Jury duty observations

[bigguyinpasadena]

Hi,Just got off two days of jury duty.I know there are a lot of lawyers who hang out in here(some are brave enough to admit it)and my gaydar was pinging like crazy the last few days so I do think the legal profession might just be 3rd on the list of "possiple careers for gay folk" ;-)

Do lawyers not advise clients on appearence?I walked into the courtroom and the defendant,a young black girl,was dressed in an almost laughable style-pedal pushers and a tshirt which exposed her midriff.On the second day she was dressed a little better,but nothing that could be called serious clothes reflecting the gravity of the situation.

And this was not the exception to the rule,the courthouse was filled with people who were dressed like they were off for a day at the beach!The lawyers of course were in proper buisness atire-and lots of very hot sherrifs in uniform.

BTW-I was excused from service because the state was representing WalMart and I was honest in my opinions regarding this monlithic abuser of human rights.Sometimes it pays to be a "bleeding heart liberal"to use TayloyKY tag line

[+ Charlie]

Bigguy, I recently served jury duty here in Southern California as well. The summons included fairly specific guidelines for what was not acceptable dress for jurors, and I didn't see anyone violating them; however, I was surprised at how casually most people were dressed--I saw only one man besides myself wearing a suit, and a surprising number wore T-shirts. When I have been summoned for jury duty in other venues, most men have been fairly conservatively dressed. The best dressed person in the courtroom was a young female prosecutor whose taste was impeccable.

[Flower]

>Do lawyers not advise clients on appearence?

 

Any good attorney will emphasize the importance of dressing for a jury trial--not necessarily formal, but what one would wear to work--and clean and neat, including good grooming and hygiene! You'd be surprised how many otherwise intelligent people simply haven't a clue in this regard. I try a lot of cases all over the state and in a few other states and it's been years, however, since I've seen a juror wear a suit and tie.

 

It sounds as if the defendant in your case was represented by a public defender, who, while usually doing a good job trying a case, have clients that sometimes just don't give a shit and it shows in their dress and grooming. There is also the "loser syndrome" which is contagious to public defenders, since they must lose 90% of their cases, and once one catches that, he just couldn't care less as to what his client wears.

 

It sounds as if this were a petty theft case but the prosecutor would have been representing the People of the State of California--not Walmart, but Walmart would have been the prosecuting witness or "victim" if possible :-) and your bias against them would certainly be grounds for disqualification.

 

As for your comment that some attorney's here even admit they are attorneys--why wouldn't they? What's your point?

[DaninWA]

Why was the "state" representing WalMart?

[DaninWA]

That makes more sense. Thanks.

[bigguyinpasadena]

The prosocuter was representing the state-walmart was the place where the aleged theft took place and thus walmart was the party filing the complaint.I should have been more clear on this I guess.

And Flower-I was not knocking lawyers-I know there are several lawyers on here that have never disclosed their occupation.

[samhexum]