But the real problems are in the courts themselves. The most grievous hypocrisy occurs when the judge turns to the jury and says "That is to be stricken from the record!" Which tells the jury to disregard something they have already heard. I don't believe this is possible, even for the most intelligent and ethical juror.
      The next travesty is the appeal. One little thing can be wrong with the original trial and they have to do it over. Wow, talk about double dipping. And then of course there are the appeals to higher courts, going all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. What a fabulous enlargement of the lawyer's income and what a fabulous waste of these subsequent court's time. No wonder there is a such a backlog.

      I have not even mentioned the juror's problems. They are required to be there for the whole trial, whether it is two hours or two years.
      The lawyers can dismiss a potential juror with no explanation. This abuses the potential jurors constitutional right to be a juror and certainly creates a panel that is very unlikely to be one of "peers".

      Is there an alternative?

      I believe there is a great alternative that will increase justice, save enormous amounts of time and of course reduce the number and incomes of lawyers. Maybe we will get a new generaton of lawyers that are interested in law and justice instead of their stock portfolio. I will describe it here!

      The first proposition is to hold the trial in the absence of the jury. The trial will be held by the judge and the attorneys and witnesses with absolute secrecy. There must be a strong penalty for any violation.
      And it will be videotaped and edited until the judge and the opposing attorneys agree that they have a trial in the can. At this point a jury would be impanelled and put in the jury room with the video trial. They would be able to go back and see parts of it whenever they wanted. They could ask questions of the judge but nothing else. When they came to a decision they could be released. If they could not agree, another jury could be impanelled and again they could be given the trial in the can!.

      If there was a challenge to the trial, the "can" could be sent to the appeals court. Instead of going through another trial they would make their decision on the basis of what's in the can. If there was a problem, the trial could be sent back and edited removing the offending parts or missing parts could be added and then another jury could be impanelled.
      Of course this principle could be applied all the way to the Supreme Court.
      Can't you imagine the scope of the saving of time of everybody, the judges, lawyers, witnesses and jurors. And imagine the lowering of the costs. This could very well afford the defendants the Constitution's guarantee of a speedy trial!

      Of course, the only way this can be done is to stuff it down the throats of the legal profession aginst their loud howls occasioned by the sharp pain in their pocketbooks.

.

.