1978 wird die Gong Show in England eingeführt und kurz darauf auch bei uns . Jedoch wurde die Show kurz darauf, auf Grund geringer Einschaltquoten abgesetzt. 10 Jahre später gab es einen erneuten Versuch diese Show einzuführen, doch auch dieser scheiterte an zu geringen Einschaltquoten. Im Jahre 2000 entstand dann die erste erfolgreiche Castingsshow Deutschlands, auf RTL2 mit den Namen "Popstars". Die Idee hatte der Neuseeländer "Jonathan Dowling". Nach dem die Sendung bereits erfolgreich in diversen Ländern angelaufen war, wurden sich die Lizenz relativ schnell gesichert. Im Laufe der Zeit, inzwischen läuft die 6. Staffel, wechselte die Sendung von RTL2 nach Pro7. Die erfolgreichste der Bands war wohl die Band "No Angels". Die neueste Band ist die Band "Room 2012", die im Jahre 2007 gegründet wurde. Im Jahre 2002 schlug dann RTL zurück und erfand "Deutschland sucht den Superstar", die an die englische Show "Pop Idol" angelehnt ist. Hierbei ist der bekannteste Sänger wohl "Mark Metlock", der im Jahre 2008 den Echo gewann. Alle Sieger der Sendungen die auf den Format von "Pop Idol" ,aus dem Jahre 2002/2003, beruhen wurden zu einem internationalen Wettbewerb eingeladen, bei dem der deutsche Kandidat vorletzter wurde. Natürlich konnte sich Sat1 sowas nicht gefallen lassen, somit nahmen sie "Star Search" ins Programm auf, eine Castingshow aus den USA, die unter anderem Britney Spears und Justin Timberlake hervorgebracht hat. In Deutschland war wohl der bekannteste Gewinner Bill Kaulitz, der im Bereich Music Act 10-15 teilnahm und heute für Tokio Hotel singt. Das besondere an dieser Show ist, dass sie nicht nur Musik beinhaltet, sondern auch andere Arten, wie zum Beispiel Models. Deswegen gibt es seit dem Jahre 2006 auf Pro7 die Castingshow "Germany's Next Topmodel", auch diese Show kommt letzendlich aus Amerika. 2003/2004 gelang dann Stefan Raab das Meisterstück, er übertraf alle andern Castingshows, mit der Sendung "SSDSGPS" (Stefan sucht den Super-Grand-Prix-Star), denn hiermit schuf er eine Parodie zu den andern Sendungen und übertraf diese sogar vom musikalischen Niveau her. Stefan Raab gewann für diese Sendung den Grimme Preis, welcher wohl der renomierteste Preis für Sendungen in Deutschland ist. 2007 startete er dann eine Nachfolger Castingshow mit den Namen "SSDSDSSWEMUGABRTLAD". Diese Abkürzung bedeutet "Stefan sucht den Superstar, der singen soll, was er möchte, und gerne auch bei RTL auftreten darf". Der Name entstand im April 2007, als Max Buskohl bei TV Total der Sendung von Stefan Raab auftreten wollte und ihm dieses verboten wurde, da der Vertrag dieses untersagte. Zuerst startete er eine Aktion mit den Namen "Freiheit für Max Buskohl", in der er ein Photo von ihm im Stil von RAF Entführungsopfern zeigte. Nachdem diese Aktion die von Kritikern als PR Aktion (die Aktion sorgte übrigens für einigen Wirbel) nicht besonders erfolgreich war, startete er diese Show. Das besondere war, dass die Kandidaten sich selbst entscheiden konnte, ob sie was bekanntes oder eine eigene Produktion singen wollten. Die neueste Art der Castingshows ist wohl die Sendung "The Next Uri Geller", in der die Kandidaten ihre mentalen Fähigkeiten und ihre angeblich übernatürlichen Kräfte zeigen sollen.

Doch was ist nun eine Castingshow? Eine Castingshow besteht aus Kandidaten, die auf Grund ihres Talentes, probieren diese Show zu gewinnen.

Die Frage ist was eine solche Show so erfolgreicht macht. Das Paradebeispiel hierfür ist wohl "DSDS", denn mit ihren Juror Dieter Bohlen haben sie genau den richtigen gefunden. Denn er kennt keine Moralvorstellungen so kann er jeden Kandidaten auf schärfste demütigen. Aus diesen Demütigen und den stark überschätzten Selbstbewusstsein der Kandidaten besteht die Sendung. Denn dort sind so schlechte Kandidaten, die glauben sie könnten wirklich singen, dass man kein Mitleid mit denen haben kann. Somit beruht das ganze System eigentlich auf Schadensfreude erzeugt durch die unmoralische Kritik von Dieter Bohlen.

Seit dem Zusammenbruch eines Schülers bei "Deutschland sucht den Superstar" ermittelt nun der Jugendschutz, denn sie befürchten das die Sendung die Entwicklung gemeinschaftsfähiger Persönlichkeiten stören könnte. Schon letztes Jahr wurden die Verantwortlichen der Sendung ermahnt, es scheint sich jedoch auf den ersten Blick nicht verändert zu haben.

Ein weiterer Grund ist wohl, dass der Schüler als gescheiterter Kandidat zu Hause angerufen wird und dort beleidigt wird und RTL nichts dagegen unternimmt.

Somit wird man abwarten müssen, was demnächst mit der Sendung passiert, beziehungsweise ob sich  dort was ändert, was allen zu wünschen wäre.

Quellen:

- Spiegel vom 11.2.2008

- Jugendschützer ermitteln gegen DSDS (Spiegel)

- "Ich bin völlig fertig" (Spiegel)

- "Hab' ich die Haare schön?" (Spiegel)

-  "Wenn Bohlen sich freut, haben wir ein Problem" (Spiegel)

- Castingshows (Wikipedia)

- DSDS (Wikipedia)

- Popstars (Wikipedia)

- Star Search (Wikipedia)

- SSDSGPPS (Wikipedia)

- SSDSDSSWEMUGRTLAD (Wikipedia) 

My boss asked to me spend some time discussing this civic duty with my students today and I obliged.  I reflected on the week of fun in the courthouse and wondered what to tell my students. 

Should I tell my cherubs about my new friend, juror #3, who went to lunch with yrs. truly and juror #4 and promptly fell off the 'South Beach Diet" wagon while scarfing down 2 slices of pizza?  After a month on the SBD, juror 3's system wasn't prepared to handle the onslaught of grease and during witness testimony after lunch, she raised her hand to ask for permission to use the bathroom.  She returned to the courtroom red-faced, mumbling apologies and making quiet mention of the fact that she might have to excuse herself again.  From that point on, we called her Juror #"2" for reasons that you can surmise.

Perhaps I should entertain my young charges with tales of Mrs. M.'s diplomacy in the face of a challenge.  Juror #5 had an annoying habit of interrupting people while they were speaking.  All week long I played nice and just smiled tightly as she steamrolled over conversations and opinions.  During deliberations, however, I lost my shit and got snappy with her.  We were going around the table expressing our opinions on the case but "B" kept interrupting everyone.  She leapt in and cut me off--three times in succession.  I sat there raising one eyebrow and smirking at my other juror buddies.  They could see where this was going. 

Finally, I made a last attempt to express myself and she cut in yet again.  With a pleasant smile on my face and using my teacher "death-whisper", I told her I was going to cut out her tongue if she didn't let me finish my thought.  The other jurors broke out in spontaneous applause and "B" shut her maw!

In the end, I kept my lesson short and sweet.  I explained how and why juries are selected and used and briefly described my case.  The students were interested and animated.  An A+ for the teacher.

-A person summoned as a prospective juror.

E.g. "Nearly every venireman wanted to join the jury, if for no other reason
than that it appeared to offer a front-row seat for the proceedings."

I had to turn work down this week. No, I am not so busy that I am turning customers away, I am simply "invited" to join the judge, lawyers, and other potential jurors next week for the jury selection process and trial. Ahhh, that wonderful civic "privilege" known as jury duty.

The same day I received my "invitation", I also had a request to videotape a retirement and roast party. There is the chance I will not be chosen to serve on the jury, but if I am chosen, I would likely not be able to make it to the party in time. If I am not chosen, I won't know that until Tuesday and the party is Friday. That would not be enough time to hire someone else to videotape, so I had to let this one go.

I am significantly disappointed.

I had to turn work down this week. No, I am not so busy that I am turning customers away, I am simply "invited" to join the judge, lawyers, and other potential jurors next week for the jury selection process and trial. Ahhh, that wonderful civic "privilege" known as jury duty.

The same day I received my "invitation", I also had a request to videotape a retirement and roast party. There is the chance I will not be chosen to serve on the jury, but if I am chosen, I would likely not be able to make it to the party in time. If I am not chosen, I won't know that until Tuesday and the party is Friday. That would not be enough time to hire someone else to videotape, so I had to let this one go.

I am significantly disappointed.

That is all I can show you at this time. You will just have to subscribe to this new magazine to see my cartoon- and other fabulous articles and pictures. My Feathered Fibers cartoon is on page 2, the inside cover.

Machine Quilter's Unlimited is due to be shipped any day, if you are interested.

This is fun for me as I just started drawing my cartoon last January, 2007. I was bored one day and just started doodling. Next thing you know, I had my first finished cartoon. I drew up several more and sent them to my friends. The feedback I received back was overwhelmingly positive!

It seems that there are very few quilting-related cartoons being drawn. If you enjoy my work, and like the cartoon in the magazine, please write the magazine and give them feedback.

Now back to my role as Juror #3:

The trial lasted only 2 days, it concluded this afternoon, and so I'm now allowed to talk about my experience. It has been a fascinating experience to see the judicial process from start to finish from the perspective of a juror.

It was a criminal case involving a homeless man with obvious mental and physical limitations who was charged with indecent exposure. He had also been charged 2 months earlier with the same offense, different victims. We had to also decide if he was guilty on that offense, too.

The testimony involved lots of discussion about the male genitalia, the interaction of the hand or hands with the aforementioned body part, with glossy colored pictures of both locations, plus one where the Defendant concluded the charge he was arrested for.... if you get my drift. If you are thinking, "Eeeewwwww!" you are not alone.  For former devotees of the TV show, Seinfeld, let's just say the Defendant was "master of his domain" in public- and leave it at that!

The verdict came back as "guilty" on both charges. Many of us felt pity for the Defendant, but we needed to stick to the evidence and jury instructions. I also felt for the victims involved, and at the end of it all know that justice was certainly served.

Now I can get back to my quilting and artistic pursuits.  Plus, my DH has been on a business trip to China and he is currently on his way home as I type this!  Woohoo!  He had one free day to go shopping while in Shanghai, so let's see what he brings me back, shall we? LOL!  Any guesses?  Remember that he is, after all,  a man and also an engineering wiz who does not possess the shopping gene.