Going Swimming in the Brown Jury Pool

[Demosthenes]

In all the federal trials I've seen, both sides have to submit their voir dire questions to the court in advance and the judge chooses which questions he will ask the jury.

[Judge Roy Bean]

If they even bother, the Brown's voir dire submission will be ninety-nine new pages of inanity.

[Prof]

In all the federal trials I've seen, both sides have to submit their voir dire questions to the court in advance and the judge chooses which questions he will ask the jury.

A few federal trial judges (USDCt) will allow full-bore (note the intentional pun) voir dire. Most require submission of voir dire questions from which the judge picks the voir dire questions which he will use when he conducts the voir dire. She may use more in a very serious criminal case; she might use less is a straightforward civil case.

State court trial lawyers, at least in Texas, hate the federal system. They are all convinced that cases are won or lost by proper voir dire, which can be used to pursuade the jurors of the righteousness of the cause. Voir dire is not seen as merely a way of selecting jurors who are allegedly free from bias but of actually generating bias in the whole panel.

[jkeeb]

I was in a jury trial this past summer. The defense in voir dire asked all the prospective jurors if they had ever been in an accident with $2000 in damages and no injuries, thereby eliciting testimony to all that there had been around 20 accidents as such. For each prospective juror the follow-up was that no one had an accident with that little damage and had an injury. I thought it was a neat voir dire. He had a couple other sly tricks that would take too long to recount.

[wserra]

State court trial lawyers, at least in Texas, hate the federal system. They are all convinced that cases are won or lost by proper voir dire

which they call "VOW-er DYE-er". (I know I've told the story before, but that cocounsel of mine was a good guy and good lawyer, and I truly had no idea what he was talking about.)

[Demosthenes]

State court trial lawyers, at least in Texas, hate the federal system. They are all convinced that cases are won or lost by proper voir dire

which they call "VOW-er DYE-er". (I know I've told the story before, but that cocounsel of mine was a good guy and good lawyer, and I truly had no idea what he was talking about.)

When I first heard Larry Becraft pronounce it, I thought he was joking.

[.]

both sides have to submit their voir dire questions to the court in advance and the judge chooses which questions he will ask the jury

Which assumes that this voir dire would be anything like the usual federal trial.

My point was that E&E, as strawmen or otherwise (assuming any one or more of the four possibilities show up) are not likely to conduct themselves within the usual constraints of federal court decorum. Which would be why Singal would cut them off at their singular or collective (straw and/or real) knees.

Being the first potential juror to be questioned might prove to be an interesting experience.

[fortinbras]

I am not surprised at these precautions. Brown has continued to try to rally violent-types to come to his rescue. Jurors in the Schiff case were threatened and even vandalized. So it's crucial to get a well-protected, thoroughly anonymous jury pool ... and also keep crazies from infiltrating the jury itself.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I was in a jury trial this past summer. The defense in voir dire asked all the prospective jurors if they had ever been in an accident with $2000 in damages and no injuries, thereby eliciting testimony to all that there had been around 20 accidents as such. For each prospective juror the follow-up was that no one had an accident with that little damage and had an injury. I thought it was a neat voir dire. He had a couple other sly tricks that would take too long to recount.

The last civil jury voir dire I witnessed was ground through nearly an hour of questioning when the Judge realized on her own that the pool might not be large enough. What kept eliminating them from consideration were the answers to plaintiff' counsel's questions about their experiences with banks. Of the fifty about ten had either been through a foreclosure themselves or someone in their family had. Others went into mini-rants about their credit cards or checking account issues. The killer question was (paraphrasing): Could you listen to the evidence and testimony presented in this case and not allow your experiences with ['financial institution'] to influence your verdict? It got close to not being able to seat a jury. IMHO, some of them picked up on it and got themselves out by saying "no."

[Arthur Rubin]

For what it's worth, I was in a jury pool once. It was a DUI case, and the defense didn't want anyone who knew how a Breathalyzer worked. I knew, but also knew its accuracy is quite questionable, at best +/- 10%, and frequent recalibration is needed. Funny how they never asked that....

[Dezcad]

Hey, it might provide some insight into how they'll conduct voir dire (assuming they participate,) which will surely be interesting for at least 30 seconds until Singal cuts them off at the knees.

In filing Number 82, E&E state again that they will not participate:

On March 11 we made the statement that we would not participate in any proceedings, as doing so would be presenting ourselves as legal fictions created by the state, and not the
living flesh-and-blood man and woman created by God, thus dishonoring God . This we
cannot do, and will not do .

Do not call us to come to this courthouse for any hearing, trial, or any procedure ; we do
not wish to enter the courtroom . Once again we have no choice ; we must withdraw from
the arena of the court. Mr. Singal does not appear to be operating under any defined
understandable set of lawful rules comprehensible to ordinary man, as all laws are
supposed to be such.

[Imalawman]

Hey, it might provide some insight into how they'll conduct voir dire (assuming they participate,) which will surely be interesting for at least 30 seconds until Singal cuts them off at the knees.

In filing Number 82, E&E state again that they will not participate:

On March 11 we made the statement that we would not participate in any proceedings, as doing so would be presenting ourselves as legal fictions created by the state, and not the
living flesh-and-blood man and woman created by God, thus dishonoring God . This we
cannot do, and will not do .

Do not call us to come to this courthouse for any hearing, trial, or any procedure ; we do
not wish to enter the courtroom . Once again we have no choice ; we must withdraw from
the arena of the court. Mr. Singal does not appear to be operating under any defined
understandable set of lawful rules comprehensible to ordinary man, as all laws are
supposed to be such.

I always felt extraordinary.... I guess I am since the set of lawful rules he uses are understandable to me.

[Demosthenes]

Hey, it might provide some insight into how they'll conduct voir dire (assuming they participate,) which will surely be interesting for at least 30 seconds until Singal cuts them off at the knees.

In filing Number 82, E&E state again that they will not participate:

On March 11 we made the statement that we would not participate in any proceedings, as doing so would be presenting ourselves as legal fictions created by the state, and not the
living flesh-and-blood man and woman created by God, thus dishonoring God . This we
cannot do, and will not do .

Do not call us to come to this courthouse for any hearing, trial, or any procedure ; we do
not wish to enter the courtroom . Once again we have no choice ; we must withdraw from
the arena of the court. Mr. Singal does not appear to be operating under any defined
understandable set of lawful rules comprehensible to ordinary man, as all laws are
supposed to be such.

Hey, it worked for Eddie Kahn. He refused to particiipate in his own defense and spent the duration of his trial out of the courtroom.

Of course, Eddie Kahn was not only convicted on all counts, but as also sentenced to the maximum number years of prison allowed by law...

[webhick]

Hey, it worked for Eddie Kahn. He refused to particiipate in his own defense and spent the duration of his trial out of the courtroom.

Of course, Eddie Kahn was not only convicted on all counts, but as also sentenced to the maximum number years of prison allowed by law...

VICTORY!!!

[.]

In filing Number 82, E&E state again that they will not participate

E&E have been claiming that since their very first batch of goofy "filings." "No way, no how, forget it."

"Participation" was what I was trying to be careful of, as they have to "show up" as they're in custody and don't have a choice, but how they might "participate" is an open question.

After the first few seconds of any "participation," should they feel the need to do so, and I doubt that Ed will be able to resist "participating" in his own inimitable way, Ed might wind up being gagged and then removed to watch his proceedings remotely. Should that happen, Elaine, idiot that she seems to be, would likely follow in short order.

Which is why I think that being the first juror to be queried would make for an interesting perch from which to observe any ensuing brou-ha-ha, a real rarity in federal court. If Ed lets loose, and he's had many months to get cranked up, it could get interesting.

Sort of like a close call and argument at first base that results in the benches emptying and guys running in from the bullpen. A figurative hockey game could conceivably break out in Singal's courtroom because of Ed's total lack of perspicacity.

[Demosthenes]

05/20/2009 85 OBJECTION by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 77 MOTION Requesting an Interview with Edward and Elaine Brown at Strafford County Jail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Government's Exhibit 1)(Ollila, Terry) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

I hope the judge denies this objection. WMUR has been very good at calling Ed's crap exactly what it is.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_85.pdf

[Doktor Avalanche]

You know, in Eskimo/Inuit culture, Ed and Elaine would have been placed on an ice flow and shoved out to sea already.

I'm not a rabid tree-hugger, but even I find that sort of intentional pollution of our oceans appalling.

Couldn't we just spill a few million gallons of oil instead?

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

You know, in Eskimo/Inuit culture, Ed and Elaine would have been placed on an ice flow and shoved out to sea already.

I'm not a rabid tree-hugger, but even I find that sort of intentional pollution of our oceans appalling.

Couldn't we just spill a few million gallons of oil instead?

In all truthfulness, they wouldn't set them out on an ice floe. Good sled dog food is too hard to come by in lean times.

[Doktor Avalanche]

In all truthfulness, they wouldn't set them out on an ice floe. Good sled dog food is too hard to come by in lean times.

Don't make me call the ASPCA on you, dog hater!

[Dezcad]

05/20/2009 85 OBJECTION by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown re 77 MOTION Requesting an Interview with Edward and Elaine Brown at Strafford County Jail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Government's Exhibit 1)(Ollila, Terry) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

I hope the judge denies this objection. WMUR has been very good at calling Ed's crap exactly what it is.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_85.pdf

There will be no interview and the Court has prohibited "any and all extrajudicial statements by all parties and witnesses prior to the completion of trial in this matter."

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
EDWARD BROWN & ELAINE BROWN,
Defendants.

Docket no. 1:09-CR-30-GZS

ORDER ON MOTION REQUESTING INTERVIEW

On May 18, 2009, the Court received by fax a request to conduct an interview of
Defendants Edward and Elaine Brown from Sean McDonald of WMUR-TV. The Court had the
request docketed as a motion (Docket # 77) in order to notify the Defendants and the
Government of WMUR-TV’s interview request and asked that the Government file an expedited response to the Motion. The Government filed its objection to the request (Docket # 85) on May 20, 2009. In objecting to the request, the Government justifiably expresses concern that any interview of the Defendants this close to trial would improperly influence the jury pool, making it difficult for the Court to empanel an impartial jury. The Court notes that to-date it has received no direct requests from either of the Defendants (or their standby counsel) regarding media interviews although the request from WMUR-TV indicates that Defendants “have agreed to an interview.”

Jury selection in this matter is slated to begin in less than six weeks with trial
commencing the following day. In considering the current request, the Court’s overriding
concern is ensuring both Defendants are able to receive a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury. The intersection of this concern and pretrial statements to the media are specifically
addressed in District of New Hampshire Local Rules 57.1 and 83.8. Because both Defendants
are appearing pro se in this case, their own release of information is subject to Local Rule
57.1(a). Given Defendants’ repeated frivolous filings on the docket as well as their repeated
expressed unwillingness to follow the Court’s orders and rules, the Court cannot be assured that the Defendants would limit their comments in any interview in accordance with Local Rule
57.1(a)(1-6). Absent such an assurance, the Court believes that a television interview in the
weeks before trial would interfere with the Court’s ability to secure the Defendants a fair trial before an impartial jury. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES WMUR-TV’s Motion Requesting
Interview (Docket # 77) and, pursuant to District of New Hampshire Local Rule 83.8, hereby
PROHIBITS any and all extrajudicial statements by all parties and witnesses prior to the
completion of trial in this matter.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 21st day of May, 2009.