7 felonies for passing out jury nullification fliers

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2015, 12:05 AM)6andcounting Wrote: We do allow jury nullification and no murderer has ever gotten off because one of the jurors decided it was okay.

OK, it wasn't one member of the jury...

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2015, 12:05 AM)6andcounting Wrote: We do allow jury nullification and no murderer has ever gotten off because one of the jurors decided it was okay.

It's not so much allow as it is there is no recourse. You can't hold jurors accountable for their vote, and you can't retry if there is an acquittal. I believe a judge can overrule a conviction, but I have to believe it's almost unheard of.

[6andcounting]

(08-09-2015, 03:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

OK, it wasn't one member of the jury...

They didn't nullify 1st degree murder murder, they said the evidence didn't prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and believed the investigation was at least partially corrupted by racism.

[6andcounting]

(08-09-2015, 09:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not so much allow as it is there is no recourse. You can't hold jurors accountable for their vote, and you can't retry if there is an acquittal. I believe a judge can overrule a conviction, but I have to believe it's almost unheard of.

I think in most cases a hung jury ends up as a retrial, so if there's one rogue juror votes not guilty the prosecution can still decide to retry the case.

It wouldn't be much of a justice system if jurors voted based on fear of being prosecuted themselves.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2015, 10:31 AM)6andcounting Wrote: I think in most cases a hung jury ends up as a retrial, so if there's one rogue juror votes not guilty the prosecution can still decide to retry the case.

It wouldn't be much of a justice system if jurors voted based on fear of being prosecuted themselves.

Oh with one juror it's definitely a retrial. I was talking a whole jury. And I agree that jurors should never have to answer for their decisions.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2015, 10:26 AM)6andcounting Wrote: They didn't nullify 1st degree murder murder, they said the evidence didn't prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and believed the investigation was at least partially corrupted by racism.

They are free to say what they like, but no rational person could come to the conclusion there was reasonable doubt.

[GMDino]

(08-09-2015, 11:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They are free to say what they like, but no rational person could come to the conclusion there was reasonable doubt.

And that's the beauty of our legal system.

I've always said if I ever had to have a jury trial I don't want a jury of my peers...I want a jury of well read, smart people.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2015, 11:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They are free to say what they like, but no rational person could come to the conclusion there was reasonable doubt.

The lead prosecutor, Furman, was proven to be a liar.

That pretty much sank the whole case.  No matter how strong the rest of the evidnece was, if the lead prosecutor is aproven liar you can have reasonable doubt.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2015, 10:26 AM)6andcounting Wrote: They didn't nullify 1st degree murder murder, they said the evidence didn't prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and believed the investigation was at least partially corrupted by racism.

Semantics.  The evidence was overwhelming that OJ killed Brown and Goldman. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2015, 01:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The lead prosecutor, Furman, was proven to be a liar.

That pretty much sank the whole case.  No matter how strong the rest of the evidnece was, if the lead prosecutor is aproven liar you can have reasonable doubt.

Lead detective.  Also, what did he lie about?

[GMDino]

(08-09-2015, 01:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Semantics.  The evidence was overwhelming that OJ killed Brown and Goldman. 

Yep.  And there was enough doubt entered to get him off.  Or are you for "overwhelming evidence" replacing the current system we have?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-09-2015, 04:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  And there was enough doubt entered to get him off.  Or are you for "overwhelming evidence" replacing the current system we have?

Where was the doubt? His blood was at the scene. Furman got a vial of OJs blood in his car? Her blood at his house. You gonna plant evidence at someone's house when for all you know he was shooting lions in Zimbabwe at the time? There was zero evidence that any police officer did anything illegal.

And overwhelming evidence would be as high or a higher standard.

[GMDino]

(08-09-2015, 05:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Where was the doubt?  His blood was at the scene.  Furman got a vial of OJs blood in his car?  Her blood at his house.  You gonna plant evidence at someone's house when for all you know he was shooting lions in Zimbabwe at the time?  There was zero evidence that any police officer did anything illegal.  

And overwhelming evidence would be as high or a higher standard.

Ask the jurors.

Or would you like to remove that phrase of "reasonable doubt" from the legal system?

[GMDino]

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/06/12/321392845/the-jury-is-still-out-on-why-o-j-simpson-was-acquitted

Quote:Virtually as soon as the "not guilty" was pronounced, there were calls to reform the jury system, sometimes in more euphemistic language, sometimes, as with the radio host, in a pretty unvarnished manner.

Because, the reasoning went, Simpson was "let go" because there were nine black jurors and Simpson himself was black.

In any justice system, people can be both guilty and railroaded."

But that's faulty reasoning, says Patricia Williams. She teaches at Columbia Law School, and some of her classes deal with the intersection or race and the law. She thought the prosecution did, in her words, a "wretched" job of presenting its case.

"Those who really didn't appreciate the degree to which the prosecution failed in its burden of proof wanted a conviction, no matter what," Williams says.

The collection of evidence and the chain of custody of the evidence could logically be seen to have been compromised. The addition of a key witness (Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman) who perjured himself in open court, all left room for reasonable doubt, many jurors said in post-verdict interviews.

That still didn't stop calls for "better juries" and fewer "downtown juries" (code for black/brown/not highly educated juror pools).

...

"You have to recall," says Johnson, who also serves as director of UVA's Center for the Study of Race and Law, "that this trial took place about three years after the Rodney King trial, so you can't look at the OJ Simpson trial in isolation."

The outrage that followed the "not guilty" verdict in the trial of four LAPD officers who were accused of beating Rodney King was preceded by the same verdict for a Korean grocer who'd killed a 15 year old she suspected of shoplifting. After almost a week of rioting, the city was still rebuilding when the Simpson trial began.

Jurors, Johnson says, did not see Simpson as a fellow black. Simpson's celebrity, his wealth, his purposeful distance from much of the black community did not engender sympathy for his plight. But the fact that the process used in building a case against him seemed to be tainted? That struck a cord for many, including Johnson.

"I grew up in LA," he says. "I went to high school in LA and law school in LA, and I was stopped at least five times when I lived in LA for no other reason than driving while black."

Johnson believes that following the trial, police procedure has become more transparent, and more careful.

If a more inclusive net for jury service and more careful evidence collection were positive by-products of the Simpson trial, there was one big negative.

Loyola's Laurie Levenson says when presiding judge Lance Ito made the decision to allow cameras in his courtroom for the Simpson trial, he was proud of the American criminal justice system, and saw no reason not to show how it worked. Millions of interested people would be able to watch legal history being made.

Instead, they saw a legal soap opera, as both sides played to the camera in what became a mesmerizing episode of legal theater. "They focused on all the wrong things," laments Patricia Williams. "Marcia Clark's hair, the Dream Team's matching ties — all that was distracting from the very serious things that were going on in court."

The trial participants had become famous to the point of parody, a beloved punch line both during and after the trial. (Remember the Dancing Itos?)

Not everyone was amused.

"After that," says Levenson, "Many judges said 'no camera in my courtroom!'" When asked to reconsider, "Literally, they used to say 'I don't want to be Ito'd."

So, Levenson says, one of the concrete changes that came after the Simpson trial "was the change in the rules that govern when we have cameras in the courtroom. And now it's absolutely up to the discretion of that trial judge."

And because that's the case, more judges opt to leave the cameras off.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-09-2015, 04:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  And there was enough doubt entered to get him off.  Or are you for "overwhelming evidence" replacing the current system we have?

First of all I didn't us the term "overwhelming evidence" as some sort of legal standard of proof.  There was no reasonable doubt in that case.  The prosecution did a horrible job, this can't be denied.  There were mistakes by by the LAPD, this can't be denied.  Even with those of those factors the evidence was way past the reasonable doubt burden of proof.  What this case was is a great example of how bullshit lawyer obfuscation can turn a trial into something other than its intended purpose.

[GMDino]

(08-09-2015, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First of all I didn't us the term "overwhelming evidence" as some sort of legal standard of proof.  There was no reasonable doubt in that case.  The prosecution did a horrible job, this can't be denied.  There were mistakes by by the LAPD, this can't be denied.  Even with those of those factors the evidence was way past the reasonable doubt burden of proof.  What this case was is a great example of how bullshit lawyer obfuscation can turn a trial into something other than its intended purpose.

And, again, that's our legal system.  I'm sure Lucy would agree that if you can't afford a better lawyer tough luck.

[6andcounting]

(08-09-2015, 11:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They are free to say what they like, but no rational person could come to the conclusion there was reasonable doubt.

I'm not saying I agree with their verdict. I'm saying they voted not guilty because they were hung up on the size of a glove and racism, not because they believe murder is a victim crime.

[fredtoast]

In thre Simpson case there were serious questions about the chain of custody of the blood samples. Then when the guy who collected the blood samples got caught lying on the stand about racial issues there was reasonable doubt.

The only people who claim it was impossible to find reasonable doubt took everything Furman said as being 100% true.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-10-2015, 01:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: In thre Simpson case there were serious questions about the chain of custody of the blood samples.  Then when the guy who collected the blood samples got caught lying on the stand about racial issues there was reasonable doubt.

IIRC the issues with the blood is they were collected and stored improperly.  The questions were largely about whether an accurate sample could have been gathered given the mistakes made.  That said, even with all the screw ups the blood samples still came back as an exact match for Simpson.  It's statistically impossible that the blood at the scene belonged to anyone but OJ.

Quote:The only people who claim it was impossible to find reasonable doubt took everything Furman said as being 100% true.

As opposed to what, the LAPD instantly deciding within an hour of the crime being reported that it would be both cool and fun to frame OJ?  Hey guys I just happen to have a spare leather glove, lets soak it in blood.  Then we'll go frame one of the most beloved black celebrities, one who is a huge friend to the LAPD, and why?  Because I've said the N word in private so of course.  I thought Simpson was sunk when he got caught lying about owning an uncommon pair of expensive shoes, shoes that left footprints at the scene, that OJ was photographed wearing and that were mysteriously never found.  In any other case against almost any other person the evidence in this case gets you life without parole.