Full Version: Which circus do you think will be the biggest?
Do the media companies have enough crews?
QUOTE(mrbluiis @ Feb 28 2004, 03:21 AM)
Do the media companies have enough crews? It's what keeps CNN and FoxNews profitable: Having a backlog of scandalous stories. And the election! Bonus!!
If they don't have the crews, they'll rent local reporters, so no reason they can't cover them all, although I doubt they'll overlap each other much, since the judges that want the media coverage will make sure they schedule the trial for a certain block of dates that isn't overlapping another scandalous story.
Moved to Casual Conversation. There doesn't appear to be a substantive question for debate.
None of this year's defendants will prompt me to order Court TV so that I can watch their trial live. I've been on jury duty enough to know that Perry Mason isn't going to find the real murderer sitting in the front row of the audience watching. (And as PE points out every time. "Who would stand up in open court and confess to murder in a state with the death penalty?) It's interesting occasionally to watch the recap on the news of a point scored by an attorney on one side or the other, but I have no horses in this race.
I worked for a couple of 6 month stretches with a man who claimed to be F. Lee Bailey's first client. "He wanted to make a name for himself. I was trying to get a license to do business, and I couldn't. He went downtown, punched the clerk, got his name in the papers, spent a night in jail for assault, and I got my license. We've been good friends ever since." On the days that he wasn't there, the other guys would support his stories by telling of the business transactions and bets they had had with him. "Never sign a contract with him!" The stories in that lunch room were far more fascinating than "Was the order to sell Imclone at a floor price of $60 in place before the day of the sale?" Personally, had it sold at a floor of 58-7/8 or a floor of 62-3/4, I might have found it strange; but a sell order at a price of $60 a share sounds like someone was a wealthy investor that knew how much risk they would assume on a stock. The only questions I would wonder about as a juror are, "What are her sell instructions on her other stocks?" and "Is that a typical price for her to leave as a floor to prevent losses?"
As a juror:
I listened to several hours of testimony one day when a man I will call John Doe was on trial for indecent exposure. The prosecution told a story of two young girls, 6 & 8, who had been playing near a fence in a park. John Doe walked along the fence directly above the girls, and was exposed to them because he was wearing swimming trunks, and was as well equipped as the man in the Sears Roebuck underwear ad in their catalog that year. His defense attorney, in his first trial without co-counsel crossed with, "Is this the ad in the Sears catalog that you're referring to?" and the judge ordered the catalog into evidence. The girls testified, and identified John Doe. On cross, they were very certain of their identification, because it wasn't the first time they had seen him in the park, and he had identified himself by name.
Then, the defense put on a string of character witnesses, including his fiancee and her father, a minister. The defense attorney had a very annoying habit of taking a word or two out of every witness's testimony, writing it on a chalkboard, pulling out a dictionary, copying down the definition, and saying; "Is that really the word that you meant to use?" The answer was always yes, and somehow it was never in the best interest of the defense that we had been called upon to focus on the word in question.
The final witness was the defendant. He got up from the defense table, hopped up on and walked along the jury rail, and was sworn in:
"Why did you use that path to the witness chair?"
"I wanted the jury to realize that they couldn't see anything even if I was right above them."
"Were you wearing a bathing suit, as the girls claimed?"
"No, I was wearing Bermuda shorts."
"Did you introduce yourself as John Doe to the girls?"
"No. I always introduce myself to my friends as 'Flagpole.'"
The prosecution provided no closing argument. The defense attorney provided a fifteen minute, rhymed closing, which essentially asked, "If you were a minister, would you let a man convicted of exposure marry your daughter?"
In the jury room, we broke up laughing, elected a foreman, and voted to convict "Flagpole" of indecent exposure. The jury foreman, noting a 100% conviction on the first vote, polled every juror, and we all agreed that the prosecution had failed to make their case until "Flagpole" introduced himself to the jury. We didn't return the verdict until we had all stopped laughing.
I never watch a marcher in a parade carry a flag proudly displayed in front of him without thinking of John"Flagpole" Doe. I have never watched a television trial that was nearly as entertaining.
I worked for a couple of 6 month stretches with a man who claimed to be F. Lee Bailey's first client. "He wanted to make a name for himself. I was trying to get a license to do business, and I couldn't. He went downtown, punched the clerk, got his name in the papers, spent a night in jail for assault, and I got my license. We've been good friends ever since." On the days that he wasn't there, the other guys would support his stories by telling of the business transactions and bets they had had with him. "Never sign a contract with him!" The stories in that lunch room were far more fascinating than "Was the order to sell Imclone at a floor price of $60 in place before the day of the sale?" Personally, had it sold at a floor of 58-7/8 or a floor of 62-3/4, I might have found it strange; but a sell order at a price of $60 a share sounds like someone was a wealthy investor that knew how much risk they would assume on a stock. The only questions I would wonder about as a juror are, "What are her sell instructions on her other stocks?" and "Is that a typical price for her to leave as a floor to prevent losses?"
As a juror:
I listened to several hours of testimony one day when a man I will call John Doe was on trial for indecent exposure. The prosecution told a story of two young girls, 6 & 8, who had been playing near a fence in a park. John Doe walked along the fence directly above the girls, and was exposed to them because he was wearing swimming trunks, and was as well equipped as the man in the Sears Roebuck underwear ad in their catalog that year. His defense attorney, in his first trial without co-counsel crossed with, "Is this the ad in the Sears catalog that you're referring to?" and the judge ordered the catalog into evidence. The girls testified, and identified John Doe. On cross, they were very certain of their identification, because it wasn't the first time they had seen him in the park, and he had identified himself by name.
Then, the defense put on a string of character witnesses, including his fiancee and her father, a minister. The defense attorney had a very annoying habit of taking a word or two out of every witness's testimony, writing it on a chalkboard, pulling out a dictionary, copying down the definition, and saying; "Is that really the word that you meant to use?" The answer was always yes, and somehow it was never in the best interest of the defense that we had been called upon to focus on the word in question.
The final witness was the defendant. He got up from the defense table, hopped up on and walked along the jury rail, and was sworn in:
"Why did you use that path to the witness chair?"
"I wanted the jury to realize that they couldn't see anything even if I was right above them."
"Were you wearing a bathing suit, as the girls claimed?"
"No, I was wearing Bermuda shorts."
"Did you introduce yourself as John Doe to the girls?"
"No. I always introduce myself to my friends as 'Flagpole.'"
The prosecution provided no closing argument. The defense attorney provided a fifteen minute, rhymed closing, which essentially asked, "If you were a minister, would you let a man convicted of exposure marry your daughter?"
In the jury room, we broke up laughing, elected a foreman, and voted to convict "Flagpole" of indecent exposure. The jury foreman, noting a 100% conviction on the first vote, polled every juror, and we all agreed that the prosecution had failed to make their case until "Flagpole" introduced himself to the jury. We didn't return the verdict until we had all stopped laughing.
I never watch a marcher in a parade carry a flag proudly displayed in front of him without thinking of John"Flagpole" Doe. I have never watched a television trial that was nearly as entertaining.
I voted NONE.
And I can't believe I was in the majority.
I guess the majority of AD are smarter than the average bear.
Seriously I can't believe that the media thinks I consider this circus important enough to waste 1 minute of my time.
And I can't believe I was in the majority.
I guess the majority of AD are smarter than the average bear.
Seriously I can't believe that the media thinks I consider this circus important enough to waste 1 minute of my time.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.