Gotta love this story--- Jurors Playing Sudoku in Court Roo

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/17/the-sudoku-jury-redux-are-the-lawyers-to-blame/

Last week, as we sifted through numerous reports about the mistrial declared in Australia when it was discovered that members of the jury had been playing Sudoku, one comment struck us: “Legislating for attentiveness is very difficult,” Australia’s Attorney General and Minister for Justice, John Hatzistergos, told The Australian. “What we can do is to streamline these very lengthy trials.”
For those LB’ers who missed it, here’s what happened: After 105 witnesses and three months of evidence, Judge Peter Zahra aborted a drug trial that cost $1 million, and discharged the jury after the jury forewoman admitted that she and four other jurors had been playing Sudoku since the second week of trial. Judge Zahra, who had previously commended the jury for its diligence, told the forewoman that the Sudoku players had let down their fellow jurors and all involved in the trial.
To us, this seems a bit harsh. Had they really let down those involved? What if, as the forewoman told the court, the numbers game helped her concentrate during the long trial?
We checked in with a couple prominent trial lawyers to get their take. Steven Thomas, a former S&C litigator who left to start a plaintiffs firm — Thomas, Alexander & Forrester — said, “When you have long service, no one can sit on the edge of their seat all day long.” Thomas, who has heard of jurors doing crossword puzzles and playing hangman with each other, added: “Lawyers aren’t that exciting. But your job isn’t to entertain, it’s to persuade. And if the jurors are playing Sudoku or falling asleep, you’re not doing your job.”
But over at Morrison & Foerster, Jordan Eth, who defends companies against securities class-actions, thinks the issue of jury diversions is less cut and dried. “I have no idea what the law is down under,” Eth told the Law Blog. “But did you ever get an A in a class where you were doodling?” He said: “Some people close their eyes when they focus. Others need a radio to study. I’m in favor of anything that aids juror comprehension. Can I say off the top of my head that playing Sudoku reduces comprehension? For me it would, but who knows?”
As for the idea that it’s the lawyer’s job to keep a trial interesting, Eth says, “Lawyers can have an inflated opinion of themselves. ‘It was my job to keep them interested.’ Well, jeez, how compelling can it be? You’re supposed to give an Oscar winning performance on some drug case, day after day?”

First Update In Months!!!

Well I can finally report some good news. After patiently awaiting decisions from the various schools I applied to---I was accepted into three schools off the waiting list. This shows you how competitive the process has been this year. School 1 accepted me in mid may--and it was actually a suprise. As I was nearing finals--and graduation--I embarked on a job hunt that was intended solely as a backup for law school. However those expectations changed as I realized that I had a realistic chance of not being accepted anywhere---but with that inspiring news-- I had to make an important decision. Work for almost 50K a year (with decent benefits and perks) I may add--or attend law school at a cost of over 40K a year in loans (53K when all is said and done).

It was a tremendously taxing decision--and I proceeded to research and seek out the most advice from as many professionals, professors, friends, and family members as possible. Despite hearing some bleek and overly excited/perhaps too optimistic outcomes---I decided law school was my best route--and that going through the entire application process next year would be no different (how could one possibly guarantee a higher LSAT score). Therefore my mind was almost decided-

However I soon found out that the rumors about waiting lists (such as never really being considered) were unfounded. School 2 (being a considerable distance from home) offered me a decent package with large loans as well. School 3 offered me part time evening admission---but they are the highest on the official ranking list.

But it appears that the latter schools may be unfeasible. Why go so far for a tier III school at an exorbitant cost---and why accept part time evening admission, when school 1 is offering me the best financial package so far (which isnt saying much)--but offered me admission the most expeditiously (which shows they had more interest in me).

So for now--law school will be a possibility--unless some dramatic developments occur (highly doubtful-considering I turned down 2 job offers)--

As a last bit of advice--I would tell any prospective law school applicant to not immediately give up hope. Sometimes unexpected outcomes occur-- and you never know what may happen---- so try to stay positive-- and most importantly......BE CONFIDENT