Still .. laughing tho.

There are 2 legal cases going on that I am privy to..even somewhat close to and I can not believe..all the delays. One of them involves the murder I mentioned last year.

I know that one is like comparing apples to bowling balls with your case.

The person is allegedly accused of shooting his wife in the temple. (Feb 08)he was under house arrest until a judge recently lifted it and the man is free to go where he wants to. Any idea how uncomfortable that makes a lot of people who live near this person..who has a history of angry outbursts?

And recently some towns people were at a meeting involving another legal case…involving this man and someone brought the murder trial up. A representative of the Attorney General’s office said the murder case could take years before it goes to trial.

You have to be kidding me! The police had the house guarded for 3 days while they collected evidence before they pressed charges. I know innocent until proven guilty.

I am just FLOORED that something so serious could be put off for so long and in the mean time a murderer is roaming free. ??? If it wasn’t him..then it was someone else and all this time is being wasted.

Sorry… this post regarding delays..hit a nerve!

I do not understand our legal system!

Otherwise known as that strange fruity smell from aisle six.

As to breast feeding, no employment laws cover that. Some employers allow it at work, and it is not disruptive. Others do not.

Some of the issues are here.

http://www.parentingatwork.org/facts.html

It is not settled in the workplace, so it is not settled in the court. If allowing babies at work replaces maternity leave, it is quite advantageous to the employer.

One’s peers are one’s fellow citizens in town. So, random assignments to cases would be the fairest. That would end the churning cases, and appeals on discriminatory juries. It would end voir dire, the questioning of juries. The latter has never been proven effective for the lawyers. They add hours and days to their billed time.

As to undue influence of a dominating person on the jury, that would end by allowing only one secret vote upon entering the jury room, without discussion of the case. Then everyone can go home. Under such circumstances, the legislature could set a high threshold of a super majority of the jury for guilty, e.g. 9 of 12.

Oh and Supremacy Clause – although I agree with you completely in principle on the idea that jurors should receive full compensation for their time and no one should be exempted….just out of curiosity, how would you compensate a stay-at-home mother who technically earns no salary; also, what would you suggest she do with a breast-fed only infant who has never been away from Mom & (for whatever reason) has not yet been introduced to bottles?

The defense lawyer should be asking the doctor, but makes more money when a delay takes place. The doctor should be allowing it only if there is a clearly explained tactical advantage for the defense.