Shit! Provider on My Jury Panel!

Tell the judge that you recognized her as a one night stand you never called back.

You are in one odd situation.
I wish I had some great ideas for you, but I don't. I posed the question to my trial attorney and he said if he was in your shoes (I asked him "If you had a one night stand and that person appeared in a trial as a juror, what would you do?") he would notify the court of the conflict so if it came out later, if would not affect the case. He felt opposing counsel would not pursue more than to ask her is she remembered the incident.
My $.02.

I remember that question from the bar exam

Approach, tell judge, request additional preemptory challenge.

Doesn't sound like Shackleton is really a lawyer, just someone asking a question and pretending to be a lawyer. What type of gratification is this?

Jump Back, Shack!

I realize that the issue is by now moot, but the ethical course of action is clear, and has been pointed out in several previous comments. You approach the judge, report to him that you had a brief personal relationship with juror X two years ago, so brief that she may not remember it, and also of a personal nature so that she may not be willing to disclose it. If the judge is doing his job he/she excuses juror X without further comment and things move on.

BTW, if I were you I wouldn't try to call her up for another round. Why bother? If you do so it would suggest to her that you are somewhat ethically challenged with respect to boundary issues. We would expect better from a provider in such a situation, after all. Like Tony Soprano said, "I dunno about ethics, but I do have rules"

I would say KEEP YOUR DAMN MOUTH SHUT!!! You don't know her, she doesn't know you. End of story. Why would it matter? If I was on the jury and I knew the attorney it wouldn't cloud my judgment one way or another. Now, if the lawyer that I slept with was on trial for seeing providers - then my opinion would be that he was guilty because I would know. But, if his client was guilty then too bad for him, I'm not going to let a guilty man go free or an innocent man suffer because I dated one of the lawyers involved. Ignore the fact you know her, I'm sure she is ignoring the fact that she knows you. And the ethical thing would be to not admit to knowing her but DO NOT CONTACT HER during the trial. DO NOT DISCUSS THE TRIAL WITH HER until after a verdict. Simple.

Hey, my 2 cents is that Nicolette has more common sense than all the lawyers around.

Why would it matter? Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

It matters because if the other side finds out about it the lawyer a) faces losing his license, b) gets sued by his client, and c) ends up in every newspaper across the state. You'd be amazed at how often this kind of thing does come back to bite you on the ass when you practice law.

I know the public has a twisted perception of the legal profession from reading too much John Grisham, but the rules of professional conduct are actually quite strict. Even though it may not actually affect the trial the fact that it could affect the trial is enough to toast a lawyer's bottom if he screws it up.

Lawyers get disciplined for stupid little things all the time. It often happens that what the attorney thought was a harmless little "fudge" on the rules ends up turning into a full-blown disaster for him and his client. You gotta be very careful about this kind of thing. Bigger firms actually have full time staff that do nothing but ensure the firm's lawyers play inside the rules.

Cheers,
Mazo.

It matters because if the other side finds out about it the lawyer a) faces losing his license, b) gets sued by his client, and c) ends up in every newspaper across the state. You'd be amazed at how often this kind of thing does come back to bite you on the ass when you practice law.

I know the public has a twisted perception of the legal profession from reading too much John Grisham, but the rules of professional conduct are actually quite strict. Even though it may not actually affect the trial the fact that it could affect the trial is enough to toast a lawyer's bottom if he screws it up.

Lawyers get disciplined for stupid little things all the time. It often happens that what the attorney thought was a harmless little "fudge" on the rules ends up turning into a full-blown disaster for him and his client. You gotta be very careful about this kind of thing. Bigger firms actually have full time staff that do nothing but ensure the firm's lawyers play inside the rules.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I understand all that you wrote and you've got some good points Mazo, but what happens in the hobby should stay in the hobby. Outing her to the judge could come back to hurt her in more ways than one. She could lose her children, freedom, etc. down the road if she ever finds herself in a Texas court room (civil or criminal). If the other side found out, he could play dumb - I didn't recognize her... or she is mistaken, I've never...

I think the second one is better, "That's crazy, I've never seen a prostitute in my life!" I don't have a view of the courts from books or t.v., mine is first hand and everyone on the witness stand lies. The legal system is so fucked up. You are only as guilty as you admit to.

If he could just eliminate her without cause, well then, YES by all means; but if the judge needs an explanation, he should keep quiet. In Texas witnesses are paid to make-up shit on the stand all the time. In Texas civil court, he who has the most money and the least amount of scruples wins. I know a man that paid strippers to testify that his church going wife was a provider and the judge believed the strippers and took away her children. This woman would have never done anything the church didn't approve of, but the judge believed the bull-shit. Last I heard, she lost her children, lost her mind, lost her God, and became a provider. The courts have a way of changing people - don't they?

Just use your peremptory challenge on her. What's the issue here?

Just use your peremptory challenge on her. What's the issue here?

It might disadvantage your client. That peremptory strike, which has been squandered on a legitimate challenge for cause, might have been put to better use in jury selection.

I agree with the approach suggested by Sarcastro and TexTushHog -- that is, talking to the judge outside the hearing of the jury. I'd grab opposing counsel before going to the bench and I'd only say I had a "personal relationship" with the prospective juror. That would be enough for everybody to get the message. I wouldn't say anything remotely connected with pay-for-play. The judge or opposing counsel might want to confirm what I said by asking the lady a few questions up at the bench, but probably not. Chances are the judge would know me, certainly opposing counsel would, and while I have a reputation for aggressively defending the interests of my clients, I also have a rep for truthfulness. With this approach, you also don't have to waste a peremptory challenge. Anyone who's tried a lot of cases knows you can never have too many peremptories.

As for the question of whether to even reveal such a relationship, it's a no-brainer. Every good lawyer knows you don't want your verdict overturned on appeal because of some bullshit issue like this. As for the suggestion that doing nothing to remove her might aid your case, or that there's an unwritten hobby "code of silence," I would think those ideas are the product of an abject unfamiliarity with practicing law borne of watching too many TV lawyer shows. It is the wise lawyer who follows the advice of Rick Blaine in Casablanca: "I stick my neck out for nobody." In other words, you don't risk your rep or your license for ANY client.

I had a girl on a jury panel in Houston years back that I'd had sex with, a civilian, not a provider. I followed the course of handling it at the bench in an understated manner. The subject of the trial wasn't super-serious, I'd gone to law school with the judge, and opposing counsel was a guy I drank and chased tail with. The other lawyer asked her in a subtle but funny way how I was in the sack, I said "Move to strike," the judge said "Granted," and we all had a little laugh.

btw, I think the odds of having a provider on a jury panel are pretty slim. Based on my experiences, I'd say more than 90% of providers have outstanding arrest warrants and they'd probably be loath to walk the halls of justice. Don't get me wrong. I bump into providers at the criminal courthouse all the time, only they're not in jury pools.

I was going to say EXACTLY what Nicolette just said.

With a 2-3 year gap between now and when you last saw her, how much of a trail is left? I'm pretty sure her number has changed at least once, maybe even her handle as well. And as someone said earlier, the Judge might start asking MORE questions. He might look at the woman and apply just a few seconds of thought and get a pretty good idea HOW you know this woman. Worse comes to worst, just 'fail to recognize' her, unless you taped your session with her and let her keep it.

Every good lawyer knows you don't want your verdict overturned on appeal because of some bullshit issue like this. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Wouldn't that depend on whether you're on the prosecution or defense?

If the verdict was "not guilty," could it be overturned on appeal due to defense attorney misconduct like this?

Wouldn't that depend on whether you're on the prosecution or defense?

If the verdict was "not guilty," could it be overturned on appeal due to defense attorney misconduct like this? Originally Posted by GneissGuy

Don't assume all trials are on criminal charges, because most are on civil matters. Also bear in mind that any harm claimed must stem from the juror's service, not the mere fact that the juror and lawyer didn't reveal their relationship.

The short answer is, in a civil trial in which neither a seated juror nor a lawyer in the trial revealed a personal relationship between them, the verdict MAY be overturned upon a showing of substantial harm from the relationship. I think that would be very hard to do.

In a criminal case, I don't think the State would have a viable appeal of a not-guilty verdict because what we're talking about doesn't fit within any of the statutory grounds permitting thr State to Appeal an acquittal.

A convicted defendant may appeal on this ground if he or she makes a showing of significant harm by the service of a juror who would have been disqualified had the relationship been revealed. Again, I think this would be very hard to do.

Some of you might be thinking about the case in Collin County, Texas involving Charles Dean Hood, who was convicted and sentenced to death in a trial presided over by a female judge who'd had an affair in the past with the prosecutor. Not exactly comparable, but it demonstrates how difficult it can be to prove harm in a trial from the effect of a past personal relationship.