Started By
Message
re: What percentage doubt would cause you to acquit?
Posted on 8/29/16 at 1:41 pm to Old Sarge
Posted on 8/29/16 at 1:41 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
We all voted to let a guy off on a shoplifting charge because the cameras didn't show his face clearly, just the color shirt and his height and skin color. There was other evidence that all pointed to him
Had it been a murder or rape case I guarantee you we all would have voted to prosecute.
That makes no goddam sense.
Hearing most juror's thought process is one of the most terrifying things ever. I've sat in a mock trial as a juror once and I couldn't believe how people "reasoned."
2
Posted on 8/29/16 at 2:01 pm to Jon Ham
That's exactly why there are 12 jurors and a verdict has to be unanimous.
Posted on 8/29/16 at 2:08 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
That's exactly why there are 12 jurors and a verdict has to be unanimous.
How does the saying goes? "Your life is decided by 12 people that are too dumb to get out of jury duty."
Posted on 8/29/16 at 2:09 pm to Jon Ham
It makes perfect sense.
It was a grand jury deciding what would be prosecuted and what wouldn't. It was clear and we all knew the guy was the shoplifter but felt it wasn't worth the taxpayers money to attempt to prosecute without a clear shot of his face.
Had the stakes been higher than some ribs and beer from Walmart we absolutely would have billed it and let the prosecutor try to make his case in front of a jury/judge.
It was a grand jury deciding what would be prosecuted and what wouldn't. It was clear and we all knew the guy was the shoplifter but felt it wasn't worth the taxpayers money to attempt to prosecute without a clear shot of his face.
Had the stakes been higher than some ribs and beer from Walmart we absolutely would have billed it and let the prosecutor try to make his case in front of a jury/judge.
Posted on 8/29/16 at 2:15 pm to Old Sarge
I wish I could get a chance to do that once. They never let me on a jury after I get summoned, probably because there is a lot of drug crime around me and I am clear I refuse to go along with a guilty verdict for a drug crime.
Posted on 8/29/16 at 2:24 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
It was a grand jury deciding what would be prosecuted and what wouldn't. It was clear and we all knew the guy was the shoplifter but felt it wasn't worth the taxpayers money to attempt to prosecute without a clear shot of his face.
Had the stakes been higher than some ribs and beer from Walmart we absolutely would have billed it and let the prosecutor try to make his case in front of a jury/judge.
Gotchya. Yall made a decision based on what's the best use of government resources instead of whether the burden of proof was met.
This post was edited on 8/29/16 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 8/29/16 at 2:33 pm to UFFan
16%
jk
you can't assign percentages to these things. It's case by case.
jk
you can't assign percentages to these things. It's case by case.
Posted on 8/29/16 at 2:41 pm to Jon Ham
A grand jury's job isnt to decide whether or not anyone is guilty or innocent. It's job is to decide if there is enough evidence or cause to justify prosecution.
Posted on 8/29/16 at 4:29 pm to UFFan
I don't think you can attach a percentage to it, and I don't think most jurors look at it that way. At least I hope not. If you're certain he is guilty, you vote "guilty". If not, you vote "not guilty".
Posted on 8/29/16 at 4:36 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
"Your life is decided by 12 people that are too dumb to get out of jury duty."
frick you and the horse you rode in on.
I've been summoned at least a dozen times and was always rejected, I suppose because I had a law-and-order look. The last time I actually got picked, this time I reckon because I'm now an old fart and appear harmless. I've never tried to get out of it and honestly anybody who does should not be allowed to vote. I view this the same as I do tax-cheats. Either contribute to our society or get the hell out.
Posted on 8/29/16 at 4:42 pm to UFFan
depends on what we are talking about and how long they are going to prison. It also depends on who the defendant is
Posted on 8/30/16 at 9:00 am to UFFan
Id convict someone just based on their looks
Posted on 8/30/16 at 12:25 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
"Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt. "It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they canot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
For me, it would have to be at least 75% of he didn't do it, or I am sending his arse to a 6x6.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 12:44 pm to UFFan
Posted on 8/30/16 at 12:47 pm to UFFan
It is better for a 100 guilty men to be set free than one innocence person locked up.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 7:06 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
Gotchya. Yall made a decision based on what's the best use of government resources instead of whether the burden of proof was met.
Not only that, the jury can, through "jury nullification", declare someone not guilty if they think the law is unjust. This should probably be used more often. Judges and prosecutors don't want jurors to know that this is their right as jurors.
Posted on 8/30/16 at 7:15 pm to UFFan
100% or I vote to acquit.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 1:43 pm to UFFan
In Georgia, at least, the judge instructs the jury on reasonable doubt saying basically that it is the doubt of a fair minded, impartial juror, honestly seeking the truth.
The instruction further says that the State does not have to prove the defendant guilty beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty.
So it is definitely not 100%.
The instruction further says that the State does not have to prove the defendant guilty beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty.
So it is definitely not 100%.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 8:56 pm to UFFan
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the evidence is not clear and solid, then you have to acquit. So, if there is ANY doubt at all, you should not say guilty.
Posted on 9/2/16 at 12:56 am to UFFan
If a sound argument is presented, and there are no logical fallacies involved, I would be likely to believe reasonable doubt exists.
I'm not talking Richard Kimble, one-armed man stuff. I'm saying, if there are procedural issues; if logical leads are not investigated; if there is a problem with motive or opportunity -- then I could see myself having doubts.
The first two things I would look at would be the classics: motive & opportunity. Would have to establish both soundly, backed with compelling evidence.
If I had an inkling that shoddy police work took place, then I would have serious reservations. After all, it's their job to collect, handle, and catalogue evidence properly. If they don't, that's a big ding. This is their job, and if officers can't do it effectively, they have no business wearing a badge. And the onus is not on the jurors to connect the dots. You can't blame them because someone in law enforcement drops the ball. Wouldn't feel guilty about it, either. If the DA or investigation unit doesn't do their jobs effectively, and I get any sense of mishandling or ineptitude, then I would probably start to have reservations about voting guilty.
I'm not talking Richard Kimble, one-armed man stuff. I'm saying, if there are procedural issues; if logical leads are not investigated; if there is a problem with motive or opportunity -- then I could see myself having doubts.
The first two things I would look at would be the classics: motive & opportunity. Would have to establish both soundly, backed with compelling evidence.
If I had an inkling that shoddy police work took place, then I would have serious reservations. After all, it's their job to collect, handle, and catalogue evidence properly. If they don't, that's a big ding. This is their job, and if officers can't do it effectively, they have no business wearing a badge. And the onus is not on the jurors to connect the dots. You can't blame them because someone in law enforcement drops the ball. Wouldn't feel guilty about it, either. If the DA or investigation unit doesn't do their jobs effectively, and I get any sense of mishandling or ineptitude, then I would probably start to have reservations about voting guilty.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News