08-09-2015, 03:33 AM
Thread Rating:
7 felonies for passing out jury nullification fliers
|
08-09-2015, 09:01 AM
(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.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
08-09-2015, 10:26 AM
(08-09-2015, 03:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan 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.
08-09-2015, 10:31 AM
(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.
08-09-2015, 11:22 AM
(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. 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.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
08-09-2015, 11:28 AM
(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.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
08-09-2015, 11:48 AM
(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. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-09-2015, 01:11 PM
(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.
08-09-2015, 01:26 PM
(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.
08-09-2015, 01:27 PM
08-09-2015, 04:44 PM
(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? Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-09-2015, 05:04 PM
(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.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
08-09-2015, 05:22 PM
(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. Ask the jurors. Or would you like to remove that phrase of "reasonable doubt" from the legal system? Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-09-2015, 05:26 PM
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. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-09-2015, 05:34 PM
(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.
08-09-2015, 05:45 PM
(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. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-09-2015, 07:14 PM
(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.
08-10-2015, 01:14 AM
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.
08-10-2015, 09:50 AM
(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. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)