TexasCHLforum.com

A reasonable man is one who thinks like me.

cbunt1 wrote:
One of the reasons lawyers almost never want other lawyers on a jury is because the specialized training and use of language and interpretation of the law as written is not "common" to the rest of us. DItto the reason LEO's are very rarely seated on juries.

The reason I would not allow lawyers on juries in cases I was trying was not that they are smarter, or more learned than anyone else, but that when the jury room door slams shut, all the other jurors would look down the table at this lawyer and say, "What was THAT all about?" It was the fear that the lawyer would have his or her vote weighted heavier than anyone else, too much influence. That could be better, if the lawyer saw things your way, or far worse if he saw things the other guy's way, and why take the risk? Most of those guys, me excluded, would rather get out of it anyway. I always wanted to be on a jury, an ambition that was never close to being realized, because for most of my career we were not allowed and since then I never get passed the show up stage.

It's really a waste of time for all concerned. Some years ago, one of the judges of the court of appeals was seated on a jury, and manfully served his time. I imagine it was one of the worst ordeals the judge and lawyers ever faced. What do you do as a judge, with the appeals judge sitting there watching and listening to your every word? If a lawyer, what will happen if you need/want to appeal? That judge won't be on the panel, of course, but every appeals judge on the panel that hears it will know that "Judge Grump" was on the jury in that case. It merely messes with the balance of nature, and for no good end other than giving newspaper scribblers some oddity to prattle about.

As far as a "reasonable man," or person goes, it is a judicially manufactured fiction purporting to describe an objective standard by which to compare decisions or acts of a party. It may be easier to recognize than describe, and unreasonableness easier yet. If I come across the judicially approved description of it, I'll post it here.

bayouhazard wrote:It's someone who didn't get out of jury duty.

JALLEN wrote:

cbunt1 wrote:
One of the reasons lawyers almost never want other lawyers on a jury is because the specialized training and use of language and interpretation of the law as written is not "common" to the rest of us. DItto the reason LEO's are very rarely seated on juries.

The reason I would not allow lawyers on juries in cases I was trying was not that they are smarter, or more learned than anyone else, but that when the jury room door slams shut, all the other jurors would look down the table at this lawyer and say, "What was THAT all about?" It was the fear that the lawyer would have his or her vote weighted heavier than anyone else, too much influence. That could be better, if the lawyer saw things your way, or far worse if he saw things the other guy's way, and why take the risk? Most of those guys, me excluded, would rather get out of it anyway. I always wanted to be on a jury, an ambition that was never close to being realized, because for most of my career we were not allowed and since then I never get passed the show up stage.

It's really a waste of time for all concerned. Some years ago, one of the judges of the court of appeals was seated on a jury, and manfully served his time. I imagine it was one of the worst ordeals the judge and lawyers ever faced. What do you do as a judge, with the appeals judge sitting there watching and listening to your every word? If a lawyer, what will happen if you need/want to appeal? That judge won't be on the panel, of course, but every appeals judge on the panel that hears it will know that "Judge Grump" was on the jury in that case. It merely messes with the balance of nature, and for no good end other than giving newspaper scribblers some oddity to prattle about.

As far as a "reasonable man," or person goes, it is a judicially manufactured fiction purporting to describe an objective standard by which to compare decisions or acts of a party. It may be easier to recognize than describe, and unreasonableness easier yet. If I come across the judicially approved description of it, I'll post it here.

Thank you, JALLEN.