- 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
0
Posted on 3/30/19 at 2:50 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Obtuse1
Were you For or Against unanimous juries?
Posted on 3/30/19 at 2:55 pm to Obtuse1
the Selection of the jury took longer than the trial. Close to 2 weeks to pick the jury. Over a week for the trial. 2 guys stole a home air conditioner for the copper. Clearly guilty. But it was hard getting all 12 to agree so kind of compromised it to a lesser crime
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:01 pm to OweO
I think juries generally get things right, but sometimes racism, etc. can creep into their decision. Regardless, it is a lot better system than having a single “judge” decide your fate...
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:03 pm to OweO
No. The “jury of your peers” is really just a bunch of dumbasses
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:07 pm to Skin
quote:
Were you For or Against unanimous juries?
Unanimous for criminal trials but civil trials can be adjudicated properly without a unanimous requirement. That in my mind goes along with Blackstone's ratio and the differing burdens of proof.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:19 pm to Zendog
quote:
the Selection of the jury took longer than the trial. Close to 2 weeks to pick the jury. Over a week for the trial. 2 guys stole a home air conditioner for the copper. Clearly guilty. But it was hard getting all 12 to agree so kind of compromised it to a lesser crime
That was an outlier in voir dire time, some jury selections do take a week or more but almost always in things like capital cases and high value/complicated civil trials.
The shifting to guilty on a lesser crime is certainly something I have heard from jurors post-trial. It is not ideal but it is also pretty rare. The entire trial process sounds like an anomaly for a non-violent property crime that was not a multiple count indictment carrying a lot of time. Was it a third strike case by any chance?
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:23 pm to OweO
Answer depends on the average age and demographics of the jury in question.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:25 pm to OweO
Generally, no but I have to have faith that out of a larger group there will be a couple intelligent people that end up driving the critical thinking.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:29 pm to OweO
I believe there should be professional jurors. Educated in law, impartial, etc.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:31 pm to OweO
As long as you're not on it, yes.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:43 pm to OweO
Just watched a 20/20 about Raven Alboroa who was accused of murdering his pregnant wife. Strong circumstantial life sentence case that ended in a hung jury (11/12 guilty). Before his next trial he accepted an Alford plea and only served 8 years released in 2017. So what was the lone juror’s reason for preventing a life sentence? The juror felt Alboroa sounded sufficiently upset during his 911 call.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:45 pm to OweO
Think about how stupid the average person is and realize that half of them are stupider than that.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:48 pm to OweO
Depends on who presents the issues, how they are presented, and whether the proper evidentiary Rules are followed.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:48 pm to Zendog
quote:
No...and if you’ve ever sat on a jury you should agree
Sat on a Murder trial in New Orleans and have to disagree. I was pleasantly surprised how serious everyone took it.
I'm an attorney but don't do criminal. I still wonder how I got on that jury.
I will say the DNA testimony discussing the science behind it might as well be Spanish once you get past the identification testimony.
This post was edited on 3/30/19 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:50 pm to OweO
Always found it weird the people who don’t have confidence in a jury but also support the death penalty
Posted on 3/30/19 at 3:59 pm to Cold Drink
Yep, most people say jurors are idiots, but once some poor bastard gets convicted they are ready to fire up the ‘lectric chair.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 4:01 pm to VABuckeye
quote:
A jury of my peers? Maybe.
The problem is that the juries that exist are not my peers.
This is the answer
Posted on 3/30/19 at 4:04 pm to liz18lsu
quote:
I believe there should be professional jurors. Educated in law, impartial, etc.
First, there is no such thing as impartial. Second, it is unconstitutional. Third, in criminal cases, there is a conflict of interest. The list of issues goes on.
If you are going to do this you might as well go to a panel of judges instead but that would also require a constitutional overhaul of the jurisprudence system.
Posted on 3/30/19 at 4:32 pm to OweO
Think of how stupid the average person is and realize half are stupider.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News