|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 11:53 AM EST |
It would seem to me that if the answer is YES, then why bother
to present any evidence to begin with. Just let each side
tell their stories and then let the jury decide who wins
based on whatever they want.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 01:02 PM EST |
Well, that depends. Suppose a case involved an accident at an intersection,
and one of the jurors lives in that area and drives through that intersection
regularly so he has first-hand knowledge of it's layout. His first-hand
knowledge contradicts what the prosecution is claiming on a basic point (eg. the
prosecution is claiming there's a left-turn arrow at that intersection when
there isn't one and it's a "left turn yield on green" intersection), and the
defense hasn't brought that contradiction up. Is the jury required to ignore the
contradiction, or are they allowed (or obliged) to ask for visual confirmation
of the layout of the intersection and for the prosecution to explain any
discrepancies between the actual layout and the prosecution's claims? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ais523 on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 01:36 PM EST |
For people who haven't been following the case and don't want to follow the
link: the judge decided, based on the jury questions, that the jury didn't
understand what their role in the case was, and declared a mistrial. (That may
just have been because the jury said that they couldn't even agree on a 10:2
majority verdict, though.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 01:47 PM EST |
Vicky Pryce jury can
reach majority verdict, says judge | Law |
guardian.co.uk
A fuller version of all the questions that the, now
discharged, jury needed guidance as to matters of law.
Although some seem
trivial and obvious it does show good
faith and fullness/frankness of
discussions in their desire
to be fair in arriving at a judgement!
*It must
be remembered that this is a case (initially
about speeding by the politician,
now ex-husband - now
accepting guilt - caught by speed cameras) which requires
judgements about states of mind and changes in a married
relationship over
time have led to a case of national
interest. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:47 PM EST |
Based on the questions asked by the jury, I get the impression that the
jury
was totally confused. Exactly why they where confused I don't know.
Maybe
the Crown Attorney didn't explains things clearly. Maybe the
Defense Attorney
managed to obscure the issues.
But they are confused, so the judge
took the only available
action.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 11:39 AM EST |
There have been some who have voiced opinions about guilt without the accused
being given a chance to even have a trial, let alone voice their defense - the
Aaron Swartz situation comes immediately to mind with so many comments along the
lines:
The prosecution says he did, so he must be guilty!
An example of
"innocent until proven guilty" in the U.K. system is inherent in the Judges
response to one of the questions:
J: Does the
defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
Mr Justice Sweeney:
It’s for the prosecution to prove the case… There’s no burden on the defence to
prove anything.
In short:
If the prosecution fails to prove their case,
the defense is required to do nothing!
or to put another way:
If you're
not convinced the prosecution has proven their case, then the default verdict is
innocence!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 11:59 AM EST |
Yes, he can. I was the foreman of a jury in a child molestation case where one
juror was convinced that the defendant was framed, though the defense had put
forward no such claim, and no evidence was produced for that. He could not be
swayed, and we eventually told the judge we were hopelessly deadlocked.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 03:56 PM EST |
The verdict was a mistrial because of a hung jury. The Judge was commenting on
the seeming incomprehensibility of the juries questions.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|