Or Bud Cort?
Backed up by William Hung and the Hung Jury, or course.
I’m not saying they are. But that’s not the standard here. If the jury thinks the defense might be right, and the prosecution might also be right… then the correct vote is acquittal.
Even if the jury thinks the defense is probably wrong, and the prosecution is more likely to be right… the correct vote is for acquittal.
In order for the jury to vote for conviction, they must be convinced that there’s no reasonable way for the defense to possibly be right: that they have no reasonable doubt in their minds about the issue at all. The evidence must exclude all reasonable hypotheses other than guilt.
Ah, yes. You’re perfectly willing to declare, perforce, that the man is 100% unquestionably guilty, willing to substitute your judgement for the judgement of at least five people who have heard the testimony, watched the faces of the witnesses, and were in prime position to judge their credibility and have taken oaths to do so to the best of their ability… but I’m the one who’s arrogant. Gotcha.
Sure. There’s no chance the limo driver is mistaken, embellishing, or outright lying. Zero.
Listen, princess, I know you’re so perfect your shit doesn’t stink. I realize that instead of farting your ass toots little sections of Pachelbel’s Canon in D Major. But in spite of your legendary perfection, perhaps there’s a slight chance that your absolute certainty is misplaced here? Just a teeny, itsy, bitsy chance?
A Jury: The only animal on earth with 12 assholes and no brain.
Not for free, unless someone else who has paid for it decides to publish it or distribute it (which might not even be legal; not sure exactly what rights the court reporter has in that regard).
You could certainly contact the court reporter directly and order a copy. If he or she has already done the transcript, then you’d only be paying for a copy, which I imagine would cost you just a few hundred (perhaps a few thousand – I have no idea how many pages of testimony there are) dollars. If there has not yet been a transcript made, then you really don’t want to know what it would cost.
Pricing aside, however, I think that as long as the hearing is a matter of public record, the court reporter will provide a transcript to anyone who requests it.
The judge is sending them back with additional explanation of the jury instructions. He is NOT offering them a lesser charge to consider.
I sort of knew that. I was expecting more on the line of what you thought actually happened the night in question given the testimony of all witnesses. I, of course, know that neither of our opinions can be more informed than that of the jury, but as long as we are free to voice our own opinion, go ahead. Do you think he did it?
Yup. If I had to bet on “yes” or “no,” even money payoff, I’d place a large bet on “Yes.”
The most complete coverage you’re going to find is here,
CMC fnord!
Do you agree with what I posted here ?
I think the problem is that the prosecution had an all or nothing approach that didn’t sit well with the jury. I speculate that the jury would more easily convict of a lesser charge. This based on my extensive knowledge of the US law acquired watching reruns of Law and Order. No need to thank me for my insight. 
:rolleyes:
Spoken like someone who has never served on a jury.
We’re sorta even, because I’d place a smaller bet on “maybe not.” This despite my initial assumption of his guilt based on his past behavior. The guy’s a crazy motherfucker but, based on my own ill-informed interpretation of the forensic evidence (you can see some on Court TV’s site) and the reputations of the professionals testifying about it, there’s a very real possibility he’s innocent. Whodathunkit? 
It’s a doubled-edged sword. If the prosecution charges a lesser offense, the jury may take it instead of the higher offense, or they may take it instead of acquitting or deadlocking. They roll the dice, based on what they think the facts will support.
Indeed there is, and this is where the question I just answered differs from the question the jury faces.
If I think there’s, say, a 3 in 4 chance he did it, then I should easily place my bet on “Yes, he did it,” and get paid out at even money. But only a 3 in 4 chance he did it is NOT sufficient for the jury to come back with a guilty. They can’t go on, “most probably;” they need to be convinced there’s just no reasonable scenario other than “Yes, he did it.”
Several instructions I’ve received (IANAL but I sat through much of law school and I’ve served on juries) do not use the words “Beyond a reasonable doubt”. Instead it is expressed as “Beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt”. This seems to be a better shorthand for what Bricker is explaining.
In California, the reasonable doubt language for juries appears to be set in case-law stone; People v. Freeman, 882 P.2d 249 (1994), and seems to have been codified in CALJIC No. 2.90:
I welcome correction or expansion of the point by someone more familiar with California law than I.
And it works better if your rich and famous.
Which is why we need the jury to decide the bet. There’s no way in hell I’m paying up because there’s a 3 in 4 chance he did it!
One other reason I’m leaning toward innocence is that it is assumed by both sides that the barrel of the gun was in Clarkson’s mouth when it was fired. Sure, Spector loves waving guns around because it makes him feel big, but I can’t recall him even attempting to shove one in someone’s mouth. And since I can remember no cases where a murderer shoved a gun in someone’s mouth but lots when suicides did, that causes me to lean toward innocence, too.
My feeling is that, if Spector is innocent, as I believe, he is fortunate to be able to afford a first-class defense because, without it, he’d’ve been railroaded. The sad thing is not that the rich can afford to be guilty but that the poor cannot afford to be innocent.
I take it you have been one of the assholes?
I’ve served on juries. I’m not surprised you haven’t, because the douchebags are generally weeded out during voir dire.