There appears to be in Massachusetts a small cadre of attorneys, who with the assistance of a California "hot shot" colleague are doing everything they can to undermine the jury process.

For those who want professional jurors-here's some data:

IN the US, only 2% to 5% of Criminal and Civil cases go to trial. The other outcomes are the result of plea deals or settlements of some kind.

SO news FLASH we already have very little litigation that is actually decided by a jury of one's peers. Jury trials have been around since the ancient Greeks. The number of jurors and method of deciding outcome have evolved, but the basic concept of a jury of one's peers chosen at random speaks to the core of our Constitution-this is intended to be a protection against Government overreach. And OUR right to trial by jury is therefore protected by the 6th & 7th amendments.

And in most cases defendants can chose a bench trial (trial by judge) in lieu of a trial by jury.

When people ponder a world absent trials by jury, they need not ponder much-as we are kind of almost there, already.

MOST of the world does not try cases by jury. But there are no countries that have trials by "professional" jurors-there are a few that have trials where trained individuals will be part of a panel with judges-but the idea that suddenly there will be 12 paid individuals at every trial-(trained in what exactly?), (and chosen by whom?)-isn't done.

If jury trials were to be eliminated in this country, the system would almost certainly become one of trials by judge or judges. If this is what you want, you better trust 100% trust your government, because the checks and balances provided by jurors chosen from the population at random, will no longer be there.

And in away, THIS is what I believe attorneys Alan Jackson, David Yannetti, Rachel Rollins and so many others were engaged in regard to the Karen Read Matter. They were, I feel, deliberately attempting to undermine the jury process-and I believe they succeeded.

I think the verdict we see by second trial was that of a tainted jury-even if the "taint" came by way of methods we tend to ignore, especially when prosecutors engage in these tactics.

What Kevin Reddington is engaged in doing, regarding the ONE juror who did not decide his verdict as Reddington would have liked for Lindsay Clancy, is the same type of attempt, again in my view, as that used in the Karen Read Matter by many attorneys operating in bad faith and in violation to the oaths they took and to their Rules of Professional conduct.

NONE of this is new. It's all happened before, in different ways. But what is new, is the complete lack of restraint shown by those engaging in these endeavors. And the failure of the legal system to respond with force. There must be accountability.

What I hope people will at least consider is that rather than do away with a checks and balance to government overreach, there be more efforts to prevent bad faith legal actors, whether they be for the defense or the prosecution, from engaging in these tactics. And that those who do engage in this undemocratic behavior be disciplined, or if they won't stop. DISBARRED.

Just a thought.