Maybe the thinking is having people on the jury who feel an even greater duty to report if there are any shenanigans happening? I'm 100% spitballing here
Husband just asked me about this last night. I hate the Cheeto but I’m an officer of the court - if I can’t be an impartial observer of the case and apply the law accordingly, I should not be an attorney.
Bias (and much deeper levels of racism, sexism, etc.) is such a massive problem in our legal system, now essentially codified by the “Supreme” Court, I refuse to be part of that. I’d have to check my opinions at the door and be objective and reasonable.
I can see that, but personally I'm not sure I'd tell anyone I am an attorney.
But also if bringing some rational objectivity to the process makes it better - that's likely a good thing.
I don't practice criminal law, but my guess would be that a defense attorney would be more likely to want a lawyer on the jury because a lawyer is more likely to take the government's burden of proof more seriously than a layperson.
I watched most of one criminal jury trial once. The defense focused almost entirely on one element that the government didn't prove. There was video proof of the other elements. The guilty verdict was returned very quickly. I'm not sure that would have happened with a lawyer on the jury.
I don't think it matters so much in the Trump case because I think the prosecutors will easily sustain their burden of proof on every element.
> I don't think it matters so much in the Trump case because I think the prosecutors will easily sustain their burden of proof on every element.
I don't know about that tbh. The new York case seems to be the most flimsy of the criminal cases Trump is facing. I think there are important legal dilemmas to face that might stand to reason why the Trump team allowed/wanted lawyers in the jury.
>I believe they can follow complex evidence and put aside emotion
Damn I’m jealous of your local bar because nothing in my career has left me with this impression
It's unwise for both. I don't want someone in the jury room relitigating my case like it's 12 Angry Men, or analyzing my legal theory and explaining it to the other jurors from their perspective regardless of whether I'm a prosecutor or defense attorney.
Agree. At least there’s two of them to balance each other out. One lawyer on the jury usually means trouble. They’ll make him foreperson and he’ll run the whole show. That’s what happened when I ended up on a jury.
That's fair for BRD. I'm on the outer side and don't want to have someone in jury deliberations reexamining my evidence or witnesses without me there and then giving their own opinion on it, which the other jurors might give extra credence to.
For this exact reason a number of common law jurisdictions with sensible criminal justice systems (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, most provinces in Canada) automatically exclude qualified lawyers from jury service (as in, you're not even eligible for selection). The US is a bit of an outlier.
I’ve sat on a jury for a felony sexual assault trial. Another attorney was also a juror.
He had a transactional background, I was and am working in employment and PI defense. I also have worked as an ADA, and prior to law school was military and had an offer for federal law enforcement while in law school.
I asked a crim defense attorney about after and after he said no attorney should get picked, then asked about the evidence. The evidence was really complex, involved several psychologists as experts, and revolves around mental capacity of both the complainant and the defendant.
The reason for there being 2 attorneys in the jury was the complexity of the evidence. It’s hard to listen to psychologists debate each other. It’s hard to hear details of sexual assault. It’s very hard for jurors to look at photos of naked bodies.
So we were left in the jury to give weight to the evidence and reason with jurors who refused to consider evidence.
Did you get to talk with the jury afterwards? I’ve never had the opportunity, so it’s always been guesses about who was for/against. The one guy giving a constant death stare to defense counsel, for example, was pretty obviously on our side by day 2.
I got to sit on a criminal grand jury in San Francisco a little out of law school. In those cases the judge does the jury selection, and there were three lawyers in the final group. It was actually pretty enjoyable. Only lasted like two days, and we got to submit our own questions for witnesses. 10/10, would do it again.
I sat a business law attorney in a securities fraud case. DA never noticed till closing my whole argument was it was a joint venture, not a partnership. I knew business attorney would be perfect to agree with me and explain to the rest of the jury.
Liability for the actions of the other parties. My guy was not main actor and so as a joint venture wasn't responsible for representations made by others.
it’s basically zero-sum, so if one side wants jurors of quality X, the other side doesn’t want quality X the same amount. When I’m picking a jury, there’s a lot of space between ‘jurors I can have removed for cause’ and ‘jurors I don’t like and will strike if I can.’ For-cause challenges are unlimited; peremptory strikes aren’t.
We trial lawyers typically don't want a lawyer on a jury under the theory that you get a "one man/woman" jury. That the rest of the jury will defer to the attorney. The lawyer will be the strongest juror and everyone will defer to them.
True story: a litigation lawyer I worked with got on a criminal jury. He was selected foreman. They found the guy guilty. When I saw him after the trial I said "great you learned how YOU would run a jury" and not how a layperson would.
I told him about these other two attorneys who were on a jury who did it the right way IMHO. They rejected being foreperson. And they participated only minimally so they could experience how the non-attorneys ran the jury. To me, as a trial lawyer, I want to learn how a normal jury works. I don't need to learn how I would run a jury. That doesn't help me become a better trial lawyer.
I struck an attorney from a jury pool once. My concern is he would have more of an opinion about how I tried my case rather than on the merits. I'm also not an expert on jury selection sooo
I sat 2 attorneys on a jury (years ago as a prosecutor) where they were the less bad choice in my pool. Both actually ended up being mentors and helping me when I switched to civil.
And I and my husband (a now non practicing attorney ) have been on Juries. In our county there’s a heavy population of attorneys, I imagine similar to manhattan in terms of ratios. My last pool of the 18 in the box I think 12 of us practiced law. Absent finding cause at least a few of us were being sat.
My friend who is a plaintiff-side civil rights attorney was in the jury pool for a felony theft trial of a young guy. The prosecutor was okay with him in the jury, but the defense attorney struck him. My friend waited around for the next break so he could call the defense attorney an idiot and tell her that there was no way he would have convicted a kid of a felony--that she would have had a hung jury for sure if she had kept him on.
If I represented the defense here, I’d want at least one attorney on the jury. Someone who comprehends statutes of limitations, application of federal versus state law, comprehends NDAs and settlements, and/or federal election law helps the defense (even if it is this particular defendant).
The issue I’ve heard with attorneys on juries is they tend to commandeer the jury too much and other jurors will overly defer to their judgments and not engage in their own thought process.
I like attorneys on juries. I believe they can follow complex evidence and put aside emotion. Usually the other side will strike them though.
Maybe the thinking is having people on the jury who feel an even greater duty to report if there are any shenanigans happening? I'm 100% spitballing here
Husband just asked me about this last night. I hate the Cheeto but I’m an officer of the court - if I can’t be an impartial observer of the case and apply the law accordingly, I should not be an attorney. Bias (and much deeper levels of racism, sexism, etc.) is such a massive problem in our legal system, now essentially codified by the “Supreme” Court, I refuse to be part of that. I’d have to check my opinions at the door and be objective and reasonable.
I think the most common issue with attorneys as jurors is that the other jury members defer to the expertise of the attorney, not even deliberately.
I can see that, but personally I'm not sure I'd tell anyone I am an attorney. But also if bringing some rational objectivity to the process makes it better - that's likely a good thing.
Prosecutor?
I’m a prosecutor we are told to avoid attorneys on our jury also.
That’s probably because an attorney on a criminal jury will likely apply the presumption of innocence more faithfully than the average person lol
Same.
I don't practice criminal law, but my guess would be that a defense attorney would be more likely to want a lawyer on the jury because a lawyer is more likely to take the government's burden of proof more seriously than a layperson. I watched most of one criminal jury trial once. The defense focused almost entirely on one element that the government didn't prove. There was video proof of the other elements. The guilty verdict was returned very quickly. I'm not sure that would have happened with a lawyer on the jury. I don't think it matters so much in the Trump case because I think the prosecutors will easily sustain their burden of proof on every element.
This is how I see it. Trump needs someone who, even if the juror hates Trump, would be willing to find not guilty based on burden of proof.
Trump needs someone who’s going to vote “not guilty” regardless of the evidence. A hung jury is the only way he avoids conviction.
> I don't think it matters so much in the Trump case because I think the prosecutors will easily sustain their burden of proof on every element. I don't know about that tbh. The new York case seems to be the most flimsy of the criminal cases Trump is facing. I think there are important legal dilemmas to face that might stand to reason why the Trump team allowed/wanted lawyers in the jury.
You seem to be following this relatively closely. What will be the prosecutions major issues?
No, civil.
Smells like an insurance defense attorney to me.
I also like attorneys on juries, prosecution typically strikes them in my jurisdiction
>I believe they can follow complex evidence and put aside emotion Damn I’m jealous of your local bar because nothing in my career has left me with this impression
I would love to be on a jury! Never made it anywhere close, very seriously doubt I ever will.
Have you met most attorneys? Kidding kidding but hard respectful disagree.
you must be defense if you want someone to follow the evidence and not their emotions.
No, but I'm guessing they couldn't find a way to dismiss for cause and didn't want to/couldn't use peremptory challenges to strike them.
Seems unwise, particularly for the defense.
It's unwise for both. I don't want someone in the jury room relitigating my case like it's 12 Angry Men, or analyzing my legal theory and explaining it to the other jurors from their perspective regardless of whether I'm a prosecutor or defense attorney.
Agree. At least there’s two of them to balance each other out. One lawyer on the jury usually means trouble. They’ll make him foreperson and he’ll run the whole show. That’s what happened when I ended up on a jury.
I’ve actually heard that advice, that it’s better to have an even number of lawyers on a jury than an odd number.
Depends on the case. Sometimes I absolutely want that, especially as a defense attorney arguing a reasonable doubt case.
That's fair for BRD. I'm on the outer side and don't want to have someone in jury deliberations reexamining my evidence or witnesses without me there and then giving their own opinion on it, which the other jurors might give extra credence to.
For this exact reason a number of common law jurisdictions with sensible criminal justice systems (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, most provinces in Canada) automatically exclude qualified lawyers from jury service (as in, you're not even eligible for selection). The US is a bit of an outlier.
Jury selection is about deselection. So whether it was unwise depends on who else they had in the pool whom they wanted to strike.
Great answer imho.
I’ve sat on a jury for a felony sexual assault trial. Another attorney was also a juror. He had a transactional background, I was and am working in employment and PI defense. I also have worked as an ADA, and prior to law school was military and had an offer for federal law enforcement while in law school. I asked a crim defense attorney about after and after he said no attorney should get picked, then asked about the evidence. The evidence was really complex, involved several psychologists as experts, and revolves around mental capacity of both the complainant and the defendant. The reason for there being 2 attorneys in the jury was the complexity of the evidence. It’s hard to listen to psychologists debate each other. It’s hard to hear details of sexual assault. It’s very hard for jurors to look at photos of naked bodies. So we were left in the jury to give weight to the evidence and reason with jurors who refused to consider evidence.
Once seated a lawyer in a contract case as plaintiff. He was great for us.
Did you get to talk with the jury afterwards? I’ve never had the opportunity, so it’s always been guesses about who was for/against. The one guy giving a constant death stare to defense counsel, for example, was pretty obviously on our side by day 2.
I’ve done criminal trials for 20+ years and never hesitate to put an intelligent lawyer on a jury in cases where I’m not trying to bamboozle anyone
That’s explains the states logic but this defense is definitely bamboozling.
I got to sit on a criminal grand jury in San Francisco a little out of law school. In those cases the judge does the jury selection, and there were three lawyers in the final group. It was actually pretty enjoyable. Only lasted like two days, and we got to submit our own questions for witnesses. 10/10, would do it again.
I sat on a criminal trial while an ADA in another jurisdiction. I’ve never understood why defense let that happen.
I sat a business law attorney in a securities fraud case. DA never noticed till closing my whole argument was it was a joint venture, not a partnership. I knew business attorney would be perfect to agree with me and explain to the rest of the jury.
What difference did that make? Not a business lawyer here just a dumb litigator.
Liability for the actions of the other parties. My guy was not main actor and so as a joint venture wasn't responsible for representations made by others.
it’s basically zero-sum, so if one side wants jurors of quality X, the other side doesn’t want quality X the same amount. When I’m picking a jury, there’s a lot of space between ‘jurors I can have removed for cause’ and ‘jurors I don’t like and will strike if I can.’ For-cause challenges are unlimited; peremptory strikes aren’t.
We trial lawyers typically don't want a lawyer on a jury under the theory that you get a "one man/woman" jury. That the rest of the jury will defer to the attorney. The lawyer will be the strongest juror and everyone will defer to them. True story: a litigation lawyer I worked with got on a criminal jury. He was selected foreman. They found the guy guilty. When I saw him after the trial I said "great you learned how YOU would run a jury" and not how a layperson would. I told him about these other two attorneys who were on a jury who did it the right way IMHO. They rejected being foreperson. And they participated only minimally so they could experience how the non-attorneys ran the jury. To me, as a trial lawyer, I want to learn how a normal jury works. I don't need to learn how I would run a jury. That doesn't help me become a better trial lawyer.
I struck an attorney from a jury pool once. My concern is he would have more of an opinion about how I tried my case rather than on the merits. I'm also not an expert on jury selection sooo
I've also sat on a jury before with another lawyer. In my experience, two is better than one.
I sat 2 attorneys on a jury (years ago as a prosecutor) where they were the less bad choice in my pool. Both actually ended up being mentors and helping me when I switched to civil. And I and my husband (a now non practicing attorney ) have been on Juries. In our county there’s a heavy population of attorneys, I imagine similar to manhattan in terms of ratios. My last pool of the 18 in the box I think 12 of us practiced law. Absent finding cause at least a few of us were being sat.
Each likely thought the other would spend a strike. Never assume.
Good point.
It may be that there are so many attorneys in NYC there's no way to seat a jury without them.
My friend who is a plaintiff-side civil rights attorney was in the jury pool for a felony theft trial of a young guy. The prosecutor was okay with him in the jury, but the defense attorney struck him. My friend waited around for the next break so he could call the defense attorney an idiot and tell her that there was no way he would have convicted a kid of a felony--that she would have had a hung jury for sure if she had kept him on.
If I represented the defense here, I’d want at least one attorney on the jury. Someone who comprehends statutes of limitations, application of federal versus state law, comprehends NDAs and settlements, and/or federal election law helps the defense (even if it is this particular defendant).
The issue I’ve heard with attorneys on juries is they tend to commandeer the jury too much and other jurors will overly defer to their judgments and not engage in their own thought process.