Carrying Concealed Weapon: Use & Judges

Who decides who will judge you? The caller states, "If I use my concealed weapon, who will judge whether it was reasonable?"

If you are charged with a crime - a homicide in the context of the caller's question - you have a right to face your accusers and to have a decision made about the reasonableness of your actions (which ultimately determines whether you are found guilty or not guilty of the criminal charge or charges), and you have a right to a trial by a jury.

The term 'a jury of your peers' often leads people to believe that the jurors will be people of like interests and concerns. But the reality is that the jury of your peers in Madison, Wisconsin, for example, aren't going to be 12 members of the NRA, like you; they'll be a mix of men and women, old and young, some tied to the University and the vast majority from within the confines of the belt line.

Helpful information:
National Rifle Association
Wisconsin Criminal Defense Lawyers

Attorney Chris Van Wagner Guest on Vicki McKenna's Upfront Talk

Attorney Christopher T. (Chris) Van Wagner will be on WIBA with Vicki McKenna at 5 PM today talking about Wisconsin's Carrying Concealed Weapon law and cautions you should take if you should be stopped by police while carrying concealed. You can listen live on WIBA at http://www.wiba.com/main.html. Great BLOG Post at http://wisconsincriminallaw.blogspot.com/2011/11/prudent-cautions-when-carrying.html.

To read all of the live BLOG posts from the show, select Carrying Concealed to the right.

WIBA-AM
www.wiba.com
News/Talk 1310..

OWI Initial Appearance Hearing

Appearance Not Required

I’ve been charged with a misdemeanor, and my initial hearing is coming up. Will I need to appear in court? By the way, it was a drunk driving third offense.

Under Wisconsin law, an attorney can appear on behalf of his or her client on a misdemeanor charge at the initial hearing if the client gives written permission. An OWI 3rd offense is a misdemeanor although there is now-pending legislation that would make a third OWI a felony in Wisconsin.

At Van Wagner & Wood, our attorneys always appear on behalf of our clients at the initial hearing in misdemeanor cases.

Attorneys cannot appear at the initial hearing in the place of a person who has been charged with a felony offense. A person charged with a felony must appear in court for all hearings unless specifically excused by the court.

Helpful information:
Wisconsin Drunk Driving Defense
Criminal Trial Procedures
Misdemeanor Offenses
Felony Offenses

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

In the Eyes of the Law

In the eyes of the law, we are all "innocent until proven guilty", however the reality that occurs in courts across the state of Wisconsin and the nation every day is that an accused person is often assumed to be guilty, and often needs to prove his innocence to a jury in order to avoid a mistaken conviction.

In many instances, the laws of Wisconsin require the prosecution to prove an element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, the law provides that the defendant need not prove that the element did not occur or exist. However, many defendants who attempt to represent themselves or hire an attorney experienced in other areas of law find themselves on the short end of the stick when the verdict is read - guilty as charged. And because they did not have an experienced criminal defense attorney beside them to object to the many procedures, rulings and other objectionable aspects of a criminal trial, they have nothing to appeal. If you are a defendant, it may be wise for you to think of the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty" in terms of "defending your innocence". For that, you have but once chance, and it usually requires an experienced, aggressive and previously successful criminal defense attorney to do this for you.

If you are facing criminal charges, contact an attorney experienced in criminal law. Most Wisconsin criminal defense attorneys will provide you with an initial free consultation so that you can ask questions about the state's accusations. As always, we invite you to contact our office for a professional, straight-forward honest assessment of your situation and how the law might affect you today and in the future. And you can call on our dime: 1-866-262-4599.

Helpful information:
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Criminal trials in Wisconsin
Grand jury proceedings
The Sexual Assault Stigma

The Burden of Proof

Why is the burden of proof different for police and prosecutors, or for an arrest or conviction?

An arrest is not a conviction. Formal charges are not a conviction.

The police are looking for a suspect and information that they can pass to the district attorney - the prosecutor - and say, "this person probably did the crime."

The evidence upon which they base those decisions isn't subjected the scrutiny of a jury or judge trial, and in most instances, the person isn't represented by a criminal defense attorney.

It is simply enough for the police to be able to say, "we have probable cause" or "this guy probably committed the crime."

That's enough evidence to arrest the suspect, charge him or her, and start the prosecution process. Then the suspect is released unless the charge is a felony. That isn't enough evidence to convict the person and take away his or her liberties.

Conversely, the district attorney seeks to charge a person with a crime when he or she has been told by the chief of police that they have enough evidence to support the charge and the DA looks at the evidence and concurs. The DA should be more than "probably" sure that the alleged defendant committed the crime. The DA will look at the evidence from the standpoint of the probability of obtaining a conviction.

At the next level - the trial - the burden of proof is even higher. At that level, the judge in a bench trial or the jury in a jury trial must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.

A person is innocent until proven guilty. If they are proven guilty, their personal liberties will be restricted. Our system guarantees people who are accused of a crime the right to face their accusers, to cross examine the witnesses that accused them of the crime, to examine the evidence presented against them, and to provide their own witnesses. People also have the right to give testimony on their own behalf or to refrain from taking the stand.

That level of proof and cross examination cannot occur in the district attorney's office, nor can it occur in the police station. It can only occur during a trial.

During a recent interview by Wisconsin Channel 3000 with Attorney Chris Van Wagner, TV3000 examined this very issue as it related to a recent arrest of a "suspected" sexual assault offender. Shortly after the arrest, police questioned whether the arrested suspect even could have committed the crime - the facts just didn't fit. Police released their suspect, but tied him to a tether and monitored his actions.

In another interview, Attorney Chris Van Wagner analyzed Scott Jensen's new trial. In that situation, evidence in the first trial that should have been presented to the jury for their consideration was not. When evidence is withheld - particuarly when it is critical to the jury's decision - justice has not been served. See Jensen's Trial for more information.

Pro Se - Representing Yourself In A Criminal Trial

I have been charged with a felony crime and I want to represent myself in court. Any suggestions or guidance that you could provide me would be appreciated. Thank you.

ANSWER:

If you are charged with a felony, my only suggestion to you would be to hire a criminal defense attorney and to seek guidance from that attorney. Self representation is at the cornerstone of our legal system, with your right to represent yourself in any criminal proceeding protected by the United States Constitution. And yet, the Constitution also affords you an absolute right to representation by an attorney at law even if you cannot afford one.

US Federal Courts and Wisconsin State Circuit Courts operate by different courtroom rules and procedures. You will be expected to know those rules and procedures. In addition to knowing how and when to proceed, you will also be treated as though you are an experienced attorney with knowledge of criminal law, criminal procedure, constitutional law, evidential law and rules, and case law (previously decided cases). The court and the prosecutor are on the same payroll, and neither of them are required to teach you the law or courtroom procedure. The outcome can have a very negative effect on your finances or freedom. (See Pro Se Defendant Loses - Gets Convicted of 3rd Offense OWI; Wood Wins on Appeal)

If you are considered "indigent" under state guidelines, you can have an attorney appointed to you at no cost. Those attorneys are called public defenders. (Refer to Wisconsin State Public Defenders).

In some counties, if your income exceeds the guidelines for indigent status, and the county has funds or a program by which to fund court-appointed counsel, you can have an attorney appointed to you at no costs or at very reduced rates.

In all situations, regardless of whether you qualify for a court-appointed attorney, you should consider the facts that 1) the state is your opponent, 2) their attorneys are very experienced in prosecuting felony cases, 3) and they have access to state labs and other resources to support their case against you. As well, district attorneys may not be so readily agreeable to negotiating a plea settlement (often called plea bargaining) with a person who is not represented by an expert legal advisor, or you may be the subject of a less than honorable agreement (See District Attorney violates Supreme Court rules).

Most criminal defense attorneys provide free initial consultations to help you understand the basic requirements of proof involved in a case such as yours, the penalties available to the court if you are convicted, and their initial fees - a retainer - required to hire them to represent you. At Van Wagner & Wood, we provide a free first-impression analysis via phone, e-mail or a meeting. Unless the attorney knows you, your history and ALL of the facts of your case, a first initial consultation will be a first-impression of the merits of the state's case against you and your defense. Consequently, you may be required to pay additional fees beyond the initial retainer.

If a criminal defense attorney offers a free initial conversation, it would be well worth your time and effort to take advantage of that offer before you make a decision to represent yourself.

It may also be of some merit in your decision process to know that criminal defense attorneys do not "go pro se" if they are charged with a crime, even though they know criminal law and how to defend a case in a criminal trial. (See Attorney Staton Found Not Guilty).

If after all these considerations, you are still determined to go it alone, then you will want to have these sites bookmarked in your favorites. These suggestions represent only a few of the resources you will need, but they will get you started.
Wisconsin Criminal Code, Statutes
Wisconsin Circuit Courts, locations
Legal Handbook, Wisconsin Courts
Circuit Court Open Records, Online Access
Wisconsin State Court of Appeals, Opinions
Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinions
A legal dictionary - there are several, this is one
Jury Instructions

Helpful information:
Criminal Defense Overview
Free Initial First-Impression Analysis
Plea Agreements - Plea Bargaining
US Courts - Defense against federal charges
Wisconsin Courts

Murder Trial - Trials by Jury

For more than twenty-five years, I have been involved in murder trials. Without a doubt, they are the most serious, most demanding trials – for all involved. Murder trials involve a great deal of time, money, energy and emotion - from the moment a person is accused until the moment the verdict is rendered. The lawyers obsess for weeks before and during trial on such questions as jury selection, trial strategies, and points weak and strong in their case. But those burdens, undertaken willingly by the lawyers, pale in comparison to the burden placed on each of the jurors, which is – in essence – to determine a person’s fate. That burden- undertaken “voluntarily” but feeling more like conscripted service (we all must be willing to serve as jurors) – requires that jurors set aside their personal lives, their work and their families and listen to weeks of arduous and often emotional testimony before retiring to the jury room. In that room, of course, they must then shoulder the greatest burden – decide the facts, individually and then collectively, and without passion or prejudice for anyone. We ask no greater task of an ordinary citizen, and we each undertake that thankless job, because as a society, we wish to be known as the most beneficent and civilized society. From such momentous, important work from ordinary, everyday people do we hold on tightly to our freedoms.

Jurors In Mark Jensen Murder Trial Return Guilty Verdict

The jurors in the Mark Jensen trial returned their verdict: murder. Mark Jensen was convicted of First Degree Intentional Homicide, a Class A Felony in the state of Wisconsin punishable by a mandatory life sentence to prison.

Under Wisconsin's sentencing laws, Jensen may be eligible for parole after serving at least 20 years. Parole is at the court's discretion.

Jensen Trial - Jury Deliberations Begin

The trial of Mark Jensen in State of Wisconsin -v- Mark D. Jensen has come to a close, and the jury has begun deliberations. Over the course of a 7-week trial, the jurors have listened to more than 160 hours of evidence. And now, they carry the greatest burden of all - the burden of determining whether reasonable doubt exists.

The jury in the Jensen trial is comprised of 7 women and 5 men from the local Walworth County area. The men's occupations include a truck driver, an engineering technician, production tester, facilities manager, and machine operator. The women's occupations include a medical secretary, a housewife, an unemployed female, a retired female, a certified nursing assistant, a proofreader, and a bookkeeper.

Thus far, the deliberating jurors have asked for certain testimonial transcripts and evidence: the letter allegedly written by Julie Jensen, testimony from Mark Jensen's co-worker, photos of Julie Jensen when medical personal arrived at her home, and both Mark and Julie's day planners.

Jensen Trial Continues

Jury deliberations were expected to begin today at the end of closing arguments, but the closing arguments haven't ended. See Jury Deliberations.

In a criminal trial, the prosecution makes its initial closing argument, then the defense makes its closing argument, and then the prosecution gets the last word. That "last word" took more time than the judge anticipated, a fact he pointed out when commenting on his expectation to "send the trial to the jury" today.

At 6:20 p.m. tonight, the judge polled the jury, not for their verdict in Mr. Jensen's trial, but rather for the time that they wanted to start the trial tomorrow - they voted for 8:30 AM - and then he recessed the trial and emphasized his intent to "charge the jury" tomorrow and refrain from holding the jurors any longer than necessary. The defense agreed, and added that they were also interested in not having Mr. Jensen's life unnecessarily put on hold any longer.

A pool of 19 jurors were selected for the Jensen trial. Twelve jurors for the jury, and 7 additional jurors (called alternates) if needed. Alternate jurors are selected for very serious felony trials to prevent a mistrial in case one or more jurors is unable to serve.

The court ordered the defense and prosecuting attorneys to report at 8:15 a.m. tomorrow morning to answer the question, "How many jurors should be dismissed before deliberations begin?" The court posed that question to the attorneys yesterday, with the anticipation that the court would dismiss those alternates today.

So, why are closing arguments taking so long? The prosecuting attorney is giving his rebuttals to the defense's closing arguments, and to that end has prepared a list of the testimony and evidence in the state's case. For each item on the list, he is summarizing the state's case, as well as hypothesizing other possible reasons for past activities and evidence in the trial, a summation technique that met with a few objections from the defense and a motion for a mistrial.

The court denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.

The court indicated that the prosecuting attorney is expected to be done with his closing arguments by noon tomorrow, with deliberations beginning as soon as the jury instructions are done.

Jensen Should Get A Fair Shake

Why was Scott Jensen's conviction reversed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals?

http://criminalattorney.vanwagnerwood.com/

Charges: Multiple Counts, Sexual Assault of A Child; Verdict: Not Guilty

Lesson: Less Is More - The 60-second Close

Wise old judges really are sometimes both. A few years back, a wise old judge name “Wright” told me and the prosecutor, just before closings in a homicide trial, that shorter was better and that no closing was the best idea of all. He claimed that jury studies showed that closings never win trials but sometimes lose them. Neither of us took the bait. So I argued in closing for 30 minutes in between the prosecutor’s 95 minute, 2-part stem-winder. (The shorter closing was the winning closing that day, thankfully.)

This week I took the wise old judge's advice in a felony sexual assault trial involving two stepdaughters that each accused my client of years of assaults. I sensed the prosecutor might hold back arguments for rebuttal. But she nonetheless argued well for 45 minutes in her initial closing argument. The jury struggled to pay attention, as they usually do at that point in a trial.

So, after getting my testifying client's approval, I gave a 60-second closing argument. I said simply that the only way to prove you did not do this was to testify, that my client did so, and that I could add nothing to that. I told them of the jury studies' conclusions, as well. I closed with a stern, whispered caution that before they marked my client as a child molester for life, they better be damn sure they were right. And then I sat down.

The jury studies may be right. The jury acquitted on both counts despite my “concession” of closing arguments to the prosecutor.

Simple lesson? Trials are won in jury selection and openings – and sometimes even on the evidence, but not in closing arguments. The latter are mere fodder for TV and press. (Maybe, though, it helps to tell the jury why you are not saying much; and always clear this unusual approach with the client... CYA is good.)

The problem most lawyers have is they fear that being so brief or risky is also setting up a claim of ineffective assistance. That fear is palpable and usually overwhelms logic and science. In this case, I fought with myself for two full days before I convinced myself to say little in closing. It helped that jury selection had gone very well, and openings seemed to be in our favor. But I ultimately did what my instinct said to do, which seems obvious in hindsight; but leaving well enough alone is difficult. (It helped that I had laryngitis, which I noted to the jury at the beginning of my 60-second non-argument to evoke laughter from the jury after a persuasive initial closing argument for conviction. A laughing jury is not usually a hanging jury – at least, not in these parts. I started by telling the jurors that I had good news. I paused for effect. Then I said “I have laryngitis.” The laughter helped make them forget any anger they felt for my client, I suspect.)

Next case.
CVW

Helpful Information:
First degree sexual assault of a child, Wisconsin Statute Stat 948.02(1))
Class B felony
Attorney Chris Van Wagner

In Voir Dire, Listen With Great Care

Still Seizing The Jury's Answers

Yesterday, Attorney Anne Reed posted in her BLOG:

September 04, 2007
Back To Basics: Nine Things To Look For In Voir Dire

Summer's over. It's time to refocus, and if the recent search traffic here is any indication, it's time to get ready for trial. Judges are back on the bench today, and a lot of this blog's readers spent some time yesterday researching their voir dire questions.

Which brings up a question I'm asked often. We're getting an idea of what voir dire questions to ask, readers tell me, but what do we do with the answers? We know we're supposed to get jurors talking and then listen, but what are we listening for?

I've been pretty clear about what I'm usually not listening for in voir dire. I set very little store by demographics, and I don't trust bias questions to bring out jurors' secret or unconscious biases. But I do have a list of the main things I'm listening for, the things I'm usually trying to figure out in voir dire. I use it both as a checklist to develop questions, and as a reminder of what I'm looking for as I listen. I keep tinkering with this list, but here's the version I'm using right now." Read her BLOG at: Deliberations - Back To Basics

Third Jury This Year, Second In A Felony Child Sexual Assault Trial ~ Still Seizing The Jury's Answers

“Anne:

Yesterday I picked my third jury of the year, and my second in a felony child sexual assault trial. Two experiences in yesterday’s voir dire reminded me of the critical importance to the DEFENSE of seizing voir dire answers and getting a major point across.

20 years ago, as a young state prosecutor in Trenton, New Jersey, I recall plea negotiating with ace NJ Public Defender Mike McConnell (who could sell air conditioning north of the Artic Circle) in a child sexual assault case. As he outlined his client’s claims of innocence, I responded that his guy ought to go to trial, if he did not do it (which, by the way, is precisely what I tell all my felony sex assault clients in today’s climate). He responded in words that had no real meaning for me as a “wet behind the ears” prosecutor, but ring so true in my current work. “Hey, Chris, you could try this case drunk. All ya gotta do [hey, this WAS Jersey, friend!) is put the baby on the stand and say her name and you will have every single juror ready to perform the castration on the spot! I can’t go to trial in this kind of case, Chris!”

Well, Mike Mac’s words came back to me last night, when I reflected on a spotlight moment yesterday in my latest voir dire effort. When the judge asked the potential jurors if the charges themselves would make it difficult for anyone to be fair and impartial, a woman raised her hand and said, “With these charges, I know he’s guilty already. I will find him guilty. He would have to prove his innocence to me, but I don’t think he can because of the fact of what he did.” Ouch.

She was excused, naturally, and before any attorney asked. The ADA, no doubt, was pleased. Then she – the prosecutor - gave me the answer I needed, in her own voir dire of the jurors. She used the phrase “in light of what the defendant did to these girls” as if the matter were a foregone conclusion. Double ouch?

Not at all.

Twenty minutes later, when the voir dire baton was passed to me, I seized upon the prosecutor’s ill-advised choice of words, and asked if any juror had heard her say what I had heard her say. An older, articulate female juror in the very front row – less than 5 feet from me – raised her hand and said she had heard that very phrase. I then honed in ad asked her how she felt about the phrase – even though for lots of reasons I knew I’d probably strike her if the AD did not.

She said: “I was very troubled and offended. I thought that the defendant was presumed innocent, and that it was OUR job to decide if he did anything to the girls. I found it uncomfortable that the DA was talking as if she KNEW he was guilty, and as if there were no presumption of innocence.”

[CVW to self: “Nice.”]

I then asked if anyone else had any other reaction or the same reaction to the DA’s ill-advised words. Half the hands in the box went up.

[CVW to self: “Very nice.”]

Then, just as another juror started speaking out about the same concerns, the prosecutor stood up and said that she thought she had said “what the defendant had allegedly done to the victims.”

CVW to jury venire: “That was not what I wrote down as a quote…

And then, I went right back to the “he’s guilty as sin” juror answer – with her long gone from the courtroom, asking they jury venire if they had heard HER answers. And if they had any reaction to HER views – i.e., “Fry the SOB!” The jurors then discussed for 10 full minutes – in their own words and with only a little prodding from me – the meaning and importance of the presumption of innocence AND the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor – after 10 minutes of this GREAT defense stuff – finally started objecting to the “discussion” – another point scored for the defense voir dire, since the jury liked the discussion and the DA tried to stop it.

Today’s lesson, reinforced: in voir dire, listen with great care to the BAD things jurors – and the DA– are saying, and discuss them openly with the rest of the panel. It can only help the cause. Mike McConnell’s viewpoint notwithstanding … although he won too often for my then-prosecutor’s tastes."

CVW

Helpful information:
Criminal Trial Proceedings
10 Rules For Jurors

Possession of Controlled Substance - Drugs - State or Federal?

If I am arrested for possession of marijuana, will it be a state or federal charge?

Possession of marijuana is charged as the crime of Possession of a controlled substance. As with any drug crime, a person can be compelled to testify before a grand jury, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by a federal agency, a state agency, or both for each incident of possession. If convicted by both a federal court and a state court, each court can impose a separate sentence including fines, imprisonment, or both. Imprisonment for a federal offense is in a federal prison, and imprisonment for a state offense can be in a state prison, a county jail, or both.

Double jeopardy does not apply when two separate governments prosecute an individual for the same crime and the same incidence of the crime. Either agency can be the first to charge an individual, and the other agency can bring charges afterwards regardless of whether the individual is convicted or acquitted in the first trial. The same applies to plea bargains unless the settlement agreement specifically excludes the other agency from bringing charges.

In most cases, there is no discussion between the federal government and the state government regarding which government will prosecute the defendant, unless there is a very large quantity of drugs delivered or possessed with intent to deliver.

The charge of possession of a controlled substance is based on the quantity of the drug. The laws for each drug classification provide the quantity limit for "personal use", and if that limit is exceeded, the charge can also include "intent to sell, delivery or distribute".

Drug charges and convictions are posted on the Wisconsin State Circuit Court website (CCAP) located at: http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl.

Wisconsin law provides a right to an automatic appeal if a person is convicted of a crime in a Wisconsin state court. An automatic right to appeal only eliminates the process of applying for the right to be heard by the Court of Appeals. If a person is convicted of drug charges under both Federal and Wisconsin state law, an appeal is made to the respective higher court - to the US Court of Appeals for convictions from a Federal court and to the Wisconsin State Court of Appeals for convictions from a Wisconsin State Circuit Court.

Helpful information:
Wisconsin Drug Crimes
State Drug Crime Penalty Schedules
Federal Drug Crime Penalty Schedules
Federal - Distribution & Sexual Assault
Search & Seizure In Drug Crimes
Double Jeopardy
Criminal Trials in Wisconsin


Federal Defense Attorney Chris Van Wagner & Tracey Wood

Double Jeopardy

When does double jeopardy apply?

In a criminal trial, jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn. In a judge trial, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn. If there is no trial, then jeopardy attaches when the court accepts the defendant's plea.

Double jeopardy protection applies if jeopardy previously attached, and more specifically, to a single crime and a single incidence of that crime.

Double jeopardy protection does not apply to grand jury proceedings, to other crimes committed at the same time as the crime to which jeopardy applied, or to other incidences of the same crime that were not previously charged.

Helpful information:
Double Jeopardy
Criminal Trials in Wisconsin

Jury Deliberations BLOG

Helpful Information About Jury Deliberations

Criminal trials are "procedural" (see Trial Proceedings). Before the jury can deliberate a case, certain prodecures must be followed, particularly where alternate jurors are concerned - they must be retained or dismissed before deliberations (see Jury Deliberations).

Jury Procedures provides a detailed information about the exact process for jury selection.

More Helpful Jury Information For Attorneys

Anne Reed, a trial lawyer and jury consultant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, maintains a BLOG regarding jury deliberations. Her BLOG includes very helpful information. Attorney Reed's BLOG: http://jurylaw.typepad.com/.

CVW

A Jury Of Your Peers

If the jury will be my peers, does that mean that they will be about my age, same nationality, same economic position in life, and so forth?

ANSWER:

Maybe.

Under the Constitution of the United States of America, a person accused of a serious crime (one for which the penalties can deprive him or her of life or freedom), has a right to a trial by an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment). Under the due process clause of the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court has applied the Sixth Amendment guarantee to state criminal cases, and under the Seventh Amendment, the Constitution guarantees that right in Federal suits.

The Supreme Court has held that an "impartial jury" - a jury of your peers - means that the jurors are chosen randomly from the community and that no particular race, sex, national origin or other representative classification of the population is excluded. The random selection process, as with any statistical process, will result in a representative body being selected from the community. Over time, the entire jury pool will include members from each of the community's races, national origins and all other classifications of people, as well as the changes to the community.

The jury for a criminal trial is selected through a process called voir dire (for more information, refer to criminal trial procedures), which provides your criminal defense attorney an opportunity to eliminate some jurors. Even so, whether the jury consists of people of your same age, race, religious beliefs and national origin or not will depend upon the random selection process and whether people from those groups were selected to serve at the time of your trial.

Helpful links:
Criminal Trial Proceedings
Jury Selection
Juror Rules

Probation or Parole?

What's the Difference Between Probation and Parole?

ANSWER:

Both probation and parole represent ways for people convicted of crimes to avoid doing time. What's more, they're both conditioned on good behavior -- if the offender messes up, they're shown back to their cell. But there is a major procedural difference between probation and parole. Probation is part and parcel of the offender's initial sentence, whereas parole comes much later, allowing the offender early release from a prison sentence.

Probation is handed down by the judge at trial. It may be in lieu of jail time or in combination with some jail time. The judge will specify restrictions on the offender's activities during the probationary period.

Parole is granted by a parole board, after the offender has served some -- or perhaps a lot of -- time. The parole board may consider factors such as the offender's behavior in prison and level of rehabilitation, and let him or her out early. The parole board can also specify restrictions on the person's activities while on parole.

Last but not least, probation has one more vowel and two more consonants than parole.

CVW

Helpful links:

Parole Probation Post-conviction challenge Wisconsin criminal penalties