- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I just served on a jury for the first time.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 5/15/24 at 5:07 pm
It was a very tiring job. One reason it was so tiring is because I felt the need to hear every word. My experience was that i was hyper focused. I picked up on how the judge reacted, who was in the courtroom and the behavior of the defendant. I was focused on everything going on.
All of that to say I think it’s a bad strategy for Trump to have politicians parading into the courtroom every session of court.
One argument the defense has made is that he was trying to protect his family and this trial has nothing to do with politics. Putting myself in the shoes of the jurors, I think i would recognize some of the politicians in the crowd and i know i would recognize any family member.
My trial was about a big hospital vs. a medium income family. I was very aware of the guys with the suits on sitting in the audience on the hospitals side, vs. the average citizen family people sitting on the other side. I kept reminding myself that the only thing that mattered was the facts and the law.
So, the double message i’m seeing is the defense saying this isn’t about politics and yet there are politicians and no family in the court every day. I know a juror shouldn’t be swayed by that but jurors are humans.
If done well, being a juror is a very sobering, hard and yet honorable duty.
All of that to say I think it’s a bad strategy for Trump to have politicians parading into the courtroom every session of court.
One argument the defense has made is that he was trying to protect his family and this trial has nothing to do with politics. Putting myself in the shoes of the jurors, I think i would recognize some of the politicians in the crowd and i know i would recognize any family member.
My trial was about a big hospital vs. a medium income family. I was very aware of the guys with the suits on sitting in the audience on the hospitals side, vs. the average citizen family people sitting on the other side. I kept reminding myself that the only thing that mattered was the facts and the law.
So, the double message i’m seeing is the defense saying this isn’t about politics and yet there are politicians and no family in the court every day. I know a juror shouldn’t be swayed by that but jurors are humans.
If done well, being a juror is a very sobering, hard and yet honorable duty.
11
Posted on 5/15/24 at 5:13 pm to NorthTiger
quote:
the double message i’m seeing is the defense saying this isn’t about politics and yet there are politicians and no family in the court every day
Are you talking about Trump?
Because team Trump is saying that this trial is about nothing but politics.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 5:16 pm to NorthTiger
quote:
My trial was about a big hospital vs. a medium income family. I was very aware of the guys with the suits on sitting in the audience on the hospitals side, vs. the average citizen family people sitting on the other side. I kept reminding myself that the only thing that mattered was the facts and the law.
Civil trial?
Posted on 5/15/24 at 5:33 pm to NorthTiger
Are you retarded? The defense has said from day one this is about NOTHING BUT POLITICS. Those Republicans are showing up in response to the judge silencing only Trump. He can do that. It's wrong but he still can do that. And they can do what they are doing and saying for Trump what Trump can't. It's brilliant and every day they get in front of those cameras you idiots are getting more and more nervous.
You thought if you stopped him from campaigning you could control the narrative with lawfare.
Cry more bitches.
You thought if you stopped him from campaigning you could control the narrative with lawfare.
Cry more bitches.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 5:38 pm to NorthTiger
So it's okay for Democrats to use politics to force someone in a election interference case to court, but Republicans in Congress are not able to show up to be a witness?
Gotcha.
That was your first mistake being a juror and that getting in your head.
That tells me you let things get to you other than the truth.
Gotcha.
quote:
Putting myself in the shoes of the jurors, I think i would recognize some of the politicians in the crowd and i know i would recognize any family member.
That was your first mistake being a juror and that getting in your head.
That tells me you let things get to you other than the truth.
This post was edited on 5/15/24 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 5/15/24 at 5:40 pm to NorthTiger
I was on a jury for second degree murder that lasted over a week. I never looked in gallery. I never really looked at the defendant either. I watched the witnesses and attorneys.
My job requires me to testify in court a handful of times a year. I never look at the gallery then either.
I’m just posting this to say that everyone in the jury is different. Just because you were paying attention to things going on in the gallery doesn’t mean others are.
My job requires me to testify in court a handful of times a year. I never look at the gallery then either.
I’m just posting this to say that everyone in the jury is different. Just because you were paying attention to things going on in the gallery doesn’t mean others are.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 5:58 pm to NorthTiger
I hope you had the balls to stick it to the hospital.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 6:17 pm to BamaScoop
quote:
I hope you had the balls to stick it to the hospital
The first time we voted me and 7 other jurors voted to find the hospital negligent. We needed one more vote.
We talked for 10 minutes, nothing substantive was said except the minister in the room said he was changing his vote from guilty to not guilty.
We took a second vote and the next vote was 1-11 with me being the only one who thought the hospital was guilty.
I asked what just happened to change the mind of 6 other jurors. Nobody said a word. So, I only assume everybody changed their vote when the minster said he was changing his vote. That and maybe everyone just wanted to go home. After all, we had been deliberating for a full 25 minutes.
Someone asked me if i wanted to change my vote to make it unanimous. I said hell no.
As for my comments, I’m saying that Trumps lawyers are saying that he didn’t make an alleged payment to tamper with the election. That’s what i mean when i say “political reasons”.
The point is there is no trial unless alleged campaign finance laws are being violated. So, I would have a hint of politics in the court room.
Also, I was laser focused when the attorneys and witnesses were talking. During side bars I didn’t stare down the defendant or the people in the gallery but i can’t say i never looked at either.
Besides, the defendant (a nurse for the hospital) was a basket case once she got on the witness stand.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 7:07 pm to NorthTiger
All trial attorneys know that juries see everything
And we also know that most jurors take their responsibility very seriously.
Jury duty seems pointless to most people. But it’s been my experience that once selected-jurors get serious and want to make sure they follow the law.
All I can say is that I hope the judge in making some disastrous evidentiary rulings - doesn’t make the jury focus on the wrong thing.
All that said, i agree With you with one thing. I think That if Melania would testify for the defense I think it would be over for the prosecution, and not just on appeal.
Melania is a class act, and old school. I think the comparison btwn her and Stormy would put the last nail in Bragg’s
Coffin.
If the defense doesn’t call her - I think it’s a missed opportunity. They could win without her by getting a hung jury, but I think her testifying about how mortified she was about the untrue shite Stormy was saying about her marriage, would result in an acquittal.
My back seat driving / Monday morning quarterbacking / only ever tried civil cases / but definitely had juries find my clients did nothing wrong - 2 cents.
This case isn’t about humanizing Trump. It’s about humanizing Melania - who is the actual victim of Stormy and Cohen’s bullshite.
And we also know that most jurors take their responsibility very seriously.
Jury duty seems pointless to most people. But it’s been my experience that once selected-jurors get serious and want to make sure they follow the law.
All I can say is that I hope the judge in making some disastrous evidentiary rulings - doesn’t make the jury focus on the wrong thing.
All that said, i agree With you with one thing. I think That if Melania would testify for the defense I think it would be over for the prosecution, and not just on appeal.
Melania is a class act, and old school. I think the comparison btwn her and Stormy would put the last nail in Bragg’s
Coffin.
If the defense doesn’t call her - I think it’s a missed opportunity. They could win without her by getting a hung jury, but I think her testifying about how mortified she was about the untrue shite Stormy was saying about her marriage, would result in an acquittal.
My back seat driving / Monday morning quarterbacking / only ever tried civil cases / but definitely had juries find my clients did nothing wrong - 2 cents.
This case isn’t about humanizing Trump. It’s about humanizing Melania - who is the actual victim of Stormy and Cohen’s bullshite.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 7:49 pm to NorthTiger
I feel like you’re not supposed to share all this info lol
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:08 pm to BamaScoop
quote:
I hope you had the balls to stick it to the hospital.
Says someone who doesn't know a single thing about the case.
I hope he was fair and objective.
And I hope you never serve on a jury.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:16 pm to NorthTiger
quote:
The first time we voted me and 7 other jurors voted to find the hospital negligent. We needed one more vote.
We talked for 10 minutes, nothing substantive was said except the minister in the room said he was changing his vote from guilty to not guilty.
We took a second vote and the next vote was 1-11 with me being the only one who thought the hospital was guilty.
I asked what just happened to change the mind of 6 other jurors. Nobody said a word. So, I only assume everybody changed their vote when the minster said he was changing his vote. That and maybe everyone just wanted to go home. After all, we had been deliberating for a full 25 minutes.
Someone asked me if i wanted to change my vote to make it unanimous. I said hell no.
I believe that the FF made a mistake by declaring a jury trial an inalienable right.
I don't believe that anything can be an inalienable right that requires compelling someone else's labor in order for you to exercise it.
And that's reason #1 that I am a proponent of professional juries.
Your quoted post above is reason #2.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 9:57 pm to NorthTiger
I’ve never made it to a jury. Get struck by one side or the other after no more than a few questions.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 10:18 pm to Wednesday
quote:
but I think her testifying about how mortified she was about the untrue shite Stormy was saying about her marriage, would result in an acquittal.
Posted on 5/15/24 at 10:21 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Because team Trump is saying that this trial is about nothing but politics
The actions in question do the case can not be about politics.
The case can be a highly politicized attack.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 12:42 am to Wednesday
quote:Have you by chance never seen the semi-nude pictures Melania took for British GQ?
Melania is a class act, and old school. I think the comparison btwn her and Stormy would put the last nail in Bragg’s Coffin.
You seem to be generally lacking in real world experience.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:10 am to NorthTiger
quote:
big hospital vs. a medium income family.
How this became a thread about Trump's case, I am not clear.
I've only been called twice, and I wanted desperately to have the opportunity to be the logical/law abiding arse in the room. One pled out 90 seconds in, after we'd all sat there for almost two hours. The other asked for a continuance after we were read in, less than 2m into the judge taking the bench. I got $8 (which I donated to some BS "charity") for driving 40miles, but I'd do it again.
I won't mentioned who quoted this, but it's "the facts, the facts, the facts." I'm a robot, makes it easy.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:16 am to NorthTiger
Even CNN has admitted it is about politics. If you think this is a normal courtcase then you shouldn't be on a Jury. Democrats are using lawfare to try and hurt Donald Trump. To say anything different you are either a low information voter or have a severe case of TDS. God help us if there are people like you in the jury.
.
.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 1:25 am to NorthTiger
If you actually keep up with the Trump courtcase. You would know that Trump's sleazy arse lawyer is the one who brought the entire thing to his attention not the other way around.(Kind of suspicious if you ask me) All you need to know about Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen is that they both hate Trump with all of their being and are willing to do or say anything to get revenge. The reasons that Trump had politicians at the Court House was to speak on Trumps behalf because the Judge violated Trumps 1st amendment.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 2:35 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
professional juries
oh no - hell no.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News