or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 401

post #6001 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Lol, I have been struck as a preemptory as a juror 7 times. Seems they don't wasn't a defense attorney in the jury box.

Funny thing was, I was still doing criminal defense work at the time, and they left me on anyway. Not sure if the prosecutor was stupid or just lazy/impatient.

When you're a trial lawyer, being on a jury is a weird experience. I had to keep reminding myself that I needed to vote based on the evidence, not as a way of grading the attorneys' performances (which would have been a wash anyway, since they were both pretty weak).
post #6002 of 6250
If he/she was like any prosecutor I've ever known he/she was probably drunk or high.
post #6003 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

If he/she was like any prosecutor I've ever known he/she was probably drunk or high.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
post #6004 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I assume you mean give paraphrased answers rather than just reading back the testimony? That would be a bit weird.

Letting jurors take demonstrative exhibits into the jury room is not that unusual, although I agree with you that it really shouldn't happen (at least I infer that's your view). It happened in a case where I served as a juror. Although I generally tried to avoid getting into the position of explaining the law to the other jurors, I had to argue vigorously with one moronic woman who basically believed (or at least argued) that because the prosecution's demonstrative showed a little blue stick figure policeman doing X, and a little red stick figure bad guy doing Y, we had to accept that as evidence of what actually happened.

Paraphrased answers would be completely out of the question, at least in my state. I'm not so sure about transcribed testimony, but I tend to think it could be error, since the court isn't supposed to comment on specific evidence in its instructions and answers to jury questions are regarded as supplemental instructions. Hell, most of the judges 'round these parts won't even let jurors take notes.

I know theoretically the court can (and maybe even should) give supplemental instructions on the law, and it gets a deferential review of it in theory; but in practice it seems to generate enough reversals that courts I'm familiar with just don't do it.
post #6005 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Paraphrased answers would be completely out of the question, at least in my state. I'm not so sure about transcribed testimony, but I tend to think it could be error, since the court isn't supposed to comment on specific evidence in its instructions and answers to jury questions are regarded as supplemental instructions. Hell, most of the judges 'round these parts won't even let jurors take notes.

I know theoretically the court can (and maybe even should) give supplemental instructions on the law, and it gets a deferential review of it in theory; but in practice it seems to generate enough reversals that courts I'm familiar with just don't do it.

Interesting. In California, readbacks are permitted and common. It makes sense to me. I would argue that it's not so much commenting on the evidence as providing the actual evidence to the jurors, much like letting them take a piece of physical evidence into the jury room and examine it. But obviously, the rules may be different where you are.
post #6006 of 6250
This space reserved for sober post.
post #6007 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

This space reserved for sober post.

You'll understand if we don't hold our collective breath. cheers.gif
post #6008 of 6250
Juror says the vote was 9-3 in favor of a murder conviction. Interestingly the initial vote was 10-2.
post #6009 of 6250
One of the black jurors came out and said she thought the shooting was in self-defense. She also said she wanted to convict Dunn of second-degree murder anyway.

I'd like to take this moment to thank the MSM and its Trayvon debacle for making so many people into idiots.
post #6010 of 6250
Can a predisposition (prejudice - in literal sense, not connotative sense) enhance a finding of premeditation ? Jus asking. Can an utterance of not liking "that" music, evidence a predisposition and suggest that premeditation developed more rapidly in my mind than in a clearly generic altercation (without the prejudice)? Jus asking with my hoodie on.
post #6011 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lantern View Post

Can a predisposition (prejudice - in literal sense, not connotative sense) enhance a finding of premeditation ? Jus asking. Can an utterance of not liking "that" music, evidence a predisposition and suggest that premeditation developed more rapidly in my mind than in a clearly generic altercation (without the prejudice)? Jus asking with my hoodie on.

No, because the prosecution has to prove that you did premeditate, not that you could have premeditated.
post #6012 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

No, because the prosecution has to prove that you did premeditate, not that you could have premeditated.

I think we all know what side of history you're on.

Ata: any links to that juror's statements? Based what you said it sounds like she said:

1) He's not guilty by self defense
2) I wanted to convict him of a crime anyway
post #6013 of 6250
I read a summary of it on CNN. So, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if their summary was an outright lie like they did with the juror in the Zimmerman case.

I think this is it: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/20/justice/florida-loud-music-case/index.html
Quote:
The case, for Miles, was just about justice.

"When I walked into it, I just wanted to bring justice to whoever it was," she said.

Miles, 21, said she believes Dunn is guilty of murder, but not as charged. She thinks he was guilty of second-degree murder.

....

"I was honestly convinced that he was in self-defense until he chased the car down and started shooting more," Miles said. "Even if initially you didn't have the opportunity to take yourself out of the situation to stop, running behind the car and shooting more, that's where you completely push your limits."
post #6014 of 6250
Huh. I thought the lesser charge of second degree (and also manslaughter) were options given to them? I have no idea what she's thinking with the rest...maybe he committed this second degree murder at the point when the car was driving away?
post #6015 of 6250
She doesn't articulate it well, but I wonder if she's saying that chasing the car revealed his real motivation. As in, "I would have bought that he was acting in self defense if he'd stopped when the threat passed, but continuing to shoot after they tried to leave revealed that fear may not have been his motivation."

I thought second-degree murder was on the table, too. Maybe it was a different juror who would have voted against the lesser charge? Or it could just be that the jurors were dumb.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon