I call bullshit. If some wacko decides to start shooting up the place and gets shot by the police, let that fucker die.
I think your attitude is great, and I’d love to help you out, but your first sentence arguably means that I can’t. Juries are not supposed to do outside research on either the facts or the law. While you may not be on an actual jury yet, it’s probably best if you let the judge explain that one to you if it is relevant to your case.
One other thing (not directed to egkelly): someone who is on a jury is a juror, not a jurist. A jurist is a judge, or (less commonly) a legal scholar.
Oh, by the way: Great reply, Jodi.
This has been a very educational thread.
One thing that I didn’t see mentioned, (or if it’s there, I missed it) is that jurors are human beings, and as such, are also motivated by emotions and feelings. It’s not hard to use theatrics and language and demonstrations to sway a jury just on the basis of emotions, and I think that any of the lawyers who have posted to this thread can back that up.
Robin
This is also something I’ve wondered about. I’ve often heard that the people on the jury must have formed no previous opinions about the case. This would pretty much exclude most people who regularly watch the news, read the papers, etc.
Maybe this is why they only need a 6th grade reading level?
Nobody should expect police or medics to risk their lives to get help to a wounded perpetrator. Once, however, he’s in police custody, the police officers are bound to get him in front of a judge.
flyhalf says:
Riiiiight. So perhaps the police should just have shot him properly instead of handcuffing him, saving everyone a lot of time and trouble ? In civilized countries - and I certainly count the US as one of those - perpetrators have the right to a trial, no ? In your post, you seem to favor expediency over justice, and that’s a piss-poor idea, to put it mildly.
S. Norman
First off: I did not read the entire court transcript, and as such, am making certain, possibly inaccurate assumptions.
During the live broadcasts, and in subsequent news stories over the next several days, it was reported that the police thought that there were 3, maybe 4 robbers. Assuming that they actually believed this, it was reasonable to keep the ambulance away until they were certain there was no more threat of random gunfire and car hijack. There has been nothing reported that I’ve seen that suggests that cops knew for certain there were only two robbers.
There were trial reports that expert testimony contridicted the defense postion that the robbers wounds were survivable had he recieved faster treatment.
But, Daniel is right, I was assuming that I had heard everything. And some deep part of me thinks that
Flyhalf is right.
** A question for Jodi**
In the link I posted, it the trial ended in mistrial with a 9-3 vote. What gives? I was on a civil case that ended in a good verdict with a 9-3 vote. What is the rule?
Spooge: yes some deep part of me thinks the asshole got what he deserves, too. But we have to TRY to overcome that part, especially if we were on that jury.
I was a moron on a jury once.
I just couldn’t get out of it. I even told the judge I never did well in school. But he said the luck of the draw is what makes this country great.
Nope. It makes it stupid. They had a bunch of blood test and paint tests and people who argued about who wore what color coat. I had to vote like I always do. I didn’t. They convicted him on 11-1 because I wouldn’t vote against a guy because I didn’t understand his case.
**
That was your mistake. Defense lawyers generally don’t want someone who will understand the evidence against their client. They want morons they can sway with emotion. If you had said to the judge “Your honor, I’d be studious, examine the evidence to the best of my ability, and discern the truth from the evidence presented.” and sounded at least half way intelligent, the defense would have tossed you.
Zev Steinhardt
SPOOJE asks:
I don’t know what gives, precisely because “the rule” varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The story says the jury “deadlocked” at 9 to 3, so the rule in that particular jurisdiction must have required at least 10 (or 11, or unanimous) for a “good” (i.e., binding) verdict. I don’t practice in California, though. In my jurisdiction, 9 to 3 would be a good verdict on a civil case for tort damages.
I was on a jury pool (last on the list, so I didn’t get picked) in a criminal case against the town shyster. Seems the guy accepted a sizable quantity of weed in exchange for his fee. IIRC, the first trial ended up in a mistrial because the state’s star witness proved unreliable. It was grand entertainment while it lasted and came close to restoring my faith in the justice system.
Just thought I’d share that 
Robin
Zev said,
I was on the jury in a very well publicized personal injury civil case. I have to admit it was not the best time for me to be on a jury. I really didn’t have the time, but my respect for the system wouldn’t allow me to lie or exaggerate during the selection process. I said pretty much what Zev says above, and I was accepted immediately with a huge smile by the plantiff, the defendant, and the judge. I had a tough time not losing my job, I worked nights and weekends, but I also had the most intensely interesting few weeks of my life.
My feeling is this: if you are a rational person, you owe a duty to your fellow Americans to add that rational presence to the often highly irrational interior of the jury room. And if you are a rational person, you will really enjoy the process, despite what you think.