Article

2007-12-11 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-12-11 00:05|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 If we go by the report William Neal is a real piece of work.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2007-12-11 01:00|| 2007-12-11 01:00|| Front Page Top

#2 This isn't a bug, it's a feature. The ability of one person out of twelve to stop either acquittal or conviction forces the jury to slow down and ponder further, something most people don't want to do.

Most people will convict a person because they are ugly, and acquit a person because they are pretty.

Most people are swayed far more by lawyer razzle dazzle than by evidence.

But the bottom line is people lamenting how they have to give up a few extra days, when their decision may put someone in prison for years. Yeah, bullying and being uncooperative isn't nice, but it's a heck of a lot better than putting someone in prison because of a bad complexion and being overweight.

Which happens a lot.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-12-11 07:33|| 2007-12-11 07:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Leftist grassroots movements will doubtless affect future trials in this manner. By indoctrinating potential jurors in views sympathetic to jihadists and other anti-American ideologues, they will be setting the stage for jury nullification on a wider scale in "politicized" cases.

Posted by Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-12-11 07:52|| 2007-12-11 07:52|| Front Page Top

#4 This isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Maybe, but lying during voi dire is not. When you are challenged by the prosecution and the defense, as allowed by the judge, on what you've experienced or what you believe, you must tell the truth. If during deliberations it becomes clear another member of the jury was untruthful, through commission or omission, in that part of the trial process, it's time to call the bailiff and let the judge know that a fraud was committed.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-12-11 08:17|| 2007-12-11 08:17|| Front Page Top

#5 Next thing you know they'll make a movie about it. Starring Henry Fonda, maybe.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-12-11 08:51|| 2007-12-11 08:51|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm thinking that about the time this Neal asshole said "fuck your opinion" was about the time he needed to be either taken off the jury or punched into the middle of next week. I'm for the latter option, myself.

Posted by Jomosing Bluetooth8431 2007-12-11 09:15|| 2007-12-11 09:15|| Front Page Top

#7 If this story is correct, the job of the prosecution in the retrial should focus more on the type of jurors and less on simplifying the evidence.

Posted by mhw">mhw 2007-12-11 13:08|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2007-12-11 13:08|| Front Page Top

#8 Today's jury system is nothing but theater anyway. Want real justice ? Then give IQ tests and pick only the smart for the jury, and don't allow the lawyers to have anything to do with jury picking.

Posted by wxjames 2007-12-11 14:08|| 2007-12-11 14:08|| Front Page Top

23:53 gorb
23:52 gorb
23:51 ryuge
23:42 twobyfour
23:36 www
23:33 gorb
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:22 McZoid
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:03 trailing wife
23:02 JosephMendiola
23:01 trailing wife
22:59 trailing wife
22:58 www
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:54 trailing wife
22:53 www
22:40 M. Murcek
22:39 RD
22:37 Phinater Thraviger
22:36 RD