The prosecution is supposed to present a case that convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is why you are not supposed to get outside information, you are supposed to base you opinion entirely on what is presented in court, that way, you don’t have to make that decision.
This case is a bit different, in that your key witness is rather impeccable, and important.
It really depends on what is said in the testimony. If Bob declares that he has knowledge of their guilt, well, that’s pretty good eyewitness testimony, people get convicted on that all the time. I would consider his credibility as a witness at least on par with a police officer’s.
If he does not testify to any direct knowledge, but only circumstantial evidence to their guilt, then it would be up to the state to make a more firm case. If he testifies that he used his super hearing and he heard them planning and executing their nefarious plans, and when he belatedly rescued Ashley, they were standing there holding instruments of torture, I would be inclined to take his word on it.
I am not sure that fruit of the poisoned tree would apply to tracking down fugitives, just to the evidence against them. I suppose you could say that testimony based on his super senses should not be considered, because he used them without a warrant, but even police can use that they heard screams from inside the house both as probable cuase to enter, and as evidence in court. If he overheard their torture and murder, then I would think that should be admissible.
If in the end, if I was not convinced by the evidence presented, both by the state and by his testimony, then I have the decision to make as to whether I should send people who I have reasonable doubts as to their guilt to jail, or jeopardize the future of the earth in losing Bob as our protector. As far as that goes, I’d stick with the rule of law. Unless Bob is immortal, we’ll be losing him at some point anyway, and even if he is, he has shown in this episode that he may choose not to be there for us when we need him, if he just doesn’t feel like it anymore.
As I understand the legal jury system, part of the premise is wrong. The jury is basically a lie detector, they are to weigh all the evidence and assign appropriate weights to the testimony. If the jurors feel that BOB X’s testimony should be weighted very heavily, that is their job. The fact that there is insufficient evidence besides the body language of BOB X to convict is no reason to let the scum go. BOB X is enough for every upstanding citizen of the galaxy. Given that, off to the penal colony go the bad guys. No nullification required, even in reverse.
Okay, so here’s how it boils down, for me at least:
As a fan of Law & Order and several other old Crime & Court-based TV shows, I think it’s important to point out that – if I even managed to be included in the jury (despite my best efforts) – my obligation is to make a decision regarding the defendants’ guilt or lack thereof to the charges. This lets **Senoy **off the hook because we’re not being asked to judge anyone. It also lets **Chronos **off the hook because we as jurors are not asked to decide on anything about Truth – that is the domain of religion whereas the court’s domain is the evaluation of certain presentations. We’re being asked to decide whether the prosecution or the defense has given a better presentation supporting their clients’ claims. This is quite an important issue here, but I’ll avoid digressing into the volumes of sociological studies full of analogizies like Court-as-Theater and Courtroom Drama. Suffice it to say that presentation is key. This also reinforces Quartz’ contribution: Has the case been proven or not proven?
Here again I feel we must focus on the rather limited scope of the task set before us. We are not asked to decide the defendants’ guilt or innocence – we all know the correct term isn’t “Innocents” but “Not Guilty” but, agaim we must realize our decision is only about the charges being tried. We might know from first-hand experience that the defendants have their own skyscraper full of Cray super-computers all dedicated to the full spectrum of cybercrime activities. However, we’re being asked to decide whether or not we believe these guys battered and murdered Ashley. More directly related, we, the jury, can’t even convict the guys for assault and brandishing a weapon, even though we can be pretty sure they waved a hot poker or knife in the lady’s face during their shenanigans. We have to decide on the charges, and if the only charges are Murder 1 and Torture then we’re not allowed to decide on Murder 2, Manslaughter, Running Red lights, or Jaywalking. [Pleading to lessor charges is haggled by the lawyers, and jeapordy for the crime is a whole different issue I won’t go into here.]
So if I’m strictly following the traditions of the courtroom dramas I’ve seen, then the situation is looking pretty bleak for the prosecution.
This is where the hypothetical seems to be giving me a break.
I point my fellow dopers to an ancient episode of Jack Klugman’s Quincy M.E. series in which our clever county coroner has failed to get out of jury duty and explains to a fellow juror that, so long as they are relevant to the case# the members of the jury are allowed to ask questions. In fact, when various friends have described their experiences on jury duty, I asked if they ever asked questions and was told each time that they were allowed to submit questions to the judge, who would decide whether or not to make the defense or prosecution provide an on-the-record answer. Therefore, being an especially attentive juror and noting the times and circumstances of BOB X becoming uncomfortable when stifling a forbidden response, I would submit to the court some carefully worded questions designed to allow – nay, force – BOB X to divulge what needs to be divulged. In many cases I’ve seen (on TV) this has often boiled down to a matter of one of the legal teams simply failing to follow up and counteract* the other team’s exhortation to “Please limit your response to yes or no, sir.”
Furthermore, even if the judge refuses to allow my questions, my understanding is that I’m evaluating the whole presentation – and that includes the attorneys’ actions, the judge’s recitation or stiffling of questions from the jurors$, et cetera. So, based on my overall impression of the case regarding the charges levied, including the speech, body language, and reputation of BOB X and the rest of the cast of performers, I’m still likely to vote “Guilty as Charged” or “Prosecution’s Case Proven” or whatever puts the culprits in prison.
But I’m one vote among many – plus the judge could nullify and retry if he doesn’t agree with our verdict. I think I’ve faithfully played my part and the system – which is where my loyalty lies – has had its chance to work.
—G! #That fellow juror later shows her misunderstanding of the protocol when she asks the defense attorney if he’s married. The contrast made the woman look stupid, but also highlighted the distinction between relevant and irrelevant questions from the jury.
*I’m reminded of a submission to Readers’ Digest’s Humor in the Courtooom feature:
At a civil trial in which a farmer was suing his neighbor for medical costs related to his tractor being overturned in a ditch after the neighbor’s stray horse dashed across the highway…
Defense attorney: Did you tell officer Sherman that you were fine?
Plaintiff: Well, yes–
Defense attorney: Thank you, that will be all.
Plaintiff’s attorney (later): Can you tell the court why you told officer Shermen that you were fine?
Plaintiff: Well, officer Sherman stopped when he saw my tractor in the ditch on its side. He looked and saw that I had hit Morgyn - the horse - and it was pretty badly injured, so he pulled out his gun and shot it; put Morgyn out of her misery. But his gun was still smoking when he walked over to me, saw me lying in the dirt next to my tractor and said, “Are you okay?” THAT’s why I said, “I’m fine, I’m fine!”
$Perhaps the judge has been bought off by the organization behind the defendants. Perhaps the judge is just biased or incompetent. Skald didn’t specify.