• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Culpeper shooting

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by ProShooter
I will say this - the jury got this one wrong.
:rolleyes:

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.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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?

Well, appeals are heard on merit. So if his department were paying or they had the insurance, they need to pay for any appeals the courts feel have merit.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
A jury may follow proper procedure in reaching their verdict and not decide consistant with the facts.

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.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
How many appeals should the tax payers fund if it is Zimmerman convicted? OR if it ever should be you?

Indeed.

If it is necessary to prosecute an individual, and an appeal is justified, then that appeal is every bit as necessary to the interests of justice as was the original prosecution. I would suggest to those concerned with the cost of criminal prosecution that there is plenty of money to be saved (and justice to be enhanced) in eliminating immoral and ineffective drug prohibitions. Look there before you worry about appeals.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.

That is certainly one item for appeal there.
The show may or may not be over yet but certainly not all the facts are out.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.

I've been wondering the reason that evidence was excluded.

I'd speculate, based on the verdict, that the conviction was due to the final five shots (I should think they would have declared it "malicious" and therefore murder if they didn't accept that, at least initially, he fired with some reason). Not to mention those were the shots which actually killed her.

I've said time and time again that, arm caught in the window or not, the "protecting the public" defense to justify that second round of five shots is A: an ex post facto lie, B: total bovine excrement, and C: a view of policing incompatible with a free society. If the jury agrees with me, his whole arm coming off in the windowsill wouldn't have changed their verdict. :lol:
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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 see no apologists here - that is branding as an attempt to discredit others. My response of "A jury may follow proper procedure in reaching their verdict and not decide consistant with the facts" was in direct reply to your "In a case such as this, I'm inclined to say that's nearly definitionally impossible."

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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Uh-oh

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.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.

Interesting.
A mistrial would give them another try and probably a change of venue.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.”

Maybe the "two dictionaries and a thesaurus" were planted; you know, like "evidence" and "throw-downs" -- just wondering.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.

It was no "bother" - it was by choice, my attempt to clarify.

Question "its" motives - you mean my motives. I'll ignore the insult in that. I doubt that there are many that walk as narrow a line as I do to avoid jumping to conclusions. Give me evidence of wrong doing and I will expose it as necessary.

Seems as though Judge Susan Whitlock has certain questions as to whether "proper procedure" was followed. She is not "assuming" anything.
 

BillB

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
200
Location
NOVA
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.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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/
The article has been updated again, including this:


Judge Susan Whitlock questioned each juror individually this afternoon. They told her the only words they looked up were malicious and malice. They said the jury forewoman brought the dictionary in because the jurors didn’t understand the judge’s instructions on those terms.

Some jurors in the murder trial said they voted for the lesser charge of manslaughter after reading those definitions.​

This is why I could not be a juror. We heard earlier that the jury asked for clarification on the instructions and the judge essentially said I already told you now keep going. If I'm to be responsible for deciding a defendant's fate, you can better well be sure I am going to get the information I require to make the proper decision, or I won't participate. I refuse to play games with a man's life, and the judge not providing this sort of information when requested makes it exactly that. This part of the system really disturbs me.

TFred
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.

Absolutely!

Jury instruction sheets are standardized to avoid judges putting his/her own prejudice into the decision.

If I'm not mistaken, in Va. both lawyers submit a set of standard instructions that they feel applicable and the judge selects one that the jury sees.

That's just from memory and may not be correct now.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Jurors are the arbiters of the facts presented. Some folks say they "try" the facts and determine which are true and which are not. But that is not what they are supposed to be doing, according to Model Jury Instructions. http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/cat...tail.jsp?pageName=relatedProducts&prodId=6572

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.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_instructions

Jury instructions can include "definitions" of specific crimes, a list of the elements necessary to "prove" the crime, or a list of crimes that the jury can pick from if they do not find the accused guilty of the crime charged but believe the accused committed some lesser included offense.

When juries go rogue and start thinking for themselves, the whole long piled up collection of case law is in danger of collapsing, leaving no more guidance for future cases. Or so the judges have been saying for a few hundred years.

But in this case, the concern is that the jury may have considered something that was not presented and argued during the trial. That deprives the defendant of an opportunity to impeach that material. Even the possible difference between what the judge, the CA and User agreed to tell the jury certain legal terms (such as murder, malicious, or malice) meant and what the jury later decided to accept as the meaning of any or all of those words was going to be during their deliberations, would deprive the defendant of the opportunity to counter any meaning that was, or could have been, prejudicial to convincing them the likelihood of what he said was true as opposedvto what the CA said being true.

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.

stay safe.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.

Sounds to me like you're talking about "preponderance of evidence", which as you know is the standard of proof for civil but not criminal trials.
 
Top