View Single Post
Old 04-03-2015, 06:56 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Strictly speaking yes, he received a benefit. Not from the state's conduct per se, but because he got a lawyer for nothing as many would have to pay for such services.
Arranged by the DA.

You cannot be "entitled" to someone else's services. Second, there is no reasonable definition of "paid" that is as broad as "receiving a material benefit". By that logic, convicts are paid by the state for the food they eat and the bed they sleep in is "free" to them. Kids would be paid to go to public school because they get free books and transportation, and Starbucks pays it's customers because they offer free wifi. The fact is you are using the term to impugn the character and motives of the witness rather than trying to make an accurate statement.
I didn't realize I was going to have to get into a discussion about the meaning of the word pay, but, fine. Here's Miriam-Webster's definition:

Originally Posted by Miriam Webster
to make due return to for services rendered or property delivered
Your examples don't meet that definition because they aren't in compensation for a service rendered or property delivered. Jay's payment (the lawyer arranged by the DA) is - it was arranged in exchange for his testimony.

What are the undisputed facts of the case, and why do you think a jury would only base their opinions on undisputed facts? Think about that for a second. A trial is basically all about disputed "facts". That's why there is a trial.
Well, first, this isn't always true. The jury I served on considered two charges, and for one charge, there was no material dispute about the facts. The only question was whether or not it met the legal definition of assault. But secondly, perhaps you should go back and review the thread of conversation to this point. I simply never claimed that a jury should base their opinions only on undisputed facts. The only context in which I've used the phrase in this thread was in reference to your question as to why I dared to think I could second-guess the jury if I hadn't read the trial transcripts. I observed that we make decisions all the time on imperfect information, and threw it back to you as to what was, in your opinion, the minimum informational bar here. Here's what I said, which you basically didn't respond to (which is fine - we all pick and choose what we have time to respond to. I point this out only because in lieu of actually answering, you decided to lecture me about the purpose of trials, which was pretty off-point.)

Originally Posted by me
Look, if I wanted to straw man your position, I'd say you would feel that no one can make a judgment without perfect information. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you realize you have to make judgments all the time with imperfect data. So what's the minimum to have an opinion here? Is it reading the transcripts in their entirety? What about being briefed on the undisputed facts of the case? Not enough?
See - that part about undisputed facts? Nothing about the jury there..

Be honest, did you even know about the nurse or French teacher in this case, or Hae actively hiding from Adnan? If not, then maybe you should have some humility in realizing that at a bare minimum, you shouldn't rely on a podcast with a clear bias/agenda to form a definitive opinion. Or that if you are going to do so, you should be open to more information and less inclined to making definitive statements about what happened.
I'm open to more information. Do you actually believe you've provided any?

He was independently corroborated on a number of points:
Again, I never said he was wrong about everything, and I have no problem taking his story where there is independent corroboration. I do have a problem accepting his story where there isn't.