In a case such as this, I'm inclined to say that's nearly definitionally impossible.
A jury may follow proper procedure in reaching their verdict and not decide consistant with the facts.
In a case such as this, I'm inclined to say that's nearly definitionally impossible.
I'm a little curious, how many rounds of appeal do you think the taxpayers should fund? Would this be for all defendants, or only the "special" ones?
A jury may follow proper procedure in reaching their verdict and not decide consistant with the facts.
I'm a little curious, how many rounds of appeal do you think the taxpayers should fund? Would this be for all defendants, or only the "special" ones?
How many appeals should the tax payers fund if it is Zimmerman convicted? OR if it ever should be you?
The facts are not at dispute, now are they? You and ProShooter can declare the decision "inconsistent with the facts" until you're blue in the face; your declaration carries no authority whatsoever, whereas the jury is literally the one entity with said authority.
That's how it works. It's a touch ironic that the very same individual who so many times implied I wished to convict the man without a trial should have difficulty accepting this simple truth.
Should have known the apologists would pitch a fit. I guarantee you we wouldn't have impugned the jury's decision, had the verdict come out for complete acquittal. I would have had plenty to gripe about, but it wouldn't have been the jury.
That's not really true marshaul. We don't know all the facts yet and there was at least one fact that was not allowed to be presented. That's the blood evidence on the window and the DNA evidence from inside the car.
The facts are not at dispute, now are they? You and ProShooter can declare the decision "inconsistent with the facts" until you're blue in the face; your declaration carries no authority whatsoever, whereas the jury is literally the one entity with said authority.
That's how it works. It's a touch ironic that the very same individual who so many times implied I wished to convict the man without a trial should have difficulty accepting this simple truth.
Should have known the apologists would pitch a fit. I guarantee you we wouldn't have impugned the jury's decision, had the verdict come out for complete acquittal. I would have had plenty to gripe about, but it wouldn't have been the jury.
I stated a fact that is neither for or against. You would imply that I have taken a position via those words and it is decidedly not so.
Sentencing delayed over possible concerns with the verdict. Possibility of a mistrial!
http://news.fredericksburg.com/news...dict-yet-in-trial-of-culpeper-police-officer/
UPDATE: The sentencing of a former Culpeper police officer convicted in the shooting death of an unarmed woman has been delayed today because of a question about how the jury reached its verdict.
After the jury found Daniel Harmon–Wright guilty of manslaughter Tuesday, court officials discovered two dictionaries and a thesaurus in the jury room. At least one of the dictionaries was bookmarked to a page bearing the definition of the word “murder.”
Judge Susan Whitlock had earlier told the jurors they must use only the instructions she gave them to decide the case.
The judge met with attorneys for both sides this morning and again around noon to decide how to proceed. She plans to call jurors in one by one this afternoon to question them about the books and whether they had an impact on the jury’s decision.
Depending on the answers, the judge could possibly declare a mistrial.
Sentencing delayed over possible concerns with the verdict. Possibility of a mistrial!
http://news.fredericksburg.com/news...dict-yet-in-trial-of-culpeper-police-officer/
UPDATE: The sentencing of a former Culpeper police officer convicted in the shooting death of an unarmed woman has been delayed today because of a question about how the jury reached its verdict.
After the jury found Daniel Harmon–Wright guilty of manslaughter Tuesday, court officials discovered two dictionaries and a thesaurus in the jury room. At least one of the dictionaries was bookmarked to a page bearing the definition of the word “murder.”
If all you were doing was "stating a fact" neither for nor against, then you needn't have bothered, as I included the word "nearly" to account for the odd exception. However, assuming proper procedure is followed, I stand by my statement: if the facts are not in dispute, and the jury acts objectively, then their determination is definitionally correct. Therefore, I disagree with your putative assertion of "fact", and I question its motives.
The article has been updated again, including this:Sentencing delayed over possible concerns with the verdict. Possibility of a mistrial!
http://news.fredericksburg.com/news...dict-yet-in-trial-of-culpeper-police-officer/
Just the concept that a dictionary and thesaurus being present in a jury room would be possible grounds for a mistrial is in my view absurd. It's like saying a juror is unqualified because he has too large a vocabulary.
The dictionary definition(s) and the Code of Virginia definition(s) are not necessarily the same. The judge intends to get to the bottom of whether her instructions were followed or not. I cannot find fault with that.
Waiting for the judge's decision re: jury instruction etc.
Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that jurors ought follow when deciding a case. Jury instructions are given to the jury by the jury instructor, who usually reads them aloud to the jury. They are often the subject of discussion of the case, how they will decide who is guilty, and are given by the judge in order to make sure their interests are represented and nothing prejudicial is said.
....
In California, jury instructions were simplified to make them easier for jurors to understand. The courts moved cautiously because, although verdicts are rarely overturned due to jury instructions in civil court, this is not the case in criminal court. For example, the old instructions on burden of proof in civil cases read:[SUP][5][/SUP]
Preponderance of the evidence means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the evidence on either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the party who had the burden of proving it.The new instructions read:
When I tell you that a party must prove something, I mean that the party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is trying to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is sometimes referred to as 'the burden of proof.'
It's not "proof" like in mathamatics where 2+2 = 4 or it does not. It's more like which version you "feel" was more likely to be what happened.