Lawyer’s Impatience as a Juror Could Lead to Disbarment

Blagh
Mar 10, 2009 7:55 AM CST

Are the other jurors getting grilled about why they voted as they did?  Would it be that uncommon for a juror to decide a case on something other than the evidence.  What about jury nullification?  I guess I can’t say I’m surprised that a juror would make a vote to go along with his peers and get out of deliberations early.  If they want to punish this guy because he’s a lawyer and should have known better, than don’t put lawyers on juries.  Otherwise hold everyone to the same standard.

Flag this comment

Joseph
Mar 10, 2009 10:21 AM CST

I kind of see where you guys are coming from, but don’t most states have rules for attorneys that non-lawyers don’t have to follow such as refraining from acting in ways that makes the profession look bad.  For example, an average Joe can verbally attack a judge’s decision and character outside of the courtroom in nearly whatever manner he chooses.  In my state, a lawyer cannot under the Model Rules. 

Shoulud this guy be disbarred, not in a million years, but perhaps some kind of repremand or suspension is warranted.

Flag this comment

thomas
Mar 10, 2009 11:46 AM CST

most people on the jury just make a decision so they can get home to their family and their life.  they don’t sit their and deliberate for hours knowing their house will be foreclosed since they aren’t working.

We should pay the people on the jury at least minimum wage the whole time they are on call and the losing party has to pay for it.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Mar 10, 2009 5:21 PM CST

I think what is at the core of this is that the real objective of the conduct was to try to override, as juror, the court’s decision not to declare mistrial.  Obviously, Fahy thought there should have been a mistrial, so, after changing his vote on a screwed-up basis, he provided that fact to the unsuccessful litigant to support a motion for new trial.  In short, he tried to cause the result (new trial with a new jury) that he thought the judge should have ruled to require.  He deserves a good kick in the tail for that stunt, and the disbarment doesn’t shock my conscience.  But hey, he’s “going on the offensive” (as if he’s not already offensive enough).  Good luck with that!

Flag this comment

I really should be billing.
Mar 11, 2009 7:43 AM CST

Mark Solomon, if you are referring to Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), keep reading:  “a juror may testify about . . . (2) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.” 
However, this case evidently was in CA state Court, so CA Rules would apply: 

§ 704. Juror as witness (a) Before a juror sworn and impaneled in the trial of an action may be called to testify before the jury in that trial as a witness, he shall, in proceedings conducted by the court out of the presence and hearing of the remaining jurors, inform the parties of the information he has concerning any fact or matter about which he will be called to testify.  (b) Against the objection of a party, a juror sworn and impaneled in the trial of an action may not testify before the jury in that trial as a witness. Upon such objection, the court shall declare a mistrial and order the action assigned for trial before another jury.  (c) The calling of a juror to testify before the jury as a witness shall be deemed a consent to the granting of a motion for mistrial, and an objection to such calling of a juror shall be deemed a motion for mistrial.  (d) In the absence of objection by a party, a juror sworn and impaneled in the trial of an action may be compelled to testify in that trial as a witness.

I’m going to do some work now.

Flag this comment

Jack Marshall
Mar 11, 2009 9:43 AM CST

Lawyers are subject to professional discipline when they lie, violate a juror’s oath, and undermine the justice system in situations where non-lawyers will get away with the same conduct. Why is that so hard to comprehend? He had an obligation to be a model juror, not a typical one, because of his profession. I might not disbar him, but discipline is clearly called for.

Flag this comment

Debra Veoli
Mar 13, 2009 4:16 AM CST

I understand Jurors are supposed to be impartial, man.  Why did these jurors disagree?  I think if a lawyer is on the jury, he should be a leader.  Why else would he be sent to law school?

Flag this comment

A. Nonny Maus
Mar 13, 2009 7:16 AM CST

If anything, the guy should be disbarred for stupidity.  Why would you TELL your fellow jurors, the court, or counsel why you changed your vote?  Why would you sign a statement?  Jurors do this all the time, because their view of “undue hardship” does not always match the court’s during jury selection.  And he has a perfectly good leg to stand on:  We reviewed all the evidence and discussed it.  Everyone made up his or her mind, and we could not reach a verdict.  We told the judge, and he did not accept that.  SOMEONE had to change their vote to one they disagreed with; might as well be me.

You want better juries, pay them.

Flag this comment

MED4321
Mar 13, 2009 7:30 AM CST

This is simply not someone who should be practicing law.  If the trust fund misappropriation had occurred in New Jersey, Fahy would have been automatically disbarred, since there is no defense in misappropriation cases. 

Here, it is difficult to argue that he should not be disbarred, since this is a grievous breach of his duties to the Court, not to mention the litigants and the attorneys representing them.  His lack of candor about the form he signed further confirms that disbarment is called for.

Flag this comment

sb
Mar 13, 2009 8:55 AM CST

I think this is one of the main reasons some states do not require unanimous votes for civil juries.  Still, to all you people trying to excuse this guy and complaining about the “double standard,” remember that he is a court officer and that this isn’t his first reprimand.

Anyway, it sounds like he was spouting off to the rest of the jurors what his intent was, so since he violated his oath as a juror, his misconduct was certainly serious.  Sure, to an extent, we cannot know what goes on in a jury room, but when there is open contempt for the legal process it damages the public’s faith in the judicial system.

Flag this comment

Jackcatscal
Mar 13, 2009 9:11 AM CST

Based on the fololwing excerpts from this guy’s 2007 disciplinary hearing, the other jurors were probably glad he bailed out:
“Throughout these proceedings, in letters to the court and approximately fifteen filed pleadings, respondent made a series of false and demeaning remarks about the State Bar, its
prosecutor in this case, the State Bar Court, and the hearing judge, commencing with his answer to the NDC and continuing until he exhausted his post-trial motions. Such epithets include, but are not limited to, repeated descriptions of the State Bar and its prosecutors as “frauds, liars and thugs,” “hillbilly scum,” “criminals,” ’°gangsters,” and “incompetent and malignant bunch of yokels.” Respondent also referred to the Hearing Department as a “kangaroo court” that not only “tolerates corruption and perjury” but also employs “jack-booted thugs” who use “nazi tactics.” He described the hearing judge as a “willfully corrupt,” “prolific liar” who “falsifies the evidence,” suffers from ’’perversion and vile racism” and “needs her head examined.” He also claimed the hearing judge “intentionally, fraudulently and maliciously suppressed.., evidence last in… her possession” and should be disbarred. Simply because the hearing judge, State Bar
prosecutor, and complaining wituess are African American, respondent expected the hearing judge to remove herself from the case due to bias. He also threatened to sue the hearing judge but offered to “drop his claims to be filed in the U.S. District Court” in exchange for a dismissal of all charges.
During trial, respondent threw documents on the floor in court instead of handing them to
the prosecutor. In a post-trial motion, he referred to the Supreme Court Chief Justice as a racketeering boss, and in another pleading, respondent threatened to file a lawsuit “against Chief Justice George as Chief administrator of the State Bar and his minions and henchmen for the [sic] their scheme to extort Califomia attorneys, theft of the public’s money and fraud against the citizens of the State of California and the United States of America.”

Flag this comment

Hylas
Mar 14, 2009 5:27 AM CST

The risk of this happening is inherent in the jury process.  A jury of peers is going to want to get back to work eventually and I’m sure that quite often that can be deciding factor in resolving a deadlock or obtaining a needed quorum for resolution.  Something seems wrong about a professional organization making an inquisition based on statements made in deliberations.  I’m sure a lot things are said in deliberations.  If this guy is in fact the same person as referenced in #21, then he clearly has problems, but going after him in this direction sounds like retaliation & an improper intrusion into jury deliberations.

Flag this comment

Robert
Mar 16, 2009 11:22 AM CST

Y’all are missing the point.  This is great for lawyers because we never have to serve on juries again.  We point out that we cannot be impartial or candid during deliberations because we have to worry about the court second guessing our reasoning and disciplining us.

Flag this comment