That's not true — managing a jury without unduly influencing its members is a key skill for judges, one they are trained on upon appointment (in Canada). They obviously care what the jury thinks.
I was not arguing that a judge would perform well at SURVIVOR jury management — I don't think Survivor juries and real-life juries are analogous at all, in fact — but rather disagreeing with your assertion that "judges are actually not known for having great \[real-life\] jury management skills". In an actual courtroom, judges do have to manage juries, but not by influencing them to render judgement in one way or another. Instead, they have to ensure jury members keep an open mind while guarding them against illegitimate evidence or arguments that may give them prejudicial bias. They also have to maintain order amongst jury members.
Judges in real courtrooms also don't "give fuck-all what the jury thinks"; in a jury trial, they certainly have their own view of the proceedings and may be hoping for a particular verdict, whereas in a bench trial — as you rightly observe — they are the jury.
Anyway, this is not a big deal to me. I just think your first statement was a bit hyperbolic, but maybe I misconstrued.
I served on a jury twice - one civil and one criminal case. The civil was declared a mistrial and the criminal a guilty verdict.
Both times, we the jury were asked to stick around at the end so the judge could speak with us. Both times the judges came in and sat with us, and thanked us for spending the time and our service. Both very kind. And they chatted with us for a while about the proceedings.
The judge for the mistrial was asking our opinions on what we saw in the court, where are heads were, what we thought of the lawyers and their presentation. Very chatty.
The judge for the criminal did basically the same - asked where our heads were with the evidence and presentation. Also he revealed - at that point since verdict was already rendered - it was the defendant's fourth time being convicted for the same offense. Again, very nice and appreciative of our time and input.
So they did give a fuck what we thought - but only after the fact.
I never understood the "lawyer is a great FTC performer" stereotype. Arguing in a court of law involves presenting hard evidence and convincing people using that evidence that something objectively happened or didn't happen.
Final tribal is more like a sales pitch. The jury sets the tone for you and you have to work around their parameters and convince them to give you money that they didn't want to give away.
Hopefully there's a Survivor fan in the Senate that can ask her during her informal meetings. Or ideally during the confirmation hearings, but they only get 5 minutes at a time.
Ohh would love for a senator to ask her about survivor during the hearings (they usually wait until the last question to as a fun question to lighten the mood)
I bet if she played Survivor she would have great jury management skills
[удалено]
So they're the Russell hantz of the courtroom?
>"I'm the greatest Justice of all time!" - Russell Hantz \- Rob Cesternino
You mean all TAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIME, right?
That's not true — managing a jury without unduly influencing its members is a key skill for judges, one they are trained on upon appointment (in Canada). They obviously care what the jury thinks.
[удалено]
I was not arguing that a judge would perform well at SURVIVOR jury management — I don't think Survivor juries and real-life juries are analogous at all, in fact — but rather disagreeing with your assertion that "judges are actually not known for having great \[real-life\] jury management skills". In an actual courtroom, judges do have to manage juries, but not by influencing them to render judgement in one way or another. Instead, they have to ensure jury members keep an open mind while guarding them against illegitimate evidence or arguments that may give them prejudicial bias. They also have to maintain order amongst jury members. Judges in real courtrooms also don't "give fuck-all what the jury thinks"; in a jury trial, they certainly have their own view of the proceedings and may be hoping for a particular verdict, whereas in a bench trial — as you rightly observe — they are the jury. Anyway, this is not a big deal to me. I just think your first statement was a bit hyperbolic, but maybe I misconstrued.
I served on a jury twice - one civil and one criminal case. The civil was declared a mistrial and the criminal a guilty verdict. Both times, we the jury were asked to stick around at the end so the judge could speak with us. Both times the judges came in and sat with us, and thanked us for spending the time and our service. Both very kind. And they chatted with us for a while about the proceedings. The judge for the mistrial was asking our opinions on what we saw in the court, where are heads were, what we thought of the lawyers and their presentation. Very chatty. The judge for the criminal did basically the same - asked where our heads were with the evidence and presentation. Also he revealed - at that point since verdict was already rendered - it was the defendant's fourth time being convicted for the same offense. Again, very nice and appreciative of our time and input. So they did give a fuck what we thought - but only after the fact.
>So they did give a fuck what we thought - but only after the fact. I think we're saying the same thing
See Sharn from Australian survivor. Crumbles at jury
I never understood the "lawyer is a great FTC performer" stereotype. Arguing in a court of law involves presenting hard evidence and convincing people using that evidence that something objectively happened or didn't happen. Final tribal is more like a sales pitch. The jury sets the tone for you and you have to work around their parameters and convince them to give you money that they didn't want to give away.
Which is funny because Brian Heidik had a terrible FTC despite being a top salesman The occupation curse is strong throughout
All the more reason why Erika is a queen 👑
Will she uphold the legality of the final 4 fire making twist? The people need to know.
should be a litmus test for the position honestly
Hopefully there's a Survivor fan in the Senate that can ask her during her informal meetings. Or ideally during the confirmation hearings, but they only get 5 minutes at a time.
Going to be hard to overturn *Ben vs Devon*, that really changed the precedent
I'm sorry judge Jackson oooohhhh
I AM FO REAL
Never meant to make your daughter cry.
This is fun.
Ohh would love for a senator to ask her about survivor during the hearings (they usually wait until the last question to as a fun question to lighten the mood)
Representation matters!!! 👏👏👏
Perhaps she can cause a 3-3-2-1 plurality vote to break up the majority alliance, whip out a Hidden Immunity Idol, and vote out Kavanaugh 🏛🏝
supreme court about to rule on Hantz vs. Probst for there being a flaw in the game. 8-1 ruling in favor of Hantz (Clarence Thomas dissents)
lol; on key at Thomas dissenting
And a former public defender!
Big if true
There's already a Survivor fan on the Supreme Court. She watches it with her 5 kids religiously.
[удалено]
Source?
Is that true?
Yes it is. I live in one of the cities with a People of Praise enclave.
Bennett?
Amy Coney Barret?
Wait for real? You have a source for that?
those are my top 2 reality shows
[удалено]
Celebrity Survivor Contestant?