- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Unanimous Juries- How ya votin and why?
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:11 am to LSURussian
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:11 am to LSURussian
You keep incorrectly asserting that I will profit from this passing while trotting out the same, incorrect, tired bullshite based on one poorly tried case from some nonspecific point in the past.
But you keep doing you
Eta: and what was my gotcha? I never asserted that any high number of DAs supported the measure. I simply refuted your assertion that none were.
But you keep doing you
Eta: and what was my gotcha? I never asserted that any high number of DAs supported the measure. I simply refuted your assertion that none were.
This post was edited on 10/27/18 at 11:13 am
2
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:15 am to NoSaint
quote:
I have no idea your specific group, so no shade towards you but that kind of sentiment always worries me in non-unanimous discussion.
I'm a lawyer too so I was just following the law. In a unanimous jurisdiction I would have sat there for days trying to get them to Murder 2 and I would have been a lot less nice about it.
We were on that trial for over a week. Wasn't my place to bring my personal feelings into the discussion to get a unanimous verdict. Everyone took their responsibility very seriously, the two manslaughter folks quite literally didn't know what they were talking about but it isn't an easy concept so I didn't hold it against them. Put another way, they had him guilty for murder 2 and didn't know it.
In my particular case, justice was served, though I still felt sick to my stomach that night when I went home.
This post was edited on 10/27/18 at 11:30 am
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:16 am to Joshjrn
Vote NO....It is a left wing attempt to put more criminals on the street.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:17 am to theenemy
quote:
But the jury is composed of "the people" and it is their power that is trying to be limited
It takes an impressive level of mental gymnastics to say that keeping two juror’s voices irrelevant is empowering “the people”. Again, a hung jury simply allows for a new trial. Requiring unanimous verdicts gives a voice to all of “the people” on the jury.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:18 am to russpot
quote:
Vote NO....It is a left wing attempt to put more criminals on the street.
Must be why the Republican Party has come out in support of the amendment
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:20 am to BRTigerDad
quote:
Holy shite you are putting the criminal who is now in the White House among our country's greatest Presidents??
Donald Trump's never been convicted of a crime, therefore not a criminal. I mean, when you signed the largest federal income tax cut in the last 30 years, repealed thousands of burdensome and costly federal regulations, successfully appointed two originalists to the Supreme Court, repealed the individual mandate, increased defense spending to make our military even more unstoppable than before, presided over phenomenal economic growth and ever-decreasing unemployment rates (lowest in recent history), made significant strides to peace regarding the Korean Peninsula, and basically rendered ISIS irrelevant on the international stage after only a couple of years, I'm not unreasonable in arguing you're among the greatest Presidents of all-time (unless you're a partisan hack, then you'll just dismiss this opinion regardless of its merit bc illogic's your approach).
quote:
Well, you do have the impeached Nixon in there too
1. Nixon resigned before impeachment ever took place
2. Nixon:
-ended America's involvement in the Vietnam War
-opened China
-achieved detente with the Russians
-enforced desegregation of Southern schools
-commenced the War on Cancer
-ended the military draft
-appointed a then-record amount of Article III judges, including 4 SC Justices all in his first term
-Mr. New Federalism-devolving power back to the states
Theres others that are too numerous to list but you get the general point I'm making
quote:
Trump's turn will be coming for that.
As long as I'm alive on this Earth, aint no way in hell that'll happen
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:26 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Must be why the Republican Party has come out in support of the amendment
Must be a George Soros conspiracy man! The leftists control Republicans now!!!!!
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:41 am to Joshjrn
I just dont see the 10-2 verdicts as that much of a problem.
To me this just will cost taxpayers more money to retry.
To me this just will cost taxpayers more money to retry.
This post was edited on 10/27/18 at 11:42 am
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:47 am to theenemy
quote:
To me this just will cost taxpayers more money to retry.
The state spends literally millions of dollars to try death penalty cases, defend mandatory juvenile LWOP at SCOTUS, and pay out wrongful imprisonment settlements, but heaven forbid we spend some absurdly small number to retry a few hung jury cases.
Conservatives are such great stewards of the public purse
Posted on 10/27/18 at 11:56 am to CoastTrashTiger
quote:
Personally with the way technological innovation, forensic science and how the gathering and collecting of evidence improves seemingly yearly. That has truly made it much "easier" IMO.
Completely disagree
Posted on 10/27/18 at 12:12 pm to Joshjrn
quote:Of course you would deny that, wouldn’t you?
You keep incorrectly asserting that I will profit from this passing
quote:The prosecution got the conviction and put a murderer in Angola. Have you ever accomplished anything close to that?
based on one poorly tried case
Keep protesting, Hamlet....
Posted on 10/27/18 at 12:19 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Of course you would deny that, wouldn’t you?
I would, because it’s not true. People tend to deny false assertions made against them.
quote:
The prosecution got the conviction and put a murderer in Angola. Have you ever accomplished anything close to that? Keep protesting, Hamlet....
Like I told you in the last thread, twenty year sentences generally aren’t served at LSP. And I have successfully defended people accused of murder, which is vastly more difficult to accomplish than stumbling arse backwards into a conviction on a slam dunk case after failing to enter your key piece of evidence.
And you understand that you’re misusing that quote, right?
This post was edited on 10/27/18 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 10/27/18 at 12:24 pm to BRTigerDad
quote:
Well, you do have the impeached Nixon in there too, so I guess you like Presidents who get impeached.
Apparently not, he left out Clinton.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 12:36 pm to Joshjrn
quote:The sentencing newspaper article literally said the defendant was remanded to Angola, you pompous, know-it-all a-hole. Typical lawyer trying to prove his self importance.
Like I told you in the last thread, twenty year sentences generally aren’t served at LSP.
quote:Would you prefer if I called you Queen Gertrude? You’re willfully obtuse.
And you understand that you’re misusing that quote, right?
Posted on 10/27/18 at 12:45 pm to LSURussian
quote:
The sentencing newspaper article literally said the defendant was remanded to Angola, you pompous, know-it-all a-hole. Typical lawyer trying to prove his self importance.
Because newspapers are never wrong. Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, anyone?
quote:
Would you prefer if I called you Queen Gertrude? You’re willfully obtuse.
I wasn’t saying you were misattributing it; I said you misused it. While I have no doubt that you’ll find a way to pretend as though you were right all along, that quote uses protest archaicly. The context was that she was, without prompting, claiming loudly, or “protesting” that she would never be unfaithful to her spouse. She wasn’t denying an accusation, which is what I have done in response to your bullshite on this thread.
But go ahead and spin away...
Posted on 10/27/18 at 12:55 pm to theenemy
quote:
What if it is based on unreasonable doubt?
Who decides what unreasonable doubt and why it should be disregarded?
A juror is picked because a court of law believes that person will be fair and impartial weighting the arguments of the state and the perp against each other.
If the juror has doubt, is it the judge's responsibility to shite on his opinion and overrule him?
Posted on 10/27/18 at 1:00 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
so many people are willing to cut the government slack in making it easier to convict in every single case
The logic of people who support 10-2 in this thread should scare you if you are ever on trial and completely reinforced my support for unanimous juries.
They want to make it easier to convict people but lose their shite when it's them as the perp and make it harder for the government to convict them.
The power and reach of the state should always be limited whenever possible and yes, that includes the justice system.
Posted on 10/27/18 at 1:08 pm to TigerDeBaiter
quote:
It’s stories like this that should make 10-2 the rule everywhere else. I don’t trust the retarded and partisan population to reason effectively anymore. Sadly.
Well, nobody wins every fight they're in and the government is always going to lose some. That's reality.
Why do you want to have the most powerful entity in existence, the government, to have an easier time of putting people in small concrete cells with steel bars and small 4 inch windows?
Posted on 10/27/18 at 1:10 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
The state spends literally millions of dollars to try death penalty cases, defend mandatory juvenile LWOP at SCOTUS, and pay out wrongful imprisonment settlements, but heaven forbid we spend some absurdly small number to retry a few hung jury cases
Does the state pay for it....or the parish?
I thought the parish footed the bill?
Posted on 10/27/18 at 1:16 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
"Because 48 other States do it" isn't a reason to do it, imo.
48 states is a pretty damn big sample size.
Aren't people arguing in this thread about how there's always going to be one or two jurors out of 12 that are just plain wrong?
Wouldn't that logic apply to 48 states opposed to Louisiana?
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News