Windypundit said on May 03, 2005  

You know Ken, if you're gonna tell these kinds of sob stories, you might want to put out a tip jar to see if people will drop in a few coins for the poor and downhearted. I had an urge to buy you a beer or a lapdance or something to take your mind off your troubles...but it's passed now.

 Ken Lammers said on May 03, 2005  

Gotta unwind somehow. I don't drink as much as back in the day so getting blitzed isn't really an option nowadays (anyway, sometime a few years back the next morning just started to hurt too much). And I'm a little too old to go out and play rugby anymore; being in the scrum was a wonderful to work off the left over emotions.

Nope, all I can do is vent here. Just imagine what I might be saying if this blawg were anonymous. ;-)

I'd almost be tempted by that lap dance but I'd probably be right in the middle when I'd look up and realize she's one of my clients. That would just be too much of a hassle with the bar.

 Michael Pratt said on May 03, 2005  

Religion on Voir Dire.

I've been prosecuting since about 1997 and almost in every single case I try either myself or the Judge asks the question if anyone has religious beliefs which would prohibit them from passing judgement on someone else.

Sometimes we both ask it, although if the Judge asks it, I will genenrally ask the non-religious angle to the question "Would anyone here have trouble convicting someone in a drug case due to a policy stance." It is not uncommon to get someone saying they favorite legalization of marijuana so they cant' convict someone of selling or growing marijuana.

Once or twice I've gotten the response that the person in question can't sit in judgement on a drug case because the have a realtive serving a federal drug offense in the nearby federal prison.

As to authority for the question, well I don't know what it is. There has to eb authority somewhere, since the Judges who ask the question are the types I know are always diligent to obey and follow the law.

The penalty range is acutally more asked by defense counsel to see if the Jury can consider the full range of penalties in the case.

 Michael Pratt said on May 04, 2005  

By the way. Please excuse the spelling errors in my recent postings. I've been home sick and have taken quite a bit of cold medicine.

 Ken Lammers said on May 04, 2005  

Not gonna see much fussing about spelling from yours truly. If it wasn't for spell check this page'd be a mess.

Now if I could only get then - than and lay lie squared away . . .

 Anonymous said on May 05, 2005  

Religion on Voir Dire

Since my Criminal Procedure final is in a few days I thought I would look this one up.

See John H. Mansfield, Peremptory Challenges to Jurors Based Upon or Affecting Religion, 34 Seton Hall L. Rev. 435 (2004). Not sure how much Lexis charges for law review articles, but it is on point.

From the article:

In recent years the Supreme Court has held that peremptory challenges based upon race or sex, and possibly ethnicity, violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court has yet to decide whether religion-related peremptories also are invalid, although a number of lower courts have struggled with the question and reached conflicting conclusions.

...

[Courts allowing peremptories based on religion] See, e.g., State v. Davis, 504 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1115 (1994) (allowing a peremptory challenge based on juror's being Jehovah's Witness and going to church three times a week, and prosecutor's experience that Jehovah's Witnesses were reluctant to exercise authority over others); Casarez v. State, 913 S.W.2d 468, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en banc) (holding that peremptory challenges based on jurors' being members of Pentecostal Church did not violate the Constitution).

[Courts that don't] See, e.g., State v. Hodge, 726 A.2d 531, 550-56 (Conn.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 (1999) (holding that peremptories based on "religious affiliation" violate Equal Protection Clause, but noting that the challenge in question had a different basis).

 Ken Lammers said on May 05, 2005  

It doesn't really matter because nobody was struck because of it. Thus no error preserved or at the most harmless error.

I preserved it in one case but the client decided not to appeal.