One of the goals in that kind of research is to test out your story, but another goal is to find out who is least receptive to it so they can be struck in jury selection. And this provided a big strategic advantage by allowing us to keep jurors that the prosecution would also want, gambling that our research was better than their intuition.
This came to matter in the trial of accused Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss, Gabriel describes, based on the personality of the client: Her attitudes, mannerisms, and nonverbal communication were all big. Too big. I told her that I wanted her to disappear from the courtroom. This surprised her. I explained that jurors hunt the biggest prey in the courtroom, and when she flopped about in exasperation, shook her head, and sighed, she became the largest beast on the Savannah.
I explained that she should remain solemn and still in court, paying careful attention while leaning forward at counsel table. Every case has its story, but as often as not, that story is also playing a role within an even larger story.
At this point, Jim Guy Tucker is not a familiar name — at least not on par with most of the other stories in the book. Tucker faced his own trial in for tax evasion.
But the case was also set within the context of a prior conviction regarding Whitewater, as well as the larger drama of the Clintons and the Independent Counsel Investigation that ultimately spawned Monica Lewinsky and impeachment. At a time when resentment was building toward the perceived politicization of the investigations, and in a place, Arkansas, where there was still high support for the Clintons, Gabriel assisted the prosecution this time to see how these attitudes would affect the chances for conviction.
In another example of a larger story playing a more powerful role, Gabriel writes of his work on the defense of Rex Shelby, a developer of the broadband video streaming technology we now enjoy, who had the bad luck to have his company associated with Enron at the time of its downfall. Securities cases are complex enough, but this case required jurors to have an understanding of internet hardware and software as well. If you start to doubt, you may acquit. So keep it simple.
Using that framework, the Supreme Court found that one Adams County judge likely led jurors astray with his commentary, while a second Adams County judge did not — even though the justices identified several problems in the latter set of statements. A handful of judges were responsible for those cases, and they generally repeated the same plain-English explanations of reasonable doubt to potential jurors during jury selection. In the case of Tibbels v.
Kiesnowski Jr. According to the criminal jury instructions , it is a doubt "based upon reason and common sense" that arises from a rational consideration of the evidence. It is not vague or imaginary, but rather something that "would cause reasonable people to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves.
He continued by asking the potential jurors to imagine a couple searching for a home to purchase and finding the "perfect" one. But upon closer inspection, there was a crack in the concrete foundation from floor to ceiling. The crack was structurally significant. The judge asked a juror whether they would buy that home, and the juror responded in the negative. Ernest Joseph Tibbels appealed his conviction on the grounds that Kiesnowski's comments lowered the burden of proof to convict him.
By a decision , a panel of the Court of Appeals sided against him. The majority believed the judge's example was not a formal instruction, noted that it only happened at the very beginning of trial, and pointed out that Kiesnowski later gave the correct instruction to the jury. The dissenting judge, Neeti Vasant Pawar, believed it was reasonable to think jurors in Tibbels' trial would have gravitated to the crack-in-the-foundation analogy over the more ambiguous, legal definition of reasonable doubt.
While prosecutors and defense attorneys may also try to de-mystify the concept of reasonable doubt to jurors, judges are authority figures within the courtroom whose instructions on the law are binding. Court of Appeals judges have described the attempted use of analogies as " undeniably risky ," even while declining to reverse convictions.
Initial terms last at least two years, after which justices must stand for retention in a yes-no election. Subsequent terms last 10 years. The chief justice of the supreme court is selected by peer vote. Beginning in January , the chief justice began serving for a set term on a rotating basis.
Previously, the chief justice served indefinitely as long as he or she had the support of his or her peers. If a midterm vacancy occurs on the court, the seat is filled as it normally would be if the vacancy occurred at the end of a justice's term. A judicial nominating commission recommends to the governor three qualified candidates for an appellate court vacancy two or three for a trial court vacancy , and the governor selects a successor from that list. After occupying the seat for two years, the newly appointed justice stands for retention in the next general election.
The justice then serves a full year term if he or she is retained by voters. John T. Bankruptcy Court: District of Colorado. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error.
Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. Colorado Supreme Court, Richard Gabriel's seat. Search Google News for this topic. Officeholder Colorado Supreme Court Website. Categories : Pages using DynamicPageList parser function State supreme court candidates, State supreme court candidates Colorado Nonpartisan Colorado Supreme Court candidate, incumbent retention election winner Colorado supreme court judges Former Colorado intermediate appellate court judges Successful Colorado judicial candidates, Bill Ritter, Court of Appeals Appointed judges, April John Hickenlooper, Supreme Court Appointed judges, June Term expiring , Colorado Former intermediate appellate court justices.
Voter information What's on my ballot?
0コメント