“Your elaborate and verbose attempt to parse the definition of “lay judge” completely obfuscates its plain meaning. The adjective ‘lay’ simply refers to a ‘non-professional’. ”

I’m not trying to parse it. I’m just confused over your use of it in your reply and tried to include it in as short as context as I could because that’s what I thought you wanted to also discuss when you suddenly threw in ‘lay judge’.

First you say : “So, yes, in this context, the judge will be law-trained and will most likely have had courtroom experience before taking the bench.”

OK, so far at that point I followed you with that and I had a whole slew of cases lined up to post where judges without law degrees and not lawyers had indeed adjudicated murder cases and gun cases and self-defense cases and all sorts of felonies, especially in North Carolina.

But you threw me for a loop when you suddenly introduced ‘lay judges’ and switched from ‘judge’ to ‘lay judge’ with: “I’ve practiced law in dozens of states for decades, and I don’t know of one state that permits appointment, or election, of lay judges to courts with jurisdiction to hear felony or high dollar civil cases. ”

(which is not correct because justices of the peace can be either appointed or elected depending on which state and its requirements – and a justice of the peace can be a ‘lay judge’)

Now you come back with: “…The adjective “lay” simply refers to a ‘non-professional’.” and then split up words to separate it from its context of application to ‘judge’ when its very clear that ‘lay judges’ in the context of magistrates and justice of the peace are considered ‘professional’ positions.

A lack of law degree or not being a lawyer does not mean these are not ‘professional’ positions or ‘professionals’. Professional (adjective) – also means following a line of conduct as though it were a profession – and also means relating to, or characteristic of a profession. Are magistrates and justice of the peace not following a line of conduct as though it were a profession, is what they do not relating to, or characteristic of a profession?

So I’m just trying to understand what you are talking about when you suddenly threw in ‘lay judge’ in your reply – you switch from ‘judge’ to ‘lay judge’ in an interchangeable manner as if they are the same thing then you say basically ‘Oh, no, its professional vs non-professional’ then say I’m trying to somehow ‘obfuscate’ with an ‘elaborate and verbose attempt to parse the definition of ‘lay judge’ when your sudden very use of the interchangeability of ‘judges’ and ‘lay judges’ is obfuscating.

Your elaborate and verbose attempt to parse the definition of “lay judge” completely obfuscates its plain meaning. The adjective “lay” simply refers to a “non-professional”.

Nearly every state, including my own, allows non-law-trained persons to act as judges, or justices of the peace, in courts of EXTREMELY limited jurisdiction. But those courts DO NOT adjudicate, or “hear”, felony cases that involve homicide or attempted homicide (as described by Mr. Markel), nor do they adjudicate high-dollar injury or wrongful death cases. Those cases are only brought in courts of general jurisdiction (the names of which vary by state), whose judges these days must have a law degree from an ABA accredited law school.

Given all your professed erudition, I’m surprised you don’t know that.

And that was after a very expensive trial.

You want ammo that do it’s part in stopping the bad guy if you do your part and put it in the vital areas. Full metal jacket ammo causes minimal damage but tends to over penetrate. The best duty rounds go deep enough to hit vital targets and expand enough to do the most damage possible. That combination has proven most effective in actual shootings.

It’s easy to say “but Rittenhouse was found Not Guilty!” — but it’s also easy to forget the self defense cases that are razor-thin and fail on one tiny detail.

.40 cal Booger, all that is fascinating factual information, but in the end, it doesn’t really matter.

We’re talking about cases of “wrongful death”, “manslaughter”, “murder”, or *maybe*, if people were “only” scared or injured, “aggravated assault”.

You have merely given us enough information to confirm that yes, in the circumstances we’re talking about here, the judge will *also be* a lawyer.

I suspect you could just walk up to a cop at a “Cop’s Night Out” Community Outreach event and ask them what kind of ammunition they use for self defense, and maybe even ask why it’s the preferred ammo.

I also suspect if you remember the specifics wrong, but make sure it’s FBI-approved for law enforcement, it wouldn’t matter if you get it “wrong” — for all intents and purposes, it will be “right enough” for a Jury.

And I finally expect that if all else fails, answering “it’s the cheapest reliable brand that is approved by the FBI” will be satisfactory for a Jury to hear in any case.

anyway….overall 32 states in the U.S. allow individuals without law degrees to serve as judges, particularly in lower-level courts. These positions can include magistrates, justices of the peace, county judges, and municipal judges, depending on the state. The cases they can handle, their jurisdiction, is defined in the states law but in many cases they can handle criminal cases (misdemeanor or felony) and they can also handle civil cases and the amount up to which they can handle in these is defined in the states law but some states allow up to $10,000.00.

The amount of these judges in states vary. For example, in North Carolina 80% of magistrates do not have law degrees and in South Carolina 75% of magistrates do not have law degrees.

But its a ‘mixed bag’ kind of thing for what they can handle and how much they can do. For example, in New Mexico judges without law degrees can hold preliminary hearings for felonies where the rules of evidence apply and decide if a felony was probably committed – but preliminary is as far as it goes for them – but some judges in Mississippi without law degrees can go as far as imposing a fine or (very limited time) confinement or both for certain low class but non-violent felonies.

But yes, overall, there are judges without law degrees and some can do criminal felony cases, and in some jurisdictions non-lawyer non-law degree judges may adjudicate cases involving firearms. But overall, on average (nation wide) the kinds of cases they handle involve civil disputes, misdemeanor cases, felony arraignments (and some types of felony cases), initial court appearances for serious crimes, protective orders, search warrant applications.

And then in states where a law degree is required there may be exceptions for certain courts, where specific statutes may allow for alternative qualifications. For example; In Michigan there are such exemptions from having a law degree for Michigan’s district courts, which handle lesser offenses, civil claims under $25,000, and preliminary matters for higher courts where there is an alternative qualification of having ‘substantial legal experience’ but a JD and experience as a lawyer is not required. Another exception is for Michigan’s probate courts, which oversee estates, guardianships, and certain mental health proceedings where a JD and experience as a lawyer is not required but exception qualification is the judge-person must demonstrate “good moral character” and “suitability” for the position.

There are literally judges and ‘lay judges’ (‘Justice of the Peace’) without law degrees all over the country, adjudicating civil and criminal cases (misdemeanor and felony), and you never knew this with practicing in dozens of states for decades when 32 states, over half the country, allowing these without law degrees? I’m confused, how could you not know this?