Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Should any idiot be allowed to be on a jury?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Qtec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,962

    Should any idiot be allowed to be on a jury?

    Lately, I've been watching vids about miscarriages of justice in the US. There was a great doc on PBS about the Norfolk Four. You have to see it to believe it. Crooked cops, sloppy investigation topped off by forced confessions. Its a classic on how NOT to run an investigation.

    Watch it.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...e-confessions/

    Incredible, but the amazing thing is, how could the jury buy the prosecution's story? Backed up by no evidence at al!!!!!!!.

    Q
    Remarkable.You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean,that's a remarkable thing to do



  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,800
    This iz the usofa.
    Nothing in the usofa iz incredible.
    Nothing in the usofa iz amazing.
    mac.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    How could the jury buy the prosecution's story? Maybe it was the only one put before them? I.e., the defense had an incompetent or overworked public defender who didn't raise the proper questions as to the prosecution case?

    I don't think the jury should be expected to figure out why a misleading or deliberately false prosecution case based on forced confessions is flawed. They are going to be misled, shown false information with the claim it is true, and forced confessions they don't know to be forced. It's only as of when a competent defense attorney raises the issues against the state's case that they can then make an informed decision.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,800
    Let me guess, white cops, white raypee, white judge, white defense, black raypists.
    GUILTY.
    mac.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Qtec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,962
    How could the jury buy the prosecution's story?.....I don't think the jury should be expected to figure out why a misleading or deliberately false prosecution case based on forced confessions is flawed.
    Granted, but how can you sentence someone to life imprisonment on the basis of "some guy says" and be true to the concept of reasonable doubt?


    Look, I hear what you are saying and I agree. In a perfect world, or even a civilised world, these people would never have been brought to trial because there was absolutely no evidence to connect them with the crime.

    The real crime is this.

    EVEN after they caught the guy who done it and confessed that he did it alone, they STILL went ahead with the prosecutions and sent innocent men to jail for 13 years, just to avoid admitting their own incompetence!

    Its good to know that the Cop who got these confessions, is now in prison doing 12 years for corruption! lets hope he is somebody's bitch.





    Q
    Last edited by Qtec; 01-23-2013 at 11:48 AM.
    Remarkable.You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean,that's a remarkable thing to do



  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    Under the Brady rule, from the '63 SCOTUS case of that name, prosecutors were (then newly) required to disclose possibly exculpatory evidence UPON DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL'S REQUEST. (Before that they were not under compulsion to do so, and may routinely not done so.) Later rulings require them to do so even without counsel's request. However, the prosecutors are not compelled to independently check the police-held evidence themselves, and are allowed to rely on whatever the police disclose or do not disclose. (Hint: a massive loophole in the otherwise mandated disclosure, obviously.)

    So with withheld Brady evidence, a jury might see only the 'he's probably guilty' evidence, and not ever see the 'hey, this means he didn't do it!' evidence. And the disclosure is to the defendant's counsel, who must then recognize its significance, and argue it effectively to the jury, for them to know of it and see it properly.

    If the police decide to not reveal someone else confessed, neither the prosecutors nor the defendant's attorney can bring this to the jury's attention until and unless that information is disclosed by an insider.

    Then there was the time the FBI decided to cause the FBI crime lab to falsely report apparently incriminating test results to frame some for the murders of their own inside man in the Boston mafia (to better keep that man in place for their own purposes).

    Juries will always be forced to rely on police reporting and prosecutors' reliability, AND the competence of defense counsel, well before their own possible errors of discernment come into play.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    How could the jury buy the prosecution's story? Maybe it was the only one put before them?
    That's funny being that snoopy and yourself are chewing the bowl of the spoon off seeing who can accept the spoon fed side that left presents to you.

    I don't claim to be an expert on ths, but several appeals have failed.

    I wonder why?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    The appeal was mooted by the passage of more than a year. A technicality.

    Danial Williams

    Williams filed a federal habeas corpus petition in U.S. District Court in January 2010; he alleges that he is innocent and that his parole violates due process. The commonwealth is seeking to have the entire petition dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations for habeas, and that innocence is not valid grounds for granting a writ of habeas corpus.
    I didn't read the link before responding in a general way. Now that I have, the key evidence left on the record through incompetent counsel's failure to move to suppress it were coerced CONFESSIONS to the crime. VERY CONVINCING to a jury, especially one that never heard of the coercion. About what I said a priori about how these things tend to work.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Qtec View Post
    Should any idiot be allowed to be on a jury?

    Q
    Trial attorneys don't want just any idiot on the jury, they want very special idiots.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Qtec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,962
    I don't claim to be an expert on ths, but several appeals have failed.

    I wonder why?
    This is not uncommon. Once you are in jail its very difficult to get out, even when you can prove you are innocent.
    If you have confessed to a crime under coercion you didn't commit, you only chance is to be found innocent at your trial. If you get a guilty verdict, you are FKD.

    Watch the video. The Norfolk 4 case bears striking similarities to the central Park 5 case. Five 14 yr old black kids confessed to raping a jogger in central park. They were also innocent!

    You have two crimes where at least 9 people have confessed to committing , when later it has been proven they were innocent. ie the confessions were false.

    In both cases, the ONLY evidence that linked them to the crime were statements from the other accused.

    The main reason they stayed in prison was because of a corrupt justice system that sticks together no matter what. Rather 4 guys serve life in prison than they be exposed as corrupt or incompetent.

    Q
    Remarkable.You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean,that's a remarkable thing to do



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •