Fighting the Fine Print in DC

Washington, DC is the epicenter of paper. We produce the regulations and laws that govern the nation and influence the world.

But who reads these laws, regulations, and even contracts? Who has time? Who even has the knowledge to understand all those words? When Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts admits that he doesn't read the fine print, you know something has to be fixed. Judge Richard Posner, a highly respected and brilliant judge on the US Court of Appeals, recently acknowledged that he didn't even read all the documents he signed for his home equity loan. "For my home equity loan, I got hundreds of pages of documentation; I didn’t read, I just signed," he said.

Now contracts are different from laws and regulations, but these all suffer from the same overwhelming and unnecessary problems: Too many words and too complicated syntax. It's arguable that the current foreclosure crisis would be less problematic if there were less paper.

A British company, Gamestation, added language to its standard license agreement that said:

By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions....we reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act. If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction.

Gamestation now legally owns the souls of 7,500 people.

At this point you're probably saying to yourself, "I don't read software or website license agreements or mortgage documents either." And you're probably also shrugging your shoulders because you think that there's no way out of the morass of legal words.

But there is a way out. And not only that, but the way out leads to a much more productive and content society. Watch how it can be done:

Why Are DC Juries Less Less Likely to Convict Than Juries in Other Jurisdictions?

It is often cited that District of Columbia juries convict defendants less often than juries in other jurisdictions. Juries are certainly quirky creatures. Juries tend to convict attractive people less often than unattractive defendants. Then there's the CSI effect: If prosecutors don't present all the evidence that they could possibly show to a jury --as in an episode of CSI-- the jurors assume that that evidence was lacking.

Studies show that District of Columbia juries do have a higher hung jury rate than many other cities. Race is often cited as a factor in the relatively high DC hung jury rate, but that's not necessarily so. The randomness of human nature often plays a part: In a study done on hung juries, researchers found that religion sometimes influences jurors: One juror said that she heard God say "I have forgiven him." Other jurors have a mistrust of the police that leads them to create their own conspiracy theories.

It seems that when there's one holdout and the verdict is 11 to 1 to convict, that lone juror is more likely to be simply acting on a whim than on the certainty that the evidence proves defendant's innocence.

Eleven-to-one verdicts must be frustrating for the the prosecution, but they are also frustrating for other jurors.  Here's how one DC juror described her feelings about serving on a jury in which the vote was 11 to 1.

Recently, a case involving a defendant in a criminal matter that occurred in Eckington ended in a mistrial. The case was solid and the jury voted 11-1 to convict, save one quirky juror who continuously offered extra scenarios that were not presented as evidence or were logical.

I have served on plenty of juries over the years and I believe the process is worth it. If you are a reasonable person and believe that you can look at evidence presented at trial and evaluate said evidence in a logical and unbiased manner, then please step up. Some people will vote to acquit no matter what the evidence. We need more unbiased, reasonable people serving as jurors. The next time you receive a jury summons in the mail, please answer the call to serve. Be assured that biased persons, unwilling to convict under any circumstances despite overwhelming evidence of a defendant's guilt will be eager to assert their view.

Why You Should Never Talk to the Police (Without a Lawyer)

Art by Netow

We all know that we have the right to remain silent and that anything we say to the police may be used against us. But what if you're talking to the police or a federal official and you're completely innocent? Do you need a lawyer? Should you bother?

Yesterday I wrote about Paul Lukas who asserted his rights and refused to answer a customs official's question, "Why where you in China?" and then was detained. That got me thinking about the broader question: When and how should one answer a police officer's (or federal investigator's) questions.