Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Jury Service, Reform and Fair Trials
Product liability trials are difficult for juries. They are long. They involve highly technical subjects, the testimony of conflicting “experts,” and what may or may not be scientific evidence. Jurors may be asked to consider and decide the feasibility of two or more alternative designs for a product with which they are unfamiliar.
Commentators have suggested several options to meet this challenge. Some have proposed scrapping the lay jury for a jury of technocrats or those with expertise in the field at issue, known as “special” or “blue ribbon” juries, in complex cases. A few have proposed that jurors meet certain educational qualifications for such trials. While there is merit to these ideas, there is an easier way to ensure that juries are competent to hear complex cases while preserving the traditions of our jury system: to ensure that people of all backgrounds have both an opportunity and obligation to serve on a jury. The collective wisdom of a truly representative jury would provide the foundation for hearing and deciding product liability cases in a fair and balanced way.
Unfortunately, by the time a product liability case makes its way to voir dire, litigators may be surprised at how few people are left in the jury pool. Many citizens are exempt from jury service. Some prospective jurors may easily avoid jury service; some take advantage of the vague standard to obtain an excuse for “hardship.” Others may legitimately need to be excused from jury service due to poor jury service laws. The result may often be a jury that does not include the wide range of experience and values of the community.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.