The next time you get a summons for jury duty, don’t try to wiggle out of it. REPORT AND SERVE!
Regarding O.J., I think he probably did it. I think the jury thought he probably did it. But probably don’t cut it! Between the completely fucked up prosecution, the dire mistakes by prosecution witness’s, and the perjury of not one but two prosecution witness’s created a lot of reasonable doubt. And according to our law, guilt must be proven BEYOND that reasonable doubt. The jury did the right thing. You want to blame someone, start with Marcia Clark and work your way down.
Just for the record, in most states a judge CAN nullify a guilty verdict in a criminal trial in some cases.
Okey doke, Daniel, I just looked at my last paragraph. What’s your point, dude? Did you mean to say “hey xeno, ol’ buddy, look at the facts the way I see them”, or did you actually see something in my paragraph (perhaps in some sort of code that I was unaware of when I wrote it) that addressed whether the jury should’ve considered evidence that wasn’t presented to them? Or are you just really bad at sequential logic?
Actually, I do know what was presented to the jury. I also know, from interviews with jury members after the verdict, that they neither understood nor considered most of the mountain of circumstantial evidence presented against OJ. I also know that, after sitting in the jury box for months of an extremely complicated and convoluted trial, they took less time to consider their verdict than most people take to pick out a livingroom suite. Fuck them. They were tired of the trial and they took the easy way out. You think they did their civic duty by sitting through the trial? That was only half of their duty. They were supposed to actually pay attention and consider the evidence presented.
I believe that our system of jurisprudence works quite well when all persons involved take their civic duty seriously. I do not agree with the OP that some form of qualification is required, other than the attorney challenges which already exist. But in regards to the OJ jury, I stand by my assertion that they did not perform their duties conscientiously in that trial.
I believe that our system of jurisprudence works quite well when all persons involved take their civic duty seriously. I do not agree with the OP that some form of qualification is required, other than the attorney challenges which already exist. But in regards to the OJ jury, I stand by my assertion that they did not perform their duties conscientiously in that trial. **[/QUOTE]
What part of ‘reasonable doubt’ don’t you understand? The jury cannot, repeat CANNOT consider anything but the evidence they were presented with. And they were presented with a detective who mishandled evidence, a coroner who did not peform standard tests, a forensic technician who, at best, misrepresented what he did at the crime scene, and a detective who commited perjury. You cannot see where the jury found reasonable doubt?
Here is one I heard about–without even knowing any more of the facts, it makes me want to choke. A 911 dispatcher made a bad judgment call and didn’t give a high enough priority to a plea from a woman who thought her estranged husband might be planning to do her harm. Sure enough, the guy came over, broke down the door, and shot her dead, just as she feared. Cops got there too late. A horrible tragedy, and a real screw-up on the part of the dispatcher. Well, litigation ensued. The jury found, as I would have expected, that the 911 dispatcher was naughty. But get this: they determined that she was MORE THAN 50% responsible for the death. Uh, folks? What about the guy who loaded up the gun, broke her door down, and shot her? Maybe that guy was the primary reason she’s dead? Is that too much of a stretch!!!
Fuck you too, spooje. I completely understand “reasonable doubt”, you supercilious twit. Do you understand that the members of the jury HAVE STATED PUBLICLY that they did not bother to consider much of the evidence? That they were swayed emotionally by the arbitrary allegations made by the defense team without considering their relevance? Do you recall that they took under four hours to deliberate?
I can understand (but not agree with) a “not guilty” verdict in this case from a jury which considered the evidence and the arguments delivered by both sides. But we know from what they’ve told us that this jury did not! So you and Daniel can take your “reasonable doubt” moral high ground bullshit and shove it up your respective arses.
…held in the United States every day, the stupid results of some outweigh the justice applied in all the others. Yeah, some jurors are stupid, some don’t understand how people can be evil, some don’t understand people different from them…but what about the rest of us?
I served on my first jury last year–4 defendants busted for selling coke. The jury was a complete mix of colors, genders, salaries, intelligence, and life experience. The two black people on our jury didn’t trust the cop as far as they could throw him (the defendants were all hispanic; the black jurors just had different experiences with the cops than the rest of us). The banker didn’t understand how things worked in the inner city. Some of us didn’t understand drug terminology. But we worked it out. 2 guilty, 2 not guilty (one of the guilty guys skipped town just before the verdict came down; hope they found his ass). It took all day to deliberate and there was alot of misunderstandings and some anger. But we gave it the best we had and I think we reached the right verdict.
I didn’t try to dodge jury duty. I don’t think I’m a “fucking retard” because I couldn’t get out of jury duty. I’m glad I served. Who the hell would I be to rant about the system if I didn’t bother to serve in it?
And just because lawyers pick the jury, that doesn’t make prevent it from being impartial. Both sides pick the jury–not just one side. That’s why it’s impartial.
You must have seen a different show than the one I saw. It was on A&E called ‘O.J…What went wrong’ or some such nonsense. Anyway, they interviewed 6 of the jurors for the show, and they all seemed like rational intelligent folks while they described the proccess by which they arrived at their decision. They were regular folks, sequestered for 9 months,(NINE MONTHS) who saw evidence presented from BOTH sides. They explained, for reasons I mentioned earlier, that maybe the state’s case wasn’t that great, what with the perjury and incompetence and all.
Being the nice person I am, I will give these citizens, who sacrificed a lot, the benefit of the doubt as to their civic duty being performed.
Maybe you should view that program. I’m certain it is available form the A&E website. It made a pretty compelling argument. Just a thought.
spooje, I’ll take a look at that program, if I can find it. I’ve only seen print reports of interviews with jury members (if this were GD I’d look for references).
I also apologize for my tone with you. (I guess I’m riding my own “high horse” sometimes.) -Although, this being the 'Pit, I’m not too apologetic!
The main problem I have with this particular jury is that they seemingly made no active efforts to understand the forensic evidence, or to objectively consider the relevance of the defense’s assertions of conspiracy and racism.
I don’t say that it is an easy thing to sit jury on a murder trial. But I think the minimum civic requirement is open consideration of all testimony and argument. And I think it’s pretty clear that this jury did not want to take that trouble.
Additional sites: The McDonald’s Coffee Case
Notes: “The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body.” (When I spilled just-boiled water on myself in junior high, I only received second-degree burns.)
Also
By the way, in the OJ case, Mark Furman ruined almost the entire case. Then there was that glove-fitting exhbition. Those two pieces of evidence were not in the civil trial, of which OJ was found liable for the deaths.
To Kat: Quote: “Ms. Lieback tried to lift the lid of the cup of coffee off while she held the cup between her knees and accidentally spilled the liquid on her thighs and genital area - the burns were immediate, painful, and serious.”
Therein lies the liability. Don’t fucking hold cups between knees to open them.
As I said in another topic. Don’t think this case has anything to do with justice. It doesn’t have anything to do with the temperature of the coffeee. It has to do with the fact that McDonalds has a lot of money. You think the lawyers would have bothered if the coffee was bought from a coffee stand?
The temperature of the coffee was irrelevant. McDonalds was sued because it had a lot of money, and that’s the fact, Jack.
I don’t know–do you know of any coffee stands that have been sued 700 times for severe burns caused by serving their coffee about 40 degrees hotter than other coffee stands?
Yes, thank you. I will take time to read them. However, I do still believe that people love to point the finger and make other people responsible for their mistakes. If the coffee was so dangerous to people’s flesh, then how do millions of other people drink it with ease. I dunno, this kind of gets off the OP anyway. Gotta go, I have some reading to do… thanks Kat
