View Single Post
  #432  
Old 04-04-2015, 05:28 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Arranged by the DA.
It wasn't arranged by the DA. That's what you keep missing. Yes, he asked her to meet with him, but there was no exchange, cooperation, agreement, or payment made that made the actions taken by the DA illicit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I didn't realize I was going to have to get into a discussion about the meaning of the word pay, but, fine.
None of those definitions fit. Even the closest approximation that he was given a free lawyer in return for his services is false because he was not given a lawyer, and said law services were not in return for his testimony. In fact, the plea deal his lawyer signed could be withdrawn by either party at any time, or for his failure to truthfully testify. Your attempt to make this transactional notwithstanding, there is no definition of pay that fits here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Your examples don't meet that definition because they aren't in compensation for a service rendered or property delivered.
First, you are moving the goalposts. Your initial claim was that that someone receiving a benefit was "paid", which is absurd and clearly inflammatory. But fine, you want to change you standards that's fine. Is it fair to imply the jury is biased because they are literally paid by the state? What about the judge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Jay's payment (the lawyer arranged by the DA) is - it was arranged in exchange for his testimony.
No, it wasn't arranged in exchange for his testimony. How do you know this? Look at the documentation on the plea agreement or consider the fact that if Jay decided not to testify, his lawyer would not have quit? In fact, his lawyer advised him and recommended the the reporter from The Intercept who did his recent interview. She wasn't paid in either case, and neither was Jay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
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.
You are being needlessly obtuse here. If the disagreement is whether something is actually assault, then it's in dispute. The state alleges this is a fact, the defense says it isn't. That is the dispute. Obviously not every fact is in dispute. Facts like the name of the defendant, and basic background stuff all the way up to "what happened" may or may not be in dispute technically speaking. The issue is that the jury is there to deal with disputed facts (eg. is X assault in this case).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
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.)
I did respond. Here is what I said: What are the undisputed facts of the case, and why do you think a jury would only base their opinions on undisputed facts? The first part is a direct question to you. The second part is relevant given you are impugning the jury's verdict. Now to specifically answer your initial question, yes, I think reading the transcripts and having an idea of what was actually said at trial is a bare minimum before one lashes out at the jury for their "failure".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I'm open to more information. Do you actually believe you've provided any?
I have, but I will make this easy for you. Go here, look on the side for the court docs. Read them or at least read the cliff notes about what was said and done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
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.
Yes, but one is a function of the other. His credibility is based in part on his info being verifiable in other contexts. Regardless, Adnan would have likely been convicted without Jay ever opening his mouth.