decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Now that you Perry Mason wannabees are don't can we get back to the point. | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Now that you Perry Mason wannabees are don't can we get back to the point.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 12:21 AM EDT
That what I thought my last post was about. All these Perry
Mason wanabees who didn't pay attention in civics class
debating double jeopardy.

I simply brought up double jeopardy as an analogy. In a
trial with judge bribing or jury tampering the person can be
retried because his actions meant that he was never in "real
jeopardy".

Deference should be given to any "real jury", ie one that
takes its job seriously and makes every effort to come to a
good verdict, and not do things like come to the trial drunk
. But one thing that this trial has pointed out ( through
all my reading on juror misconduct ) is just how much
deference is given to a group of people we call a jury.

The question I pointed out is should we ( as a society )
allow judges more powers to investigate a jury to see that
it is a "real jury".

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )