|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 01:04 AM EDT |
He has a right to free speech. Just suppose what he's saying here
is not what actually transpired inside the jury room...
I know, I know, he sounds like he really believes it. But given the
recent propensity for particularly California jurypersons to shoot
their mouth on prime time TV there seems plenty of room for
artistic license.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 01:12 AM EDT |
| ; [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 01:41 AM EDT |
Seems to be a dufus around who keeps quoting a single case US
vs Tanner, Wikipedia version. Aside from the fact that this
article cites Tanner which is not on point, ( I suspect he
dites it because he found it googling Tanner. ) the whole
article is on Alamaba State trials not federal trials.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:52 AM EDT |
It all just points out how flawed and ridiculous the law is.
Why have a jury at all? If the decisions are going to affect the public then we
should get to vote on it.
Case law is Tyrannical.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 03:36 AM EDT |
Slashdot is as usual, wrong.
Statements relating to the juror's mental process or state of
mind during deliberations are generally not admissible but if
there's good evidence that a juror committed misconduct
(intentionally or otherwise) before or during deliberations
then those statements are absolute admissible during a post-
trial motion or appeal.
Despite not being a qualified legal expert, and despite having
the relevant law right there in front of him, the foreman
stated how he would defend a patent that he is not qualified
to defend, as a material fact rather than a layman's opinion.
He misled the jury into thinking that he was an expert on the
subject matter when he was not and in the process he committed
a serious misstatement of the law.
Verdicts have been reversed or remanded for less
http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/contents/constitutional_issues/ju
ry_misconduct/JUROR%20MISSTATEMENTS%20OF%20LAW.pdf[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
