Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8151Re: [infoguys-list] Digest Number 1434

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    May 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/31/2005 5:59:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com writes:
      Why jury consultants are increasingly important

      You are saying, are you not, that they won because the jury consultant
      manipulated the jury pool, and in effect stacked the jury. You are
      also arguing, are you not, that this is not a good thing, and the
      other side thus needs a jury consultant to stack the jury in their
      favor. So do the two stacking attempts then cancel themselves out?

      You refer to the "winning side," as if that is the goal here. I
      thought justice was supposed to be the goal. Or if you win, does that
      automatically mean you got justice? Or is perhaps HOW you win a
      factor in obtaining justice?

      Does the jury consultant on one side wear a black hat, so the jury
      consultant on the other side then has a duty to wear a white hat and
      straighten everything out? I hardly think the attorneys involved are
      using consultants to that end, and it would be disingenuous of you to
      imply otherwise.

      But of course I don't expect an answer to any of these questions
      because justice was never what jury consulting was about from the
      beginning, and thus it's not what you are about.

      Lex Silvia
      If you read the article you can see what they say about PI's and JC working

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic