 Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 25590 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:02:53 PM
@ carmium - sorry you got a boring trial. My last time on jury was a sex trail! WooHoo! All puns aside, it was a hung jury. |
|
 carmium
Female, 50-59, Canada
4029 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:47:13 PM
When I was chosen, the prosecutor AND defense both told us this guy who knifed his roomie to death in the tub was nuts and shouldn't got to jail. He was a medical student from Poland, and in the jury room we wondered if he wouldn't know just how to act nuts, but we did what we were told and rubber-stamped the decision. Why it even came to trial is beyond me. |
|
 chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
1474 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:07:53 PM
@turdburglar
The standard has never been "beyond a shadow of a doubt" except sometimes in death penalty cases. The legal standard in all criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable
doubt".
@psychoti
Shot an unarmed man 7 times? Even after he was down? Incompetent defense or not, sounds like he got what he deserved. |
|
 Andrew155
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
1052 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:55:33 PM
I made 40 dollars last time I did Jury duty. |
|
psychoti
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
162 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:41:44 PM
I had jury duty earlier this year for a murder case. They did not ask us a question along these lines, and that makes me question if the prosecution had any sort of case for the one Tyson got summoned.
In the case I served as juror on the defendant tried to claim self-defense when he shot an unarmed man to death (7 times, at least one of which while the victim was on the ground prone and he stood over him) but the defense was woefully incompetent. He was convicted of murder in the first degree and plans to appeal. I sincerely hope he gets a new defense attorney because that trial just didn't seem fair. |
|
Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
25590 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:00:30 PM
@ turd - it's the jury screening process. Both sides get to eliminate Xnumber of jurors from the pool. Obviously a prosecutor would not want someone who was swayed only with fact. |
|
 turdburglar
Male, 30-39, Western US
1784 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:39:26 PM
I've never served jury duty. They would hate me. I would need some solid evidence to convict.
What ever happened to "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? It seems they convict people all the time without solid evidence. Why did they send him and the others home? If the prosecutor doesn't get a guilty vote they just send them home? |
|
Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
25590 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:22:32 PM
I like jury duty, but no, eyewitness testimony is completely unrealiable. It's been proven over and over, but it's good for emotionally swaying a jury when a prosecutor doesn't have facts. |
|
 fancylad
Male, 30-39, Western US
2512 Posts
|
Thursday, December 06, 2012 7:49:13 PM
Link: Neil deGrasse Tyson Beats The Legal System! [Pic] [Rate Link] - Is there anything this man can't do? Let's just let him run in 2016--someone give him a party. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}