According to the American Bar Association, hiring local counsel is a must for every trial. Even if you hire a specialty lawyer in addition to local counsel, the expense of having someone who is intimately familiar with the court system can be very worthwhile. …
I'm wondering if this would result in travelling lawyers that follow the travelling judges.Also, you might lose a little something in expertise in local laws, local interpretations of those laws, and relevant precedents, resulting in additional variability in results.These two things combined might put you back to square one, where you need a a barrister that knows the judge plus local counsel with expertise in local case law.
When a teenager in the late 60s I was caught skinny dipping at rock quarry in a rural county in the Deep South. I cut my long hair and got a military crew cut to impress the judge. It turned out I was lumped in with 200 other teenagers in a single verdict and the judge was blind. Maybe the was justice should be.
I can get behind this. Similarly, with teleconferencing being much ubiquitous now, we don't necessarily need to rely on local jurors showing a particular bias either.
This seems about right. I have first hand knowledge of a case where the lawyer didn't know the relevant law and had to be taught it by the defense. He was a good choice because he was a politicker and was well thought of by the court. Terrible at the relevant law but great at negotiating. I suspect the case was settled on the basis that the prosecutor and judge trusted his judgement, and probably a little quid pro quo.
The idea was to keep the judge travel itinerary secret, which would prevent lawyers following them around.
I'm wondering if this would result in travelling lawyers that follow the travelling judges.Also, you might lose a little something in expertise in local laws, local interpretations of those laws, and relevant precedents, resulting in additional variability in results.These two things combined might put you back to square one, where you need a a barrister that knows the judge plus local counsel with expertise in local case law.
When a teenager in the late 60s I was caught skinny dipping at rock quarry in a rural county in the Deep South. I cut my long hair and got a military crew cut to impress the judge. It turned out I was lumped in with 200 other teenagers in a single verdict and the judge was blind. Maybe the was justice should be.
Your suggestion about randomizing jurors brings this famous movie scene to mind: https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Good point about the jurors.
I can get behind this. Similarly, with teleconferencing being much ubiquitous now, we don't necessarily need to rely on local jurors showing a particular bias either.
This seems about right. I have first hand knowledge of a case where the lawyer didn't know the relevant law and had to be taught it by the defense. He was a good choice because he was a politicker and was well thought of by the court. Terrible at the relevant law but great at negotiating. I suspect the case was settled on the basis that the prosecutor and judge trusted his judgement, and probably a little quid pro quo.
Good idea!