|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
Check page 103? of the transcript:
Question:
" NOW, MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE YOUR OWN VIEWS
16
17 ABOUT WHAT OUR LAWS SHOULD BE, BUT I JUST NEED TO
18 ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME WHETHER YOU WOULD ACCEPT THE
INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW THAT I GIVE YOU AND NOT
19
20 INSERT AND SUBSTITUTE YOUR OWN PERSONAL VIEWS OF
21 WHAT THE LAWS SHOULD BE. WHETHER YOU DISAGREE OR
22 DISAGREE WITH WHAT I TELL YOU THE LAW IS, WILL YOU
23 ACCEPT IT? IF YOU CANNOT DO THAT, WILL YOU PLEASE
24 RAISE YOUR HAND? "
No hands were raised.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
It also looks like neither side pursued the litigation
involvement question very well. He did answer it, but they
seemed to be happy with one admission.
All in all, though, Hogan's post trial, self proclaimed
behaviour as a jury member was in direct conflict with many
of the answers he gave to the Court's questions during jury
selection.
I believe that he lied to the Court, or more correctly, he
clearly broke the promises he made to the Court.
I guess that is OK these days.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
