beni hanna wrote:
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Krazy Ivan wrote:
Every sinlge person should have asked to be excused when the "can you be impartial" question was asked.....or at some point during the trial when they realized that they didn't know what words mean...
There was no way that anyone could have been impartial. Every single person has heard about this case for 3 years and whether they admit it or not they carried their bias with them.
I don't believe that. I truely think I can go into a trial like this and be completely impartial. I think a lot of people could.
Based on what I heard, I couldn't convict the guy and I hate his guts.
But you didn't hear it all unless you were there. Give the people a little credit. They had to sit there and take each piece of information they were given. There is no way we could have heard all that was said, who said it, how believable it was when they said it. It would be interesting if it were on tv and we could watch it ourselves, but it wasn't that way. TV, newspapers and blogs couldn't catch every detail if they tried.
Not that I'm a "professional juror" (dumbest fucking thought I've read around here in some time, btw - even considering the source), but from my one time as juror (and foreman, fwiw), I understand that exact statement so much more than before I served.
Cool story bro', and long story short, we sat in on a statutory rape trial (not as grisly as that sounds ... I think the guy was 19 and she was 16). Anyway, from moment one I assume this would be a 2' putt for the prosecution, but by the time it was over, I/we ultimately felt that the prosecution did a really piss-poor job at eliminating reasonable doubt about a number of points the judge instructed us on. Anyway, 12-0 not guilty.
Next day in the papers two things happen .... (a) we get torched for letting such an obvious dickbag off scot-free, and (b) we find out that the kid - whose defense lawyer must've done Herculean work on prepping this kid - had all the societal value of Polio, and had quite a history of being a fuckstick in many & various ways. None of that - not one whit - was allowed in the trial, and while I voted not guilty figuring the kid was probably guilty, I was quite convinced of it after reading a few newspaper paragraphs about him.
The point? The jurors can only rule what is set before them. AND, they can only rule on the points set before them by the presiding judge. I don't know if we'll ever get to read those jury instructions .... would that change an observer's take? It's possible. Point is, it's "obvious" to the rest of us, just like it's "obvious" what the puzzle is on Wheel of Fortune .... unless you're actually there, it's difficult to actually ascertain the situation as it really is.
Not trying to shit on the opinions, just sharing my story of why I'm not first to the line with most of you saying this is clearly a bullshit outcome, etc. I don't know that I ultimately agree with the outcome, but I just respectfully highlight the fact that what we see may have little resemblance to what they see - good, bad, or indifferent.
Anyway, I'll be glad to continue to see this guy and his dopey kid on
Storage Wars on A&E.
