I’m not going to use Factor, but I thank you for caring enough about your viewers to put the ads at the end of the video, and for the intro announcement.
Hey Steve, used your code about a month ago. The food is really good. I wish they had more vegan options but overall very satisfying meals. Thanks for sharing your review and code, hope they paid you!
@@danielplayer5899I actually, because of how he handles the ads, intentionally watch them whenever he announces them like this. Not necessarily because I'm going to buy the product (Factor is a bit expensive from what I've looked into), but because, well, respect for the way it's handled
I have unfortunately had to serve on a few juries in my life. In every single case we all took it very seriously. My last trial was criminal and I sat as the foreman. The prosecutor did a terrible job and it should never had been brought to trial. The lawyers and judge questioned me on the verdict and how we came to that decision. I told them all the truth that it was a pathetic case and poorly presented
I have an objection Mr. Lehto, your honor. In regards to who is on top in the court system, I've never seen the jury order the bailiff to handcuff a judge the way that judge did to that jury member
...Yeah, why can't they? Judges so often seem to think they are gods or something. The unelected ones have to commit human trafficking to face any sort of punishment, and even then they are generally held civilly immune.
Yep. He's said it a few times, it's been bullshit every time. The jury has no power to order the judge locked in a cage, or murdered if he objects too vociferously to being locked in a cage.
I haven't been called for jury duty often, but when I have been, I engaged the Golden Rule and acted as a juror in the same way that I would want jurors to act if I was the accused on trial.
Well, I want my jurors to always steadfastly believe in my innocence and that the prosecutor and judge are morons for even hearing this case. But I'm not sure that is the right approach to take when I am the juror.
When questioning me as a prospective juror, the prosecutor asked if I was prepared to vote for guilt based on the letter of the law. I said generally yes, but I'd also consider the purpose behind the law. And if the particular circumstances of a case meant the letter of the law contradicted the purpose of the law, I'd vote based on the purpose. (e.g. I'm not going to find someone guilty of drunk driving if the only reason he blew over the limit was because he'd used alcohol-based mouthwash.) They couldn't get me out of there fast enough (and were probably mad that the other jurors heard me too).
@@solandri69 thanks to the supreme court allowing the prosecution to stack the jury with ideal candidates. its supposed to be adversarial process, the defense should get more strikes than the prosecutor
I was recently called for jury duty and I ended up as a juror on a criminal trial. A father had been accused by his teen daughter of CSC. I listened attentively to the witnesses and evidence presented and when we went back for deliberation, I asked my fellow jurors if they heard any testimony that the offense took place in our jurisdiction. Yes, the prosecutor had mentioned it in his opening and closing statements, but while the witnesses had testified the offense had allegedly occurred at a relative's house, no one said where this location actually was. None of our jury could remember any of the witnesses even mentioning a town, village or otherwise. Since our jury instructions said the prosecutor had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offense was committed in our county, our jury voted not guilty. We did discuss the merits of the testimony, but in the end, we really had no choice but to vote not guilty.
Good for all of you! As Benjamin Franklin (and others) observed, "It is better that a thousand guilty men be freed than that one innocent man be condemned."
@@JohnSmith-pl2bk No, actually. All testimony was already presented. You can ask for a certain witness's testimony to be re-read, but a jury can't ask for more or new testimony. Not how that works.
You would think that a question of jurisdiction had already been decided on before the trial. So why didn't you just ask the judge that question and remove that question ?
If the taxi company was shady enough, they could do the old _temporary tire swap_ to pass inspection. I've seen it done in the trucking industry. That would let the inspector off the hook, at most.
If that were the case, why would anyone swap out the presumably good tires for bad ones? That seems like clear intent to me, if someone deliberately swapped out good tires for bad ones.
@@PigglyWigglyDeluxeCompanies do this specifically to pass the inspections, they have one set of good tires they temporarily put on to pass 30 vehicles.
Or the inspector could be corrupt or incompetent. It is also possible that the tires are borderline and the inspector cleared them and the police, seeking a to charge the driver, judged them to be the other side of the border.
@@AceRasputin which is why a random number more than four vehicles from each company should be inspected simultaneously at every occation and split over three or more different locations so that it becomes pointless to try to bribe any single inspector, and good tires has to be mounted on the whole fleet as the probability of getting caught becomes a question of when instead of if, and the penalty for getting caught in inspection should be a slap on the wrist for the driver, but a financial donkey kick to the gonads for the company owners... With jail time for the company owners/execs at multiple and/or repeated vehicle safety violations. Another would be to have traffic cops accompanying an inspector to do random unsheduled inspections at the roadside with the same consequences, plus impound and towing fees to the company for vehicles caught violating the traffic safety code for professional traffic.
Ok - I used to work for a company called TSYS (based in Atlanta) that hired an “attorney” who had substantially misrepresented his background, turned out he was disbarred in 2008 in a midwestern state. I wonder if it’s the same man
100%. The judges never tell potential jurors that they can overturn a civil jury verdict 5 minutes after the jury leaves the courtroom! The lawyers wait till the door hits the last juror on the backside, then they jump up and immediately make a motion to overturn the jury decision. Happens in most civil trials. And Steve is incorrect that this rarely happens in civil cases- but he’s correct it’s exceedingly rare in criminal trials.
Driver pleded guilty, jurors found him not being guilty. A juror was not truthful about answering about his occupation befe the trial. So the judge had right to overrude a jury verdict. Simple as that.
If they were suing the driver and the cab company I'd agree that that's likely. Trying to have a government inspector (or just the government) found liable for an undeserved passing grade is a noble cause
@@peterkottke2570 I was thinking that it's not necessarily unreasonable if somebody who spent many years in a profession to continue to consider themselves that way even if they're not doing it at all anymore. A lot depends on the exact phrasing of the question, but even so people often interpret things in their own way. It would be nice to know some details about that, and the specific reason he got the others to let he driver off the hook. I'm guessing that it was likely be cause the driver was an employee and therefore acting as an agent for the taxi company. A UPS driver would be personally responsible for speeding, but as an agent of the company they're not financially liable for an accident even if they were speeding, and a former lawyer would very likely understand that.
@suedenim9208 Well, if he's still living off of the money he made as a corporate attorney, or from investments with said money, it wouldn't exactly be wrong, particularly if he's made the effort to stay current on the relevant laws. However, as a professional driver myself, I have to correct you on a couple of things. First, we are required, by law, to verify that the vehicle is safe to operate, up to a certain point. Tire condition is one of those things we're responsible for. Further, any accident that happens where our actions caused it we are liable for, though as a general rule, our employers insurance is what pays the liability so we only have to pay a fine.
@@suedenim9208 I often tell people I'm a race car driver and race engineer even though I haven't done either in years or been paid to do it even longer. Still, it's what I am in my head and sounds a lot better than freight agent.
@@mr.sharpie2206 It is often best to plead guilty despite being innocent in order to get lighter sentencing when the preponderance of evidence is against you. In this case the taxi driver probably knew his company owned vehicle wasn't safe but drive it anyway because complaining would have gotten him fired. "I'll tell management this is unacceptable and complain" sort of attitude that a reasonable person might have. I certainly consider the driver innocent if this was the case. His lawyer thought it inevitable that he'd be found guilty and so recommended a guilty plea, with the circumstances being considered for the lightest possible sentence.
@@mr.sharpie2206Imagine having enough finances to disqualify you for a public defender, but not enough to pay a lawyer out of pocket. That was me 9 years ago. I borrowed something on the order of over $20,000 to defend my good name against a false accusation - _with video evidence exonerating me._ Took 4 months and multiple continuances, including a day where trial was set but my accuser brought in "new evidence" the day of the trial. It was medical records that ended up proving the conditions she alleged were because of me were actually preexisting years prior, but because it was presented last minute both my attorney and the prosecuting attorney [pissed off at the timing] agreed to reschedule the trial so they could review the "new evidence." No cost to my accuser, but cost me my lawyer's review time and next trial appointment out of pocket. Which waa the point of these games she was playing through the system. The process itself could literally drive you into poverty where it's cheaper to make a guilty plea. Fortunately I didn't reach that point, but that whole mess F'd up my finances for about four years.
I'm not surprised about the driver not being found guilty, even after he pleaded guilty. Often, people are mislead and don't know the law and don't realize they're not guilty. But the inspector should have been held responsible.
@@JayCee-ji4cbhave you ever seen the show Taxi? Cabbies are assigned randomly to cabbies as they show up for work, if they guy showed up late, why look at the tires if he knows it just passed? I completely blame the inspector. Was he paid off by the cab company?
@@JayCee-ji4cb There may be more to this than what's being said. I used to manage six trucks, two yard mules, and 250 dry van trailers. Daily inspections where required by law. The problem is creating a culture where the driver feels its ok to red flag a trailer or a truck. Often managers yell and say the driver doesn't know what he's talking about etc. because it would mean a loss in production. I can see (and this is purely my guess) that because the inspector passed the car, then the driver was pressured to take the car out anyways. As to why he pled guilty, well, he's honest. He knew the car was bad, but he took the car out because he was pressured to do so. The whole situation stinks. The rest with the jury is a totally different situation.
I remember this case, her head was torn off. If the inspector wasn’t guilty, then why do we need inspectors. It’s like these recent news stories about states not enforcing their license laws, so they have an enormous amount of cars with not only no tabs, but no no license plates! Full circle, if we’re paying taxes for government, like tabs and license plates, or government inspectors to certify a cab, and they have no accountability? Then why are we paying taxes.
Can you imagine having your wife leave your home for a destination, in an inspected cab and she dies in an accident due to bald tires. In a cab that had just been inspected. And your wife was dead, not only that, her head was torn off. In a just certified cab. Oh my god.
You pay taxes to stay out of jail. It's really neat if they're fair and act like an investment, but it's just neat. There's nothing anywhere that requires taxes to impress us. That would be neat. Let's do a petition and see if Congress will pass a law.
Telling a judge "I won't be here tomorrow!" is just too funny! I would've liked to have seen the look on his face when the judge told the bailiff to put him in restraints and take him downstairs! Steve, thanks for the story and the detail about the judge standing when the jury comes in the courtroom. It is an important detail that most people miss.
I've been to court a couple times - usually driving someone there, so I had little interest in what was going on. I never knew the judge stood for the jury either! Great point! Very good to know
I am on call right now for jury duty. The system we have is all we have to work with. It would be nice if those that lie under oath paid a price for that. I have seen for myself that the side that hires the best liars can win. I wish I could feel better about going.
Honestly, accusing him of juror misconduct for saying he was a lawyer which has no bearing on the case at hand [other than maybe attesting to his character] feels like splitting hairs. Meanwhile, one of the jurors for the criminal trial of Derek Chauvin attended a protest where the decedent's family members spoke and wore a shirt expressing with a slogan directly tied to the case and directly in line with the prosecution's case...and I don't think anything ever came of it.
A person who went to school is a lawyer an attorney is someone that is licensed to practice and passed the bar getting his law degree. So yeah splitting hairs.
I want more details, but I agree that it was probably irrelevant. My guess is that he explained, or argued in favor of, the concept of agency which says that an employee generally isn't financially liable for something that happens while they're doing their job. I doubt that saying he used to be an attorney would make his argument or explanation any less convincing.
@@suedenim9208 I know nothing about the taxi business but in trucking, drivers are absolutely responsible for the condition of their vehicle whether they own it or some company does. Yes the company can also be held liable for such things but the driver doesn't get a free pass.
I know several people who are naturalized US Citizens. Mainly Asian culture. They would say it exactly as stated, "I will not be here tomorrow". That is their "English" concept of understanding in their mindset. They need some help, by someone asking them, "Why will you not be here tomorrow", this helps them formulate their conversation and convey what they mean.
I was asked for jury duty one time. I was also selected during the preliminaries of selection. I spoke to the audience and judge that I had to deal with a case for myself and couldn't be part of it, even if it would have been a year later. The judge said thank you and I wasn't selected for the trial. I then left the room and never looked back about my decision for this.
Serving on a jury opens a mixed bag of emotions, You get a summons, served in the most imperious manner. “Follow our command, slave, or you’ll be sent to the salt mines.” You show up, and that message is reinforced, as your life is poked and prodded and dissected as if you were a specimen in a laboratory. Then you begin attending the trial. Half the machinations are concealed from you, yet there you are, in the most powerful role in the justice system. You have the power to stop the whole thing simply by voting to acquit. Nonetheless, they continue to intrude and micromanage you. You’re told how to listen to the trial. You’re told what to remember and what to forget. They recite ‘rules,” They with hold information. Then you’re asked to decide. They would love to be able to reach inside the room and manage your deliberations. There’s the paradox. You’re the most important person present, yet you’re treated (at best) like an idiot stepchild. Small wonder folks try to avoid jury duty.
I have served on a DUI case where he was well below the limit and they said he crossed the stop line. No way that was going to fly. That's just easy money for them.😡 The other was a triple murder case. That was an easy call of guilty. But it wasn't until later that we heard the full story. It was way worse than what was presented. Most of which was out of state. Some real wanna be mobsters.
Wait a minute! If someone is found not guilty in a criminal trial, and it is later found out there was juror misconduct, can that be overturned? Surely not!
Surely yes. What if that juror was a member of the mob and it was the mob boss on trial? What if the juror was a relative? I can think of a million scenarios.
@@coryfogle5353 Yeah, they would have to prove that someone got on the jury illegitimately, especially if it was days, weeks or months after the trial.
@@KB-ql8cx I would say "tough nuts" to every one of those scenarios, because double jepordy is absolute for a damn good reason. The State with its infinite resources should have been more diligent.
It would be interesting to find out if that NOT a corporate lawyer had ever been a taxi cab driver, or any kind of courier or inspector who knew about having to drive unsafe vehicles... I drove medical transport for a couple of years and at one time got stuck in a snowstorm at the bottom of a hill with fairly bald tires, and yes, had reported that to my superiors several times
More people not doing their job. The inspector probably didn't even check the car. The driver probably didn't check the car either and definitely didn't drive the appropriate speed for conditions.
Steve, your explanation about the jury being above the judge is interesting, and in my opinion it just further supports the idea that a jury should also be responsible for judging not only the facts of the case but also the law(s) under which the defendant is being charged. Of course, most judges and attorneys consider any mention or use of jury nullification to be grounds for a mistrial, but every citizen should be fully aware of jury nullification and its purpose. As an imperfect society, we obviously have had and do have unjust laws on the books. The Fugitive Slave Act is a prime example of a law that needed to be judged by individual jurors, and by no means can it be the only unjust law that citizens have ever been charged under in the U.S. We have a duty to each other and to our justice system to judge laws from the jury box and to nullify certain ones when casting our vote as a juror.
@@mrfrenzy. For people in low-paying jobs, there's some math that goes into that. If I refuse to drive in that condition, I'll be fired and blacklisted as a troublemaker. If I take the chance, I might be able to pay rent this month.
Yeah, the verdict does make sense in that regard. In my neck of the woods, there was an over height load that impacted a bridge, came off and hit the car behind it. The driver wasn't licensed to carry that load, nor did he inspect the load because that wasn't their qualifications, but the employer put him in the truck anyway. Now there is a duty somewhat as the operator so refuse apparently dangerous or unsafe conditions, and some of that responsibility does fall onto the operator if it is a reasonable expectation of their duties. Since he wasn't licensed for that task, the responsibility falls on the employer. However here, one can say that if the higher authority of the inspector said it was good to go, then it should fall on him. However, a taxi driver depending on the laws, might also be required to perform standardized safety checks regardless of what anyone else tells them. That's the way it is for bus drivers. I would assume there would be some clause in his employment contract outlining this, including the condition of the tires with wear pattern and tire pressure, and visible defects. However, how responsible the driver actually is when he has two authority's above him telling him he's good to go...that's where it gets a little murky.
I worked at a shady car lot for awhile. As the mechanic part of my job was inspections. I didnt have a say in what got fixed and what didnt. One vehicle needed a control arm bolt but they didnt want to pay $13 from the dealership for it so it got a cheap one in it that was "close enough". Luckily, it was an issue before it broke and i ended up putting an oem bolt in it. I quit that job before i could be held accountable for something happening. I actually refused to weld a patch in a rusty frame and a couple other ridiculously dangerous repairs.
@SonsOfLorgar I'm in rural Ohio. It would've been pointless. I had a light bumper job in a body shop I worked at. The shop that did the previous repair absolutely butchered the vehicle. They put a new radiator support in it so poorly I had to call the adjuster to show him I couldn't make the bumper fit without replacing it. There was paint burnt everywhere and both frame rails were still damaged pretty severely. The adjuster paid for the new support and said it wasn't worth their time to pursue the previous shop. I would've handled that differently now (involved the customer) but our work looked great. A used car is "as is" here and they don't care how shoddy the repairs are. Until some lawyer from the city comes in and sues everyone AFTER someone is severely injured or worse.
I don't know how many lives you saved, or injuries you prevented, but thank you. It's very hard to find an honest mechanic or repair shop. If you're female and on your own - it's like they're waiting for you. I'm lucky - I have maybe the only honest, reasonably priced guy in my area. He explains everything to me and tells me how to cut costs, or do the work in stages so I can afford it. I'm literally trusting him with my life - a car can be a dangerous machine! So thanks for being you. Many blessings
Dude probably does work as a corporate attorney. You don't have to be currently licensed to work as in-house counsel; you only need to be licensed if you want to be able to appear in court on behalf of your employer. I know a number of of long term in-house counsel who have let their licenses lapse because they don't need them to do their job and they don't want to have to deal with the annual reports or the CLEs. One of them was a guest speaker to my 1L class in law school.
I'm slightly curious about the inspector aspect, but what I really wish we found out was if the juror offered an explanation about his answer, and his argument to the other jurors. I'm guessing he argued that, as an employee, the driver was an agent for the company and not personally liable.
I was on a jury a couple of years ago, and I thought it was the most rewarding and interesting things in my life. I really don't understand why people poo-poo being a juror.
I've been on a jury and had the opposite opinion. What a clown show. A rude, condescending, power-trip judge, and a case that should have never gone to trial. Neither the plaintiff nor defendant wanted to be there. The State prosecutor was a blind and nearly deaf veteran who had checked out years ago. A complete waste of everyone's time and money.
The driver was also a victim. Broke, and being bludgeoned by his company to drive an unsafe car because a crooked inspector was on the take, he was probably pushed into the guilty plea, and didn't have the funds to contest more serious charges.
@@JayCee-ji4cbthe evidence says that the taxi driver had it inspected in which he was supposed to do that he trusted them and trusted the company to do their part. He did his job by driving and having it inspected. Of course he shouldn't go to jail
@@Boraxo Most people people know nothing about cars and count on experts like mechanics and inspectors. Only car guys have then knowledge to do a real inspection of their car themselves.
Wait, what? Are you serious? Even with judges being able to fine and/or jail people for contempt, way too many courtroom scenes turn into absolute circuses or even riots. News flash- Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land. Deal with it. Do you think that a tourist- who is in no way, shape or form a US citizen- should get a free pass on murder, assault, theft, etc. because they aren't subject to US laws? That's just how insane the whole Sovereign Citizen movement is. If Fergus McDougal from Ireland gets pulled over in the US while driving, he better have a valid International Driver's License, and the vehicle better be properly registered and insured. "Oh, but Officer, I'm not driving a motor vehicle, I'm traveling in my conveyance and not engaged in interstate commerce, so US law doesn't apply to me." Do you see how absolutely ridiculous that sounds? And BTW all that case law Sovereign Citizens spout either doesn't exist in any US Court, or isn't relevant. One of the cases they like to cite is actually an 1830 civil dispute over the ownership of a gristmill. Do any of them actually Google any of those cases before they cite them? Nope. If they did, they wouldn't be Sovereign Citizens after doing that.
My thinking: the Judge viewed the cab driver himself as guilty, however, the company and the Inspector overruled the driver in that they were there to ensure that the vehicle and drivers were vetted well for legal and safety concerns and clearing of possible safety hazards. The driver trusted the verdict of the inspector and the company.
I'm thinking the judge understood that the plaintiffs brought a claim that should have been decided by a jury that was impartial but the decision was made by a jury that may not have been impartial because one of the jurors made a misrepresentation during voir dire.
Former truck driver here. This is more complicated than it sounds. For a commercial truck driver, if you don't do your mandatory pre-trip inspection, and miss something like a soft tire or brake fluid/air leak, you can be held responsible, even if it's a company truck. Cab drivers driving regular cars (as opposed to a large limo/small bus) aren't considered commercial drivers AFAIK. That being said, if a cab driver/delivery driver ignored an obvious safety hazard on a company vehicle, like a soft brake pedal, bald tires, a bulged tire, etc. then they could definitely be held liable. What happens way, way too often is that the boss orders the employee to either drive the unsafe vehicle or get fired on the spot. That led to the infamous Schoharie NY limo crash that killed 20 people (18 in the limo including the driver and two pedestrians.) Also, remember the weather in the case- slippery roads. Even if the cab was in perfect condition, the driver could still be held responsible for (for example) driving too fast for conditions, failure to exercise due care, etc. (varies by State).
@@suedenim9208 I was thinking the faux lawyer might have been all 'I'm a lawyer, I know the law, and I say the driver and inspector aren't liable." That would 100% be juror misconduct.
@@MarkStockman-b4j You're completely right, but only about an employee's responsibility for criminal charges. Liability or the civil action is completely separate. An employee's (lack of) action can certainly be part of the reason the company is found liable, but as an employee the driver as an agent of the company and generally not liable for accidents that happen while doing their job.
@@MarkStockman-b4j Are you trying to be stupid? Each juror has both a right and an obligation to offer their opinions on why the jury should rule one way or another. It's very much not misconduct to cite your background as a reason that others should value your opinion.
It's a requirement for truck drivers. You have to do a walkaround pre-trip inspection and can sometimes be held liable for stuff that isn't right with your truck
We don’t know the complete set of facts here. He may have been driving too fast for the conditions or some other contributing factor, not just that he had bald tires on the vehicle. If it was just the tires, then I agree, but he did plead guilty for some reason not disclosed here.
@@GF-ph1jp "but he did plead guilty for some reason not disclosed here."... 'some reason'.... What reason could that be... if you have any knowledge whatsoever about the legal system in the USA, you'd be able to state the reason with better than 99% certainty.
@@c128stuff Given what we've seen from cops lately, one could argue there's precedent to think the cops may have threatened to kill his dog and told him his family was dead.
I can understand why the driver wasn't held accountable. Wouldn't it be the company's responsibility to keep the car in shape? The inspector should be held responsible also.
They are both liable. And some states allow for "proportionate liability" where the jury assesses how much of the damages are your fault and make you pay accordingly. Even so, the driver has the duty to maintain the car in safe working order. If he had reason to think the car wasn't safe to drive, he was being negligent and reckless when he did so anyway. Did the driver truly see those tires and trust they were safe, just because the inspector signed off on it? I hope not.
I was part of a jury pool last year like I am about every 9 months. Smaller area. We were on a call in situation to see if we were needed for a trial. I called in to talk to the jury clerk and asked to be excused since it was the final few days and my wife had a possible cancer diagnosis that I wanted to attend the appointment. That jury clerk acted like I told her I would refuse to attend. A few calls later, I finally spoke to someone higher than her and they excused me immediately. Mind you I am a 100% disabled veteran and could permanently get out of jury duty due to my medical issues. Because of how they talked to me I almost want to get the permanent exemption. She was replaced so we will see how my next round goes.
The next time they will again treat you like you are an indentured servant, because that's how the courts see jurors, regardless of some BS about the judge standing up.
My wife was called for jury duty a few years ago. Juror parking is in a parking garage two blocks from the courthouse downhill. My wife said she'd be glad to serve, as she was on disability retirement and had plenty of free time. But she could only serve if they could either get her really close handicapped parking, or a lift from the parking garage to the courthouse and back. She was excused.
@@fredfinger7092 No different to getting drafted into the military. "Duty" seems to be an archaic concept these says. Everybody is all about their civil rights, but don't care about their civil responsibilities. Actually instead of elections, politicians should be drafted from a list of the most qualified individuals who don't want the job, and serve one and only one term.
If I was that poor woman's Husband, I'd be calling the District Attorney's Office and request/demand the City Inspector be Arrested and Charged with Criminally Negligent Homicide for giving a Taxi with Bald Tires a Passing Grade in the Safety Inspection! If necessary, I'd file a Lawsuit in Court asking the Judge to ORDER the DA's Office to file those Charges and Prosecute the Crime...
I am extremely curious as to who the owner of the taxi was. Whether it was the taxi company or him. I have seen, (and personally experienced) when you're poor, your boss(es) will take full advantage of that fact and force you to work under any and all circumstances. I have seen people who absolutely can't afford to tell their boss no when they are told to drive a company vehicle in poor condition or some other issue in regards to safety.
In an absolute sense, but is it realistic to expect him to have refused, lost his job, been blackballed from all the local taxi companies, then gone home and watched his kids go hungry? The driver had no power in this scenario.
Honestly, why do we care about the driver? He doesn't have any money, and he's already been punished. Totally understand why you want the inspector dinged.
I was on a jury once and my boss at the time said I had to be there this one day. No I can’t I got jury duty, he checked contract ( union job) he said I’ll see you when you’re done👍
I worked for State Government, and got paid time off for jury duty. The mean girl Karens in HR tried screwing around with me over it, but didn't succeed. I had to get a statement from the Court stating what days and times I was in court, and submit Google Maps screenshots of what the commute was from the courthouse to my office in traffic.
I understand the judge stands up to show respect, but a juror could never order the bailiff to handcuff the judge. he who has the power to take away your freedom is the top of the food chain, sorry is someone already commented on this.
In this case, one juror brought the system down, the system itself didn't lease itself out to the highest bidder or more powerful party. And as a multiple time juror, let's suffice it to say, learn of that misconduct, it'd be peer season...
Just like Capitalism, our legal system totally sucks. But again, like Capitalism, it just happens to suck less than any other system ever tried. But in both cases, this is no reason not to work to constantly improve it. One of the reasons we have such an insane number of laws on the books is because humans keep coming up with creative ways to skirt the existing laws in order to screw each other over.
@@MarkStockman-b4j not so much totally sucks, is in continuous need of continuous improvement. The preamble of our Constitution establishes that very promise. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It didn't say that we had a perfect union, but in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning of the populace individually and as a whole)... Never suggesting any was perfect, just to become more perfected, improving as we muddle along. And we have an amendment process and provisions for laws to accomplish those tasks and as a safety valve for when we screw up, such as with prohibition. What isn't provided or even suggested is a two tier system of justice for wealthy and poor, indeed, an amendment guarantees equality. And if one group is more equal than another, it ain't equality.
When I heard the juror said, "I won't be here tomorrow" for the second time I immediately pictured Oliver Hardy fiddling with his tie while saying something he knew was somewhat or completely wrong. . .LOL
@@nextbizzy My reply, "I'm sure you think so, having sent your brain out for washing once too often and it's faded away. That inspection sure helped this woman," was censored.
The inspector said it was okay but he was driving so it was up to him to check over the car and make sure it was safe. All the DA has to say to the driver is you can plead guilty to X and spend a few years in prison or take your chances in court on Y and spend a lot longer in prison. Also if he didn't have a lawyer, had a bad one or one that didn't he could win he might have been pushed into taking a bad deal.
Is it not possible good tires were put on the vehicle for the inspection then after passing changed out and put on a different cab so it could pass inspection?
I was actually thinking the same thing. If an inspector said they were good to go then it seems like to me the driver is as much a victim because he's relying on someone who's supposed to know. The only thing I can think of is maybe he was driving recklessly which played a big role in the woman's death.
When I served on a Grand Jury where we had a case where a POS father who was likely on substances assaulted his wife, caused a disturbance, and fired a couple of pew pew sh0ts that went through the ceiling into the upstairs apartment. (No one hurt thankfully.) While the DA was explaining the charges, somebody on the jury asked "If he was waving the pew pew carelessly in front of kids, isn't that endangering the welfare of a child?" The DA looked surprised. "Yes, you are absolutely correct." He ended up adding one count of endangering for each child that was there, and we voted to indict on all charges. I felt almost sorry for piling on the poor guy, but the charges were 100% supported by the evidence. After we voted, the DA heaved a huge sigh. "Okay, now that you have voted and your part in this is over, I can tell you this. Remember X notorious incident from a few years back?" The light bulbs start to come on. "Yeah, this was that guy." Any sympathy for the defendant instantly evaporated. The POS had just gotten out of prison on probation, and proceeded to act like this.
@@QG1168 Did you change your name jpnews? Always posting the same trite comment to everyone about voting for masters regardless of what they are actually saying followed by several emoticons. Then liking your own comment. If it weren't the slight variety I would think you were a bot.
@@DKNguyen3.1415 so have you stopped playing the STUPID game of VOTING for gangsters to be your masters then cry like a little baby yet?? 😥😥😥 I doubt it.. 💯💯
As a young insurance defense lawyer in the late 80s, none of this is surprising. I frequently represented the lowest end Taxi company and all the cases were laboratories foe perjury and low level corruption. Everyone was lying and it was who was the least deceitful. The cases all settled and I don't think anyone ever got their full settlement because the company was in perpetual bankruptcy. I was so much happier becoming a military criminal attorney where things were a lot more calm and while everyone was still lying, the client was going away one way - or the other.
had jury duty once, got roped into 2 out of the 3 trials they wanted us for, one of the trials was far more annoying than the other as we had a singular juror who nearly hung the jury by himself because the evidence and the situation pointed to wrongdoing and he just wouldn't agree for the longest time because "he's just a kid!"
One of the biggest problems with the system is that even when corporations are found liable or guilty it’s very rare that the upper leadership of that company ever spend any time in jail. This is because the upper leadership always blame some lower level person. The way it should work is that the CEO is ALWAYS ultimately accountable for everything and everyone below them. If the company commits a crime or negligence or fraud…: someone needs to see a jail cell. Period.
no . this will lead to activists getting a job there and doing a crime so the ceo can get arrested. how about the president of the country , you know the ceo, getting charged for anything the govt does that's a crime. every president would be prosecuted .
@@ronblack7870 That scenerio could investigated at the time. Anyone found doing that should get whatever the CEO was going to get, with an additional 10 years on top. Besides, that's a red herring excuse anyway. What's to stop an activist getting a job and then falsely accusing/planting evidence of the CEO comitting a crime. The reasoning "But actvists are why I shouldn't be responsible" is nonsense. It's about time these CEO's starting earning their crust. Rather than currently accepting all the benefits, and not one of the consequences.
@@ronblack7870 - I don't agree with that. If a company that produced anything controversial enough to even HAVE activists working against them staying in business, then it stands to reason they would do good background checks on prospective employees in the first place to prevent any kind of sabotage. I've often heard companies compared to ships - isn't the Captain of the ship responsible for his crew? Their safety and well-being along with any improper acts they may commit? If orders come down the chain from the top, it seems logical when something is done incorrectly or shoddily due to "orders from upstairs" to cut costs, etc that you hold the CEO responsible. Follow the money! The guy getting the big bucks is usually making the big decisions - why hold those who are limited to work within the structure as designed by the CEO responsible? If all you have to work with is second rate because that's what you're told to work with how can it be your fault when the final product is second rate?
I've only been summoned for jury once! I was Corrections Officer at the time and was immediately dismissed! It was basically a paid day off that my job had to pay me for and didn't count against my sick or holiday leave. I was in court for about an hour.
Taxi company 100% liable because it’s their vehicle and the driver has to take some liability because he should have done a daily safety inspection before driving said vehicle. If your job is at stake for refusing to drive a unsafe vehicle, especially one used for public transport, let them fire you and retain a lawyer.
The Juror could and should be charged with perjury. Under most state laws, if not all, prospective jurors are warned that any false statement made it the selection process will be charged with perjury.
Maybe the guy just didn't speak fluent English? What's wrong with the Judge asking the guy, "Why" instead of perceiving an authoritarian rule against the guy and throwing him in handcuffs? It was probably a made-up story anyways...
Perjury often goes unprosecuted even when it's obvious, because there has to be intent that can be proved. If somebody spent 25 or 30 years in a single profession is it an intentional lie if they answer "what do you do for a living" by citing that career? What's the point of even asking if somebody who spent 30 years dealing drugs and killing people can truthfully answer "retired" and move on because they retired last week?
Surely the taxi company had insurance at the time of this event, yes? You mentioned a couple of times that the company no longer exists. But that shouldn't matter so long as there was current insurance....no?
Btw...saying "taxi-cab" seems very redundant to me. Is this a regional thing or am I the odd one? I would say either "taxi" or "cab" if I were in the market for a ride across town...but never "taxi-cab". Any of you?
The company presumably had insurance at the time, and that's the insurance that would almost certainly apply. Very small chance it would be the insurance in effect when the lawsuit was filed, but for an auto accident I expect it's the former. The only reason I'd consider even a slight chance of the latter is because liability insurance can have a "completed operations" clause. It doesn't make sense to me, but if a contractor builds a deck and the deck collapses some years later coverage may be from the completed operations clause of the policy in effect at the time of collapse rather than the one when the deck was poorly built. Health insurance can be similar A current policy will cover treatment immediately after an accident, but follow up treatment down the road may be under a different policy. I had a metal plate in my leg for a couple of years, and even though removal was anticipated during the initial treatment the actual removal was covered under my current work policy instead of by the original coverage.
I'm guessing that besides saying he was responsible for the driver not being found liable he also explained how he convinced the other jurors, but somehow that detail hasn't reached us. My guess is that the former attorney made the entirely correct argument that as an employee the driver was acting as an agent of the company and therefore doesn't have personal liability. That's normally the correct application of the law, and no longer being an attorney would be irrelevant.
Depending on how the charge to the jury was worded, I can understand the reasoning for not holding the driver responsible for bald tires on a company car despite the criminal guilt.
@christophercarrigg3775 Clearly you are not comfortable with the concept of personal responsibility. So you would not accept responsibility for the death of any passenger in a car you were driving?
If Jurors are actually important, maybe we should treat them as such and pay them for their time. Not paying them only lets the rich and retired serve.
Your employer is supposed to pay for your time loss for jury duty. Mine did. I also got $27 and five cent a mile from the court for a day of jury duty.
@@John-ke2jm Possibly the only good thing about jury duty. I once got a summons for jury duty in a court that was a 4 hour drive away. I was lucky that I didn't have to show. It was dismissed the day before. The past two years, I've been called 3 times. Each one has been dismissed.
I received a notice for jury duty with the scheduled date as a particularly bad time for me. I called up the court and they easily moved my date to show up to some time that was far more convenient.
I don't know about taxi drivers, but truck drivers are required to do pre-trip checks of their equipment every day so they would know if there was something like a bald or flat tire.
How is this legal, even if it isn't double jeopardy? He was tried and the judge had stated he is throwing out the verdict because he doesn't like it, not because the juror did anything wrong.
Wait a minute... If the guy said "I won't be here tomorrow" and get's arrested, isn't that for a future offense which hasn't happened yet? Is that legal to arrest someone for something they have not yet done?
Same thing as being arrested for not signing your traffic ticket. They're making sure you show up. My question is is arresting a juror and threatening them with jail time juror intimidation?
@@JayCee-ji4cb Refusing to sign* is codified in the law as an offense. *The caveat here is that technically, at least in my state, the offense for refusing to sign only applies to citations that are mandatory appearance. That is 30+ over the limit, caused a crash, and a few odd seemingly [to me at least] minor offenses. Technically, there is no requirement to sign for routine speeding or other traffic tickets. That said, you'll probably still get pulled from the car and arrested if you refuse and the cop will claim QI/Good Faith belief.
Yes you can be arrested for things you haven't done, you just can't be convicted of them unless planning to do them is also crime. Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime and you can be arrested and convicted for it even if you haven't yet done the murder. Of course in that case you have actually committed a crime, it just wasn't murder. I do not believe there is such a crime as conspiracy to miss jury duty so that wouldn't fly however saying your going to miss jury duty is sufficient probably cause for an arrest warrant.
Depends did they tire swap. Some places have been caught doing that. 1 good set of tires for inspection that get past around. Then back to the trash ones for work
Use code LEHTOSLAW50 to get 50% OFF your first Factor box plus 20% off your next month of orders at bit.ly/4bZliWT !
Hi
I’m not going to use Factor, but I thank you for caring enough about your viewers to put the ads at the end of the video, and for the intro announcement.
Hey Steve, used your code about a month ago. The food is really good. I wish they had more vegan options but overall very satisfying meals. Thanks for sharing your review and code, hope they paid you!
@@danielplayer5899I actually, because of how he handles the ads, intentionally watch them whenever he announces them like this. Not necessarily because I'm going to buy the product (Factor is a bit expensive from what I've looked into), but because, well, respect for the way it's handled
I sat through that whole ad just because I like your videos
I have unfortunately had to serve on a few juries in my life. In every single case we all took it very seriously. My last trial was criminal and I sat as the foreman. The prosecutor did a terrible job and it should never had been brought to trial. The lawyers and judge questioned me on the verdict and how we came to that decision. I told them all the truth that it was a pathetic case and poorly presented
Did you tell them that they're the actual criminals for failing to obey, support and defend the constitution against all enemies?? 😂😂😂
I’ve been on 3 juries myself one of them being a murder trial
That is crazy the judge and prosecutor questioning the jury's finding -- with clearly their intention to find some fault to overrule the jury.
I have an objection Mr. Lehto, your honor. In regards to who is on top in the court system, I've never seen the jury order the bailiff to handcuff a judge the way that judge did to that jury member
...Yeah, why can't they? Judges so often seem to think they are gods or something. The unelected ones have to commit human trafficking to face any sort of punishment, and even then they are generally held civilly immune.
Yep. He's said it a few times, it's been bullshit every time. The jury has no power to order the judge locked in a cage, or murdered if he objects too vociferously to being locked in a cage.
The Juror is the lowest creature in the courts.
the juror should not have lied to the judge.
The judge is king in his domain.
I haven't been called for jury duty often, but when I have been, I engaged the Golden Rule and acted as a juror in the same way that I would want jurors to act if I was the accused on trial.
Exactly.
Well, I want my jurors to always steadfastly believe in my innocence and that the prosecutor and judge are morons for even hearing this case. But I'm not sure that is the right approach to take when I am the juror.
When questioning me as a prospective juror, the prosecutor asked if I was prepared to vote for guilt based on the letter of the law. I said generally yes, but I'd also consider the purpose behind the law. And if the particular circumstances of a case meant the letter of the law contradicted the purpose of the law, I'd vote based on the purpose. (e.g. I'm not going to find someone guilty of drunk driving if the only reason he blew over the limit was because he'd used alcohol-based mouthwash.)
They couldn't get me out of there fast enough (and were probably mad that the other jurors heard me too).
❤🙂‼
@@solandri69 thanks to the supreme court allowing the prosecution to stack the jury with ideal candidates. its supposed to be adversarial process, the defense should get more strikes than the prosecutor
I lost my wife to a sudden massive heart attack... I understand his pain. I miss her everyday. He must have even worse pain
So did you try to hold the food companies for feeding your wife bad stuff?? 💯💯
My condolences on your loss.
@@Alastriona Thank, you very much.
@@QG1168 No she ate healthy, bad genes
Sorry to hear that man. Hope you're doing well. Keeping, or getting a hobby really helps.
I was recently called for jury duty and I ended up as a juror on a criminal trial. A father had been accused by his teen daughter of CSC. I listened attentively to the witnesses and evidence presented and when we went back for deliberation, I asked my fellow jurors if they heard any testimony that the offense took place in our jurisdiction. Yes, the prosecutor had mentioned it in his opening and closing statements, but while the witnesses had testified the offense had allegedly occurred at a relative's house, no one said where this location actually was. None of our jury could remember any of the witnesses even mentioning a town, village or otherwise. Since our jury instructions said the prosecutor had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offense was committed in our county, our jury voted not guilty. We did discuss the merits of the testimony, but in the end, we really had no choice but to vote not guilty.
Good for all of you! As Benjamin Franklin (and others) observed, "It is better that a thousand guilty men be freed than that one innocent man be condemned."
You could have asked the Judge to have this point clarified....
@@JohnSmith-pl2bk No, actually. All testimony was already presented. You can ask for a certain witness's testimony to be re-read, but a jury can't ask for more or new testimony. Not how that works.
You would think that a question of jurisdiction had already been decided on before the trial.
So why didn't you just ask the judge that question and remove that question ?
@@christasimon9716
You can ask the Judge any question you like.
He might give your answer...or might not.
If the taxi company was shady enough, they could do the old _temporary tire swap_ to pass inspection. I've seen it done in the trucking industry.
That would let the inspector off the hook, at most.
Inspection record should include tread depth measurement for each tire. Easy to prove swaps.
Was gonna say this very thing. Excellent comment my friend.
It may work for local routes, but OTR is another story as you can be subject to a random inspection.
i worked in a taxi company ever 3 month our tires were changed regardless because of this case
@@davidh9638 Now THAT would be interesting to see. Would that qualify as fraud on the part of the company?
The city inspector may not have any responsibility. It takes 20 minutes to change the tyres so they could have been swapped after the inspection.
If that were the case, why would anyone swap out the presumably good tires for bad ones? That seems like clear intent to me, if someone deliberately swapped out good tires for bad ones.
@@PigglyWigglyDeluxeCompanies do this specifically to pass the inspections, they have one set of good tires they temporarily put on to pass 30 vehicles.
@@PigglyWigglyDeluxe money? If you can get an extra few 1000 miles out of the tires before the canvas is showing, you win.
Or the inspector could be corrupt or incompetent. It is also possible that the tires are borderline and the inspector cleared them and the police, seeking a to charge the driver, judged them to be the other side of the border.
@@AceRasputin which is why a random number more than four vehicles from each company should be inspected simultaneously at every occation and split over three or more different locations so that it becomes pointless to try to bribe any single inspector, and good tires has to be mounted on the whole fleet as the probability of getting caught becomes a question of when instead of if, and the penalty for getting caught in inspection should be a slap on the wrist for the driver, but a financial donkey kick to the gonads for the company owners...
With jail time for the company owners/execs at multiple and/or repeated vehicle safety violations.
Another would be to have traffic cops accompanying an inspector to do random unsheduled inspections at the roadside with the same consequences, plus impound and towing fees to the company for vehicles caught violating the traffic safety code for professional traffic.
Ok - I used to work for a company called TSYS (based in Atlanta) that hired an “attorney” who had substantially misrepresented his background, turned out he was disbarred in 2008 in a midwestern state. I wonder if it’s the same man
If a judge can just override a jury verdict then what is the point in a jury?
To assure that theatrics of attorneys or other factors do not get a verdict in direct opposition of the law or the evidence.
100%. The judges never tell potential jurors that they can overturn a civil jury verdict 5 minutes after the jury leaves the courtroom! The lawyers wait till the door hits the last juror on the backside, then they jump up and immediately make a motion to overturn the jury decision. Happens in most civil trials. And Steve is incorrect that this rarely happens in civil cases- but he’s correct it’s exceedingly rare in criminal trials.
Judges can only overturn a guilty verdict, as intended by the founders
Driver pleded guilty, jurors found him not being guilty. A juror was not truthful about answering about his occupation befe the trial. So the judge had right to overrude a jury verdict. Simple as that.
@@annaradic5767 judge may have had the legal right- doesn’t mean it was fair or just to the driver. Simple as that.
20 years?!? And now he has to do it all over again? My God, this is terrible.
Thanks Steve for bringing attention to this story.
Really.. He should have blamed the almighty Federal Reserve GODS for the accident.. 💵💵💯💯
Fulton county.
Seriously, things are really screwed up in that county and they are not getting better.
Alternate Juror was used.....
@@ericew i bet they VOTED for their masters a lot.. 💯💯😄😄😄
Not about money? It is ABOUT MONEY!😂
If they were suing the driver and the cab company I'd agree that that's likely. Trying to have a government inspector (or just the government) found liable for an undeserved passing grade is a noble cause
What is the point of suing the driver? He's in prison. He's not going to have millions in assets. Or probably anything at all.
When I was on a jury I would have considered myself as important as the judge or attorneys if I had been paid as much as they are paid.
The guy probably said he was a corporate attorney hoping it would get him out of jury duty.
While some states have rules against it ( Michigan does ) many allow unlicensed lawyers to work as paralegals and still call themselves lawyers.
@@peterkottke2570 I was thinking that it's not necessarily unreasonable if somebody who spent many years in a profession to continue to consider themselves that way even if they're not doing it at all anymore. A lot depends on the exact phrasing of the question, but even so people often interpret things in their own way. It would be nice to know some details about that, and the specific reason he got the others to let he driver off the hook. I'm guessing that it was likely be cause the driver was an employee and therefore acting as an agent for the taxi company. A UPS driver would be personally responsible for speeding, but as an agent of the company they're not financially liable for an accident even if they were speeding, and a former lawyer would very likely understand that.
@suedenim9208 Well, if he's still living off of the money he made as a corporate attorney, or from investments with said money, it wouldn't exactly be wrong, particularly if he's made the effort to stay current on the relevant laws.
However, as a professional driver myself, I have to correct you on a couple of things. First, we are required, by law, to verify that the vehicle is safe to operate, up to a certain point. Tire condition is one of those things we're responsible for. Further, any accident that happens where our actions caused it we are liable for, though as a general rule, our employers insurance is what pays the liability so we only have to pay a fine.
@@suedenim9208 I often tell people I'm a race car driver and race engineer even though I haven't done either in years or been paid to do it even longer. Still, it's what I am in my head and sounds a lot better than freight agent.
@@wingracer1614 Here’s a tip: don't even think of sitting on a jury.
People can plead guilty for many reasons besides being guilty.
Only fools plead guilty if they aren't, sorry but your answer is morally wrong.
@@mr.sharpie2206 It is often best to plead guilty despite being innocent in order to get lighter sentencing when the preponderance of evidence is against you. In this case the taxi driver probably knew his company owned vehicle wasn't safe but drive it anyway because complaining would have gotten him fired. "I'll tell management this is unacceptable and complain" sort of attitude that a reasonable person might have. I certainly consider the driver innocent if this was the case. His lawyer thought it inevitable that he'd be found guilty and so recommended a guilty plea, with the circumstances being considered for the lightest possible sentence.
@@mr.sharpie2206 What answer? How is a statement of fact morally wrong? Are you feeling okay? Are you having a stroke?
Look at the case in Cal were police torcher a man into confessing to killing his father knowing his father was still alive
@@mr.sharpie2206Imagine having enough finances to disqualify you for a public defender, but not enough to pay a lawyer out of pocket.
That was me 9 years ago. I borrowed something on the order of over $20,000 to defend my good name against a false accusation - _with video evidence exonerating me._
Took 4 months and multiple continuances, including a day where trial was set but my accuser brought in "new evidence" the day of the trial. It was medical records that ended up proving the conditions she alleged were because of me were actually preexisting years prior, but because it was presented last minute both my attorney and the prosecuting attorney [pissed off at the timing] agreed to reschedule the trial so they could review the "new evidence."
No cost to my accuser, but cost me my lawyer's review time and next trial appointment out of pocket. Which waa the point of these games she was playing through the system.
The process itself could literally drive you into poverty where it's cheaper to make a guilty plea. Fortunately I didn't reach that point, but that whole mess F'd up my finances for about four years.
I'm not surprised about the driver not being found guilty, even after he pleaded guilty. Often, people are mislead and don't know the law and don't realize they're not guilty. But the inspector should have been held responsible.
What’s unconscionable is that the prosecutor’s office would prosecute him.
@@rmiller334so if I know the car I'm driving has bad tires even though someone else said they're fine it's not my fault if there is an accident?
@@JayCee-ji4cbhave you ever seen the show Taxi? Cabbies are assigned randomly to cabbies as they show up for work, if they guy showed up late, why look at the tires if he knows it just passed?
I completely blame the inspector. Was he paid off by the cab company?
@@JayCee-ji4cb There may be more to this than what's being said. I used to manage six trucks, two yard mules, and 250 dry van trailers. Daily inspections where required by law. The problem is creating a culture where the driver feels its ok to red flag a trailer or a truck. Often managers yell and say the driver doesn't know what he's talking about etc. because it would mean a loss in production.
I can see (and this is purely my guess) that because the inspector passed the car, then the driver was pressured to take the car out anyways. As to why he pled guilty, well, he's honest. He knew the car was bad, but he took the car out because he was pressured to do so. The whole situation stinks.
The rest with the jury is a totally different situation.
company could have swapped the tires just to pass inspection
I remember this case, her head was torn off. If the inspector wasn’t guilty, then why do we need inspectors.
It’s like these recent news stories about states not enforcing their license laws, so they have an enormous amount of cars with not only no tabs, but no no license plates!
Full circle, if we’re paying taxes for government, like tabs and license plates, or government inspectors to certify a cab, and they have no accountability? Then why are we paying taxes.
Can you imagine having your wife leave your home for a destination, in an inspected cab and she dies in an accident due to bald tires. In a cab that had just been inspected.
And your wife was dead, not only that, her head was torn off. In a just certified cab. Oh my god.
You pay taxes to stay out of jail. It's really neat if they're fair and act like an investment, but it's just neat. There's nothing anywhere that requires taxes to impress us. That would be neat. Let's do a petition and see if Congress will pass a law.
Telling a judge "I won't be here tomorrow!" is just too funny! I would've liked to have seen the look on his face when the judge told the bailiff to put him in restraints and take him downstairs! Steve, thanks for the story and the detail about the judge standing when the jury comes in the courtroom. It is an important detail that most people miss.
If you were American, you'd want that bailiff in the hospital for his assault and battery of an innocent man.
@@fettel1988 He's not innocent. He is perverting the course of justice. Biggest mistake? Allowing him on the jury in the first place.
I've been to court a couple times - usually driving someone there, so I had little interest in what was going on. I never knew the judge stood for the jury either! Great point! Very good to know
The dude 100% told the other jurors "I'm an attorney this is the way it should be"
I am on call right now for jury duty. The system we have is all we have to work with. It would be nice if those that lie under oath paid a price for that. I have seen for myself that the side that hires the best liars can win. I wish I could feel better about going.
From what I've seen lately in congressional testimony it seems that it is an American tradition to lie under oath.
Honestly, accusing him of juror misconduct for saying he was a lawyer which has no bearing on the case at hand [other than maybe attesting to his character] feels like splitting hairs. Meanwhile, one of the jurors for the criminal trial of Derek Chauvin attended a protest where the decedent's family members spoke and wore a shirt expressing with a slogan directly tied to the case and directly in line with the prosecution's case...and I don't think anything ever came of it.
That's not even remotely what "splitting hairs" means.
A person who went to school is a lawyer an attorney is someone that is licensed to practice and passed the bar getting his law degree. So yeah splitting hairs.
I want more details, but I agree that it was probably irrelevant. My guess is that he explained, or argued in favor of, the concept of agency which says that an employee generally isn't financially liable for something that happens while they're doing their job. I doubt that saying he used to be an attorney would make his argument or explanation any less convincing.
@@suedenim9208 I know nothing about the taxi business but in trucking, drivers are absolutely responsible for the condition of their vehicle whether they own it or some company does. Yes the company can also be held liable for such things but the driver doesn't get a free pass.
@@-Devy- what do you think it means if it's not "quibbling over irrelevant specific details"?
I know several people who are naturalized US Citizens. Mainly Asian culture. They would say it exactly as stated, "I will not be here tomorrow". That is their "English" concept of understanding in their mindset. They need some help, by someone asking them, "Why will you not be here tomorrow", this helps them formulate their conversation and convey what they mean.
I was asked for jury duty one time. I was also selected during the preliminaries of selection. I spoke to the audience and judge that I had to deal with a case for myself and couldn't be part of it, even if it would have been a year later. The judge said thank you and I wasn't selected for the trial. I then left the room and never looked back about my decision for this.
Ben’s herding Low Flying Owls on Steve’s upper RHS.
Is that the same as herding cats?
Mornin' Bill
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 It does require extensive training & talent to herd low flying owls.
G’nite Bob.
@@WindyOldBird I am. JK Ben is the $100 bill that Steve moves to a new location for each video.
Serving on a jury opens a mixed bag of emotions,
You get a summons, served in the most imperious manner. “Follow our command, slave, or you’ll be sent to the salt mines.”
You show up, and that message is reinforced, as your life is poked and prodded and dissected as if you were a specimen in a laboratory.
Then you begin attending the trial. Half the machinations are concealed from you, yet there you are, in the most powerful role in the justice system. You have the power to stop the whole thing simply by voting to acquit.
Nonetheless, they continue to intrude and micromanage you. You’re told how to listen to the trial. You’re told what to remember and what to forget. They recite ‘rules,” They with hold information.
Then you’re asked to decide. They would love to be able to reach inside the room and manage your deliberations.
There’s the paradox. You’re the most important person present, yet you’re treated (at best) like an idiot stepchild. Small wonder folks try to avoid jury duty.
and you are forbidden from asking any questions of anyone on the stand or researching anything about the case.
I have served on a DUI case where he was well below the limit and they said he crossed the stop line. No way that was going to fly. That's just easy money for them.😡
The other was a triple murder case. That was an easy call of guilty.
But it wasn't until later that we heard the full story. It was way worse than what was presented.
Most of which was out of state.
Some real wanna be mobsters.
Ummm Contempt of Court?
Why wouldn't the Juror be Charged and Tried for Perjury since they lied in a Sworn Statement?
Because the juror isn't on trial.
@@fettel1988 You don't have to be the defendant to be charged with perjury.
@@fettel1988 wrong. you get charged with perjury, THEN you get a court date.
I think there's something wrong with your keyboard
Wait a minute! If someone is found not guilty in a criminal trial, and it is later found out there was juror misconduct, can that be overturned? Surely not!
Surely yes. What if that juror was a member of the mob and it was the mob boss on trial? What if the juror was a relative? I can think of a million scenarios.
Generally NOT after a not guilty verdict.
@@coryfogle5353 Yeah, they would have to prove that someone got on the jury illegitimately, especially if it was days, weeks or months after the trial.
@@KB-ql8cx I would say "tough nuts" to every one of those scenarios, because double jepordy is absolute for a damn good reason. The State with its infinite resources should have been more diligent.
There could be a new crime involved, for the interference. But you can't overturn a not guilty verdict, as far as I know.
It would be interesting to find out if that NOT a corporate lawyer had ever been a taxi cab driver, or any kind of courier or inspector who knew about having to drive unsafe vehicles... I drove medical transport for a couple of years and at one time got stuck in a snowstorm at the bottom of a hill with fairly bald tires, and yes, had reported that to my superiors several times
More people not doing their job. The inspector probably didn't even check the car. The driver probably didn't check the car either and definitely didn't drive the appropriate speed for conditions.
Steve, your explanation about the jury being above the judge is interesting, and in my opinion it just further supports the idea that a jury should also be responsible for judging not only the facts of the case but also the law(s) under which the defendant is being charged. Of course, most judges and attorneys consider any mention or use of jury nullification to be grounds for a mistrial, but every citizen should be fully aware of jury nullification and its purpose. As an imperfect society, we obviously have had and do have unjust laws on the books. The Fugitive Slave Act is a prime example of a law that needed to be judged by individual jurors, and by no means can it be the only unjust law that citizens have ever been charged under in the U.S. We have a duty to each other and to our justice system to judge laws from the jury box and to nullify certain ones when casting our vote as a juror.
No a not guilty verdict should NEVER BE OVERTURNED.
driver was just an employee and told to drive that "safe" cab. It was inspected yesterday...
Yes Sir..
That might be, but he still has a drivers license and must follow the laws regardless of what his boss says.
@@mrfrenzy. For people in low-paying jobs, there's some math that goes into that. If I refuse to drive in that condition, I'll be fired and blacklisted as a troublemaker. If I take the chance, I might be able to pay rent this month.
Yeah, the verdict does make sense in that regard. In my neck of the woods, there was an over height load that impacted a bridge, came off and hit the car behind it. The driver wasn't licensed to carry that load, nor did he inspect the load because that wasn't their qualifications, but the employer put him in the truck anyway. Now there is a duty somewhat as the operator so refuse apparently dangerous or unsafe conditions, and some of that responsibility does fall onto the operator if it is a reasonable expectation of their duties. Since he wasn't licensed for that task, the responsibility falls on the employer.
However here, one can say that if the higher authority of the inspector said it was good to go, then it should fall on him. However, a taxi driver depending on the laws, might also be required to perform standardized safety checks regardless of what anyone else tells them. That's the way it is for bus drivers. I would assume there would be some clause in his employment contract outlining this, including the condition of the tires with wear pattern and tire pressure, and visible defects.
However, how responsible the driver actually is when he has two authority's above him telling him he's good to go...that's where it gets a little murky.
@@mrfrenzy. How would he know if there was a problem when it passed inspection? Think McFly
@@HH-ru4bj How would he have known in this case if it passed inspection? No load issues.
I worked at a shady car lot for awhile. As the mechanic part of my job was inspections. I didnt have a say in what got fixed and what didnt. One vehicle needed a control arm bolt but they didnt want to pay $13 from the dealership for it so it got a cheap one in it that was "close enough". Luckily, it was an issue before it broke and i ended up putting an oem bolt in it. I quit that job before i could be held accountable for something happening. I actually refused to weld a patch in a rusty frame and a couple other ridiculously dangerous repairs.
I hope you ratted them out when you quit?
@SonsOfLorgar I'm in rural Ohio. It would've been pointless. I had a light bumper job in a body shop I worked at. The shop that did the previous repair absolutely butchered the vehicle. They put a new radiator support in it so poorly I had to call the adjuster to show him I couldn't make the bumper fit without replacing it. There was paint burnt everywhere and both frame rails were still damaged pretty severely. The adjuster paid for the new support and said it wasn't worth their time to pursue the previous shop. I would've handled that differently now (involved the customer) but our work looked great. A used car is "as is" here and they don't care how shoddy the repairs are. Until some lawyer from the city comes in and sues everyone AFTER someone is severely injured or worse.
I don't know how many lives you saved, or injuries you prevented, but thank you.
It's very hard to find an honest mechanic or repair shop. If you're female and on your own - it's like they're waiting for you.
I'm lucky - I have maybe the only honest, reasonably priced guy in my area. He explains everything to me and tells me how to cut costs, or do the work in stages so I can afford it.
I'm literally trusting him with my life - a car can be a dangerous machine!
So thanks for being you. Many blessings
The juror Steve talks about reminds me of the movie “The Wrong Man” when the juror gets up and says “do we have to listen to this?” Mistrial declared!
I'm more amazed that a former lawyer got on a jury.
Dude probably does work as a corporate attorney. You don't have to be currently licensed to work as in-house counsel; you only need to be licensed if you want to be able to appear in court on behalf of your employer. I know a number of of long term in-house counsel who have let their licenses lapse because they don't need them to do their job and they don't want to have to deal with the annual reports or the CLEs. One of them was a guest speaker to my 1L class in law school.
I'm slightly curious about the inspector aspect, but what I really wish we found out was if the juror offered an explanation about his answer, and his argument to the other jurors. I'm guessing he argued that, as an employee, the driver was an agent for the company and not personally liable.
Fulton. A really REALLY bad place to have a trial. Ask Fannie. Ask YSL.
U act like no county is immune from kangaroo courts! Everywhere our judicial system is complete shit
I was on a jury a couple of years ago, and I thought it was the most rewarding and interesting things in my life. I really don't understand why people poo-poo being a juror.
I've been on a jury and had the opposite opinion. What a clown show. A rude, condescending, power-trip judge, and a case that should have never gone to trial. Neither the plaintiff nor defendant wanted to be there. The State prosecutor was a blind and nearly deaf veteran who had checked out years ago. A complete waste of everyone's time and money.
The driver was also a victim. Broke, and being bludgeoned by his company to drive an unsafe car because a crooked inspector was on the take, he was probably pushed into the guilty plea, and didn't have the funds to contest more serious charges.
That's a lot of allegations there. You have proof of that right?
@@JayCee-ji4cbthe evidence says that the taxi driver had it inspected in which he was supposed to do that he trusted them and trusted the company to do their part. He did his job by driving and having it inspected. Of course he shouldn't go to jail
@@geoffreyjett600 It has always been the DRIVERS responsibility to inspect their vehicle before leaving the yard.
@@Boraxoand 99.9% of people don't inspect their own tires every time they leave.
@@Boraxo
Most people people know nothing about cars and count on experts like mechanics and inspectors. Only car guys have then knowledge to do a real inspection of their car themselves.
"Contempt" needs to be done away with. We are not subjects to this filth.
Wait, what? Are you serious? Even with judges being able to fine and/or jail people for contempt, way too many courtroom scenes turn into absolute circuses or even riots. News flash- Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land. Deal with it.
Do you think that a tourist- who is in no way, shape or form a US citizen- should get a free pass on murder, assault, theft, etc. because they aren't subject to US laws? That's just how insane the whole Sovereign Citizen movement is. If Fergus McDougal from Ireland gets pulled over in the US while driving, he better have a valid International Driver's License, and the vehicle better be properly registered and insured. "Oh, but Officer, I'm not driving a motor vehicle, I'm traveling in my conveyance and not engaged in interstate commerce, so US law doesn't apply to me." Do you see how absolutely ridiculous that sounds?
And BTW all that case law Sovereign Citizens spout either doesn't exist in any US Court, or isn't relevant. One of the cases they like to cite is actually an 1830 civil dispute over the ownership of a gristmill. Do any of them actually Google any of those cases before they cite them? Nope. If they did, they wouldn't be Sovereign Citizens after doing that.
My thinking: the Judge viewed the cab driver himself as guilty, however, the company and the Inspector overruled the driver in that they were there to ensure that the vehicle and drivers were vetted well for legal and safety concerns and clearing of possible safety hazards.
The driver trusted the verdict of the inspector and the company.
I'm thinking the judge understood that the plaintiffs brought a claim that should have been decided by a jury that was impartial but the decision was made by a jury that may not have been impartial because one of the jurors made a misrepresentation during voir dire.
Former truck driver here. This is more complicated than it sounds.
For a commercial truck driver, if you don't do your mandatory pre-trip inspection, and miss something like a soft tire or brake fluid/air leak, you can be held responsible, even if it's a company truck. Cab drivers driving regular cars (as opposed to a large limo/small bus) aren't considered commercial drivers AFAIK.
That being said, if a cab driver/delivery driver ignored an obvious safety hazard on a company vehicle, like a soft brake pedal, bald tires, a bulged tire, etc. then they could definitely be held liable. What happens way, way too often is that the boss orders the employee to either drive the unsafe vehicle or get fired on the spot. That led to the infamous Schoharie NY limo crash that killed 20 people (18 in the limo including the driver and two pedestrians.)
Also, remember the weather in the case- slippery roads. Even if the cab was in perfect condition, the driver could still be held responsible for (for example) driving too fast for conditions, failure to exercise due care, etc. (varies by State).
@@suedenim9208 I was thinking the faux lawyer might have been all 'I'm a lawyer, I know the law, and I say the driver and inspector aren't liable." That would 100% be juror misconduct.
@@MarkStockman-b4j You're completely right, but only about an employee's responsibility for criminal charges. Liability or the civil action is completely separate. An employee's (lack of) action can certainly be part of the reason the company is found liable, but as an employee the driver as an agent of the company and generally not liable for accidents that happen while doing their job.
@@MarkStockman-b4j Are you trying to be stupid? Each juror has both a right and an obligation to offer their opinions on why the jury should rule one way or another. It's very much not misconduct to cite your background as a reason that others should value your opinion.
The Jury should be held responable for charges of the trial....
When you're a person who drives for a living, you should inspect what you're driving before getting behind the wheel.
It's a requirement for truck drivers. You have to do a walkaround pre-trip inspection and can sometimes be held liable for stuff that isn't right with your truck
@@dalanoyo Not sometimes, pretty much always.
It’s getting impossible to find an honest person, Diogenes.
Being a convicted felon over bald tires that were inspected 24 hours ago is pretty chickensh*t imho. How did we get here?
We don’t know the complete set of facts here. He may have been driving too fast for the conditions or some other contributing factor, not just that he had bald tires on the vehicle. If it was just the tires, then I agree, but he did plead guilty for some reason not disclosed here.
@@GF-ph1jp "but he did plead guilty for some reason not disclosed here."...
'some reason'....
What reason could that be... if you have any knowledge whatsoever about the legal system in the USA, you'd be able to state the reason with better than 99% certainty.
The feeling of being guilty for another's life is a heavy burden
@@c128stuff I'll take "too poor to afford a real attorney , so you get talked into a shitty plea deal" for $500 Alex
@@c128stuff Given what we've seen from cops lately, one could argue there's precedent to think the cops may have threatened to kill his dog and told him his family was dead.
I can understand why the driver wasn't held accountable. Wouldn't it be the company's responsibility to keep the car in shape? The inspector should be held responsible also.
They are both liable. And some states allow for "proportionate liability" where the jury assesses how much of the damages are your fault and make you pay accordingly. Even so, the driver has the duty to maintain the car in safe working order. If he had reason to think the car wasn't safe to drive, he was being negligent and reckless when he did so anyway.
Did the driver truly see those tires and trust they were safe, just because the inspector signed off on it? I hope not.
I was part of a jury pool last year like I am about every 9 months. Smaller area. We were on a call in situation to see if we were needed for a trial. I called in to talk to the jury clerk and asked to be excused since it was the final few days and my wife had a possible cancer diagnosis that I wanted to attend the appointment. That jury clerk acted like I told her I would refuse to attend. A few calls later, I finally spoke to someone higher than her and they excused me immediately. Mind you I am a 100% disabled veteran and could permanently get out of jury duty due to my medical issues. Because of how they talked to me I almost want to get the permanent exemption. She was replaced so we will see how my next round goes.
I mentioned jury nullification in my response letter for a jury summons. They havent contacted me since. 😂
The next time they will again treat you like you are an indentured servant, because that's how the courts see jurors, regardless of some BS about the judge standing up.
My wife was called for jury duty a few years ago. Juror parking is in a parking garage two blocks from the courthouse downhill. My wife said she'd be glad to serve, as she was on disability retirement and had plenty of free time. But she could only serve if they could either get her really close handicapped parking, or a lift from the parking garage to the courthouse and back. She was excused.
@@fredfinger7092 No different to getting drafted into the military. "Duty" seems to be an archaic concept these says. Everybody is all about their civil rights, but don't care about their civil responsibilities.
Actually instead of elections, politicians should be drafted from a list of the most qualified individuals who don't want the job, and serve one and only one term.
If I was that poor woman's Husband, I'd be calling the District Attorney's Office and request/demand the City Inspector be Arrested and Charged with Criminally Negligent Homicide for giving a Taxi with Bald Tires a Passing Grade in the Safety Inspection!
If necessary, I'd file a Lawsuit in Court asking the Judge to ORDER the DA's Office to file those Charges and Prosecute the Crime...
I am extremely curious as to who the owner of the taxi was. Whether it was the taxi company or him. I have seen, (and personally experienced) when you're poor, your boss(es) will take full advantage of that fact and force you to work under any and all circumstances. I have seen people who absolutely can't afford to tell their boss no when they are told to drive a company vehicle in poor condition or some other issue in regards to safety.
Henri Paul springs to mind. He was on call 24/7 to Al Fayed. Drunk or sober.
And that's when you end up with your personal honor getting in an argument with your empty stomach. BTDT, totally sucks.
The driver is ultimately responsible for operating an unsafe vehicle.
Ultimately but not only.
In an absolute sense, but is it realistic to expect him to have refused, lost his job, been blackballed from all the local taxi companies, then gone home and watched his kids go hungry? The driver had no power in this scenario.
Honestly, why do we care about the driver? He doesn't have any money, and he's already been punished.
Totally understand why you want the inspector dinged.
I was on a jury once and my boss at the time said I had to be there this one day. No I can’t I got jury duty, he checked contract ( union job) he said I’ll see you when you’re done👍
I worked for State Government, and got paid time off for jury duty. The mean girl Karens in HR tried screwing around with me over it, but didn't succeed. I had to get a statement from the Court stating what days and times I was in court, and submit Google Maps screenshots of what the commute was from the courthouse to my office in traffic.
I understand the judge stands up to show respect, but a juror could never order the bailiff to handcuff the judge. he who has the power to take away your freedom is the top of the food chain, sorry is someone already commented on this.
You are absolutely right
The US legal system is dragging the whole country down.
But the lawyers make even more money.
In this case, one juror brought the system down, the system itself didn't lease itself out to the highest bidder or more powerful party.
And as a multiple time juror, let's suffice it to say, learn of that misconduct, it'd be peer season...
Just like Capitalism, our legal system totally sucks. But again, like Capitalism, it just happens to suck less than any other system ever tried. But in both cases, this is no reason not to work to constantly improve it.
One of the reasons we have such an insane number of laws on the books is because humans keep coming up with creative ways to skirt the existing laws in order to screw each other over.
@@MarkStockman-b4j not so much totally sucks, is in continuous need of continuous improvement. The preamble of our Constitution establishes that very promise.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It didn't say that we had a perfect union, but in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning of the populace individually and as a whole)... Never suggesting any was perfect, just to become more perfected, improving as we muddle along.
And we have an amendment process and provisions for laws to accomplish those tasks and as a safety valve for when we screw up, such as with prohibition.
What isn't provided or even suggested is a two tier system of justice for wealthy and poor, indeed, an amendment guarantees equality. And if one group is more equal than another, it ain't equality.
When I heard the juror said, "I won't be here tomorrow" for the second time I immediately pictured Oliver Hardy fiddling with his tie while saying something he knew was somewhat or completely wrong. . .LOL
Not that it makes it any better, but those kids are grown up already....
heck I was stuck on a jury for 3 weeks and at the end we were sequestered for a night in a motel, people need to understand the system
Inspections aren't for safety; they're for revenue. Government is broken at the core, both State and federal.
I disagree.. is obviously not a perfect system but overall we are much safer having standards for cars we share the road with.
@@nextbizzy My reply, "I'm sure you think so, having sent your brain out for washing once too often and it's faded away. That inspection sure helped this woman," was censored.
I love jury duty! I was seated once decades ago and my husband who hates jury duty has been seated three times!!
I find it fascinating!!...
Were the tires the only issue? It seems very strange that he would plead guilty when the inspector told him everything was ok.
I agree, it was likely a plea deal that dropped more serious charges.
@@davidhilton-d4c there must have been something else involved, like speeding or enhanced penalties for irresponsible commercial drivers
The inspector said it was okay but he was driving so it was up to him to check over the car and make sure it was safe.
All the DA has to say to the driver is you can plead guilty to X and spend a few years in prison or take your chances in court on Y and spend a lot longer in prison. Also if he didn't have a lawyer, had a bad one or one that didn't he could win he might have been pushed into taking a bad deal.
Is it not possible good tires were put on the vehicle for the inspection then after passing changed out and put on a different cab so it could pass inspection?
I was actually thinking the same thing. If an inspector said they were good to go then it seems like to me the driver is as much a victim because he's relying on someone who's supposed to know. The only thing I can think of is maybe he was driving recklessly which played a big role in the woman's death.
We stuck around after the trial, had some wonderful conversations with the judge and attorneys.
When I served on a Grand Jury where we had a case where a POS father who was likely on substances assaulted his wife, caused a disturbance, and fired a couple of pew pew sh0ts that went through the ceiling into the upstairs apartment. (No one hurt thankfully.) While the DA was explaining the charges, somebody on the jury asked "If he was waving the pew pew carelessly in front of kids, isn't that endangering the welfare of a child?" The DA looked surprised. "Yes, you are absolutely correct." He ended up adding one count of endangering for each child that was there, and we voted to indict on all charges. I felt almost sorry for piling on the poor guy, but the charges were 100% supported by the evidence.
After we voted, the DA heaved a huge sigh. "Okay, now that you have voted and your part in this is over, I can tell you this. Remember X notorious incident from a few years back?" The light bulbs start to come on. "Yeah, this was that guy." Any sympathy for the defendant instantly evaporated. The POS had just gotten out of prison on probation, and proceeded to act like this.
It’s never about the money.
Really.. Except MONEY is the biggest RELIGION on 🌎, and there's no greater God than the almighty Federal Reserve GODS.. 💵💵💯💯😄😄
@@QG1168 Did you change your name jpnews? Always posting the same trite comment to everyone about voting for masters regardless of what they are actually saying followed by several emoticons. Then liking your own comment. If it weren't the slight variety I would think you were a bot.
@@DKNguyen3.1415 so have you stopped playing the STUPID game of VOTING for gangsters to be your masters then cry like a little baby yet?? 😥😥😥
I doubt it.. 💯💯
@@DKNguyen3.1415 Bots can be programmed with a limited degree of variation.
If they jury is so important then why don't they get paid better?
Why can't they be paid reasonably so that people would volunteer instead of being FORCED to perform this "duty"?
As a young insurance defense lawyer in the late 80s, none of this is surprising. I frequently represented the lowest end Taxi company and all the cases were laboratories foe perjury and low level corruption. Everyone was lying and it was who was the least deceitful. The cases all settled and I don't think anyone ever got their full settlement because the company was in perpetual bankruptcy.
I was so much happier becoming a military criminal attorney where things were a lot more calm and while everyone was still lying, the client was going away one way - or the other.
had jury duty once, got roped into 2 out of the 3 trials they wanted us for, one of the trials was far more annoying than the other as we had a singular juror who nearly hung the jury by himself because the evidence and the situation pointed to wrongdoing and he just wouldn't agree for the longest time because "he's just a kid!"
surprised that they did not try to argue qualified immunity for the city inspector
After all time time I just noticed the hidden game in your videos with the roaming $100 bill.
Imagine being a former lawyer and not even be capable of being a jury without derailing a trial.
One of the biggest problems with the system is that even when corporations are found liable or guilty it’s very rare that the upper leadership of that company ever spend any time in jail. This is because the upper leadership always blame some lower level person.
The way it should work is that the CEO is ALWAYS ultimately accountable for everything and everyone below them. If the company commits a crime or negligence or fraud…: someone needs to see a jail cell. Period.
no . this will lead to activists getting a job there and doing a crime so the ceo can get arrested. how about the president of the country , you know the ceo, getting charged for anything the govt does that's a crime. every president would be prosecuted .
@@ronblack7870 Oh, you mean companies would have to actually do their due dilligence on background checks? Sounds like a win to me.
@@ronblack7870
That scenerio could investigated at the time. Anyone found doing that should get whatever the CEO was going to get, with an additional 10 years on top.
Besides, that's a red herring excuse anyway. What's to stop an activist getting a job and then falsely accusing/planting evidence of the CEO comitting a crime.
The reasoning "But actvists are why I shouldn't be responsible" is nonsense.
It's about time these CEO's starting earning their crust. Rather than currently accepting all the benefits, and not one of the consequences.
@@ronblack7870 - I don't agree with that. If a company that produced anything controversial enough to even HAVE activists working against them staying in business, then it stands to reason they would do good background checks on prospective employees in the first place to prevent any kind of sabotage.
I've often heard companies compared to ships - isn't the Captain of the ship responsible for his crew? Their safety and well-being along with any improper acts they may commit?
If orders come down the chain from the top, it seems logical when something is done incorrectly or shoddily due to "orders from upstairs" to cut costs, etc that you hold the CEO responsible. Follow the money! The guy getting the big bucks is usually making the big decisions - why hold those who are limited to work within the structure as designed by the CEO responsible?
If all you have to work with is second rate because that's what you're told to work with how can it be your fault when the final product is second rate?
Why am I NOT surprised why this happened in Fulton County GA... Home of the YSL trial...
I've only been summoned for jury once! I was Corrections Officer at the time and was immediately dismissed! It was basically a paid day off that my job had to pay me for and didn't count against my sick or holiday leave. I was in court for about an hour.
Now you know why he's a former attorney.
A clue for everyone. When they sau its " Not about the money" . Its always about the money
Taylor Swift sued a DJ for $1 for groping her. She won $1. She doesn't need the money. She wanted to send a message.
The jury should be allowed to question the witnesses and the defendant.
Grand Juries can ask questions, or at least the one I was on could.
@@mjgbabydragonlet Not regular juries. It's nothing but a mushroom farm to employ the lawyers.
After you said Fulton county, that said the lot.
Taxi company 100% liable because it’s their vehicle and the driver has to take some liability because he should have done a daily safety inspection before driving said vehicle. If your job is at stake for refusing to drive a unsafe vehicle, especially one used for public transport, let them fire you and retain a lawyer.
I doubt a taxi driver can afford to retain a lawyer.
I WANT to be a juror. The problem is my work is all travel, and at the last minute. I just cannot do it. Maybe after i retire .
The Juror could and should be charged with perjury. Under most state laws, if not all, prospective jurors are warned that any false statement made it the selection process will be charged with perjury.
Maybe the guy just didn't speak fluent English? What's wrong with the Judge asking the guy, "Why" instead of perceiving an authoritarian rule against the guy and throwing him in handcuffs?
It was probably a made-up story anyways...
Perjury often goes unprosecuted even when it's obvious, because there has to be intent that can be proved. If somebody spent 25 or 30 years in a single profession is it an intentional lie if they answer "what do you do for a living" by citing that career? What's the point of even asking if somebody who spent 30 years dealing drugs and killing people can truthfully answer "retired" and move on because they retired last week?
Remember kids, cap companies argue ride sharing should be illegal because it's "not safe"...like them.
Surely the taxi company had insurance at the time of this event, yes? You mentioned a couple of times that the company no longer exists. But that shouldn't matter so long as there was current insurance....no?
Btw...saying "taxi-cab" seems very redundant to me. Is this a regional thing or am I the odd one? I would say either "taxi" or "cab" if I were in the market for a ride across town...but never "taxi-cab". Any of you?
I'm many cases you're not allowed by the court to mention if the person has insurance.
@@DarkPescoin the past, taxi cab was always the phrase.
@@DarkPescotaximeter-cab. Shortened to taxicab, shortened to taxi or cab.
Looked it up, didn't know.
The company presumably had insurance at the time, and that's the insurance that would almost certainly apply. Very small chance it would be the insurance in effect when the lawsuit was filed, but for an auto accident I expect it's the former. The only reason I'd consider even a slight chance of the latter is because liability insurance can have a "completed operations" clause. It doesn't make sense to me, but if a contractor builds a deck and the deck collapses some years later coverage may be from the completed operations clause of the policy in effect at the time of collapse rather than the one when the deck was poorly built. Health insurance can be similar A current policy will cover treatment immediately after an accident, but follow up treatment down the road may be under a different policy. I had a metal plate in my leg for a couple of years, and even though removal was anticipated during the initial treatment the actual removal was covered under my current work policy instead of by the original coverage.
Just to show that a bad attorney can really F things up…even when they aren’t still an officer of the court.
I'm guessing that besides saying he was responsible for the driver not being found liable he also explained how he convinced the other jurors, but somehow that detail hasn't reached us. My guess is that the former attorney made the entirely correct argument that as an employee the driver was acting as an agent of the company and therefore doesn't have personal liability. That's normally the correct application of the law, and no longer being an attorney would be irrelevant.
Depending on how the charge to the jury was worded, I can understand the reasoning for not holding the driver responsible for bald tires on a company car despite the criminal guilt.
The inspector looked, but did not see? I get it!
Our country is missing something. Morals and values. And self control.
Vehicular homicide for tires??????? Wow that is unjust
"I killed someone but it was only because of the tires so it's alright."
@@-Devy- he didn't kill anyone though. Nice try
@christophercarrigg3775 So how did she end up dead?
@@johnbriggs3916 car accident. Do you really not understand basic English
@christophercarrigg3775 Clearly you are not comfortable with the concept of personal responsibility. So you would not accept responsibility for the death of any passenger in a car you were driving?
"With great power comes great responsibility"
I guess he lost his law license for lying under oath?
I saw this video and I immediately thought of Flip Wilson.
You gotta be really old to remember that skit from the 60's.
Hear come da judge...
If Jurors are actually important, maybe we should treat them as such and pay them for their time. Not paying them only lets the rich and retired serve.
Your employer is supposed to pay for your time loss for jury duty. Mine did. I also got $27 and five cent a mile from the court for a day of jury duty.
@@peteengard9966 No, they literally have ZERO obligation to do so. They can, but they certainly aren't required.
@@John-ke2jm In this state they are. It even says it on the juror summons.
@@peteengard9966 That is very rare. Most states you get nothing.
@@John-ke2jm Possibly the only good thing about jury duty. I once got a summons for jury duty in a court that was a 4 hour drive away. I was lucky that I didn't have to show. It was dismissed the day before. The past two years, I've been called 3 times. Each one has been dismissed.
I received a notice for jury duty with the scheduled date as a particularly bad time for me. I called up the court and they easily moved my date to show up to some time that was far more convenient.
Not all judges stand for the jury.
I never was this early to anything.
Just don't be late to dinner...
🤔🤣
He posts around 10am and 2pm. Some days no 2pm post.
That's not what she said.
You gots a $100 bill stuck behind your low flying owls sign.
Critical Thinking is a Super Power!
Really.. So how many times did you VOTE for professional LIARS to be your masters?? 😂😂😂
That driver probably plead guilty bc he felt horrible. It was the inspector and company who should be held accountable.
I don't know about taxi drivers, but truck drivers are required to do pre-trip checks of their equipment every day so they would know if there was something like a bald or flat tire.
How is this legal, even if it isn't double jeopardy? He was tried and the judge had stated he is throwing out the verdict because he doesn't like it, not because the juror did anything wrong.
Wait a minute... If the guy said "I won't be here tomorrow" and get's arrested, isn't that for a future offense which hasn't happened yet? Is that legal to arrest someone for something they have not yet done?
Same thing as being arrested for not signing your traffic ticket. They're making sure you show up.
My question is is arresting a juror and threatening them with jail time juror intimidation?
I think the judge was showing him what will happen, the guy was rather obstinate.
@@JayCee-ji4cb Refusing to sign* is codified in the law as an offense. *The caveat here is that technically, at least in my state, the offense for refusing to sign only applies to citations that are mandatory appearance. That is 30+ over the limit, caused a crash, and a few odd seemingly [to me at least] minor offenses. Technically, there is no requirement to sign for routine speeding or other traffic tickets. That said, you'll probably still get pulled from the car and arrested if you refuse and the cop will claim QI/Good Faith belief.
Yes you can be arrested for things you haven't done, you just can't be convicted of them unless planning to do them is also crime. Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime and you can be arrested and convicted for it even if you haven't yet done the murder. Of course in that case you have actually committed a crime, it just wasn't murder. I do not believe there is such a crime as conspiracy to miss jury duty so that wouldn't fly however saying your going to miss jury duty is sufficient probably cause for an arrest warrant.
Remember, you do not have to explain your jury vote to, Anyone.
That time he made what he wished he did for a living into his personal identity as a human.
Ugh.... it seems to me that the inspector who said the car passed inspection the day before the accident should be held responsible.
Depends did they tire swap. Some places have been caught doing that. 1 good set of tires for inspection that get past around. Then back to the trash ones for work
@@tatkkyo9911 that should be easy to investigate by a warrant search of the whole fleet and garage.