| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:01 xDaunt wrote: They called her because she has their best evidence. Well, that remains to be seen. As far as i understand it, it's not only about the evidence, but also about the jury actually believing the evidence. Lets see how she "performs against" the defense. Maybe i'm wrong and i'm completely misjudging her, might as well be. | ||
|
Yorke
England881 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:03 m4inbrain wrote: Well, that remains to be seen. As far as i understand it, it's not only about the evidence, but also about the jury actually believing the evidence. Lets see how she "performs against" the defense. Maybe i'm wrong and i'm completely misjudging her, might as well be. Time for NSA to dig up the phone call recording and find out what really went down | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:00 m4inbrain wrote: No, i'm asking why a lawyer/prosecutor would summon a witness that actually hurt his case. She was called by the prosecution, not by the defense. She was on the phone with Trayvon right up to the point of the alleged murder. If Trayvon was on the phone with a convicted child rapist in prison, the prosecution would still need to call that witness to present that evidence. It's like prosecuting a drug case where many of the witnesses are criminals themselves, but that's all there is, since it's only going to be criminals who can provide the evidence. Granny down the street was in her bed asleep and didn't see shit. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:03 Yorke wrote: Glad they took a 15 minute break, my sides can't take this. I think they likely took the break so the attorneys can coach their rather incompetent witness on how to respond to certain questions that are likely to be asked. I admit I know nothing about the legal process, so I'm not sure if the prosecution attorneys are allowed to speak with witnesses during a break, so I could be totally off base here, but it seems like a possibility to me. | ||
|
Fildun
Netherlands4123 Posts
How big is the role of emotion in general in deciding the jury's verdict? With that I mean the "tears" that were displayed etc. I know a few judges here and they say that they give really little value to it because the law is based on facts, but does a jury do that too? | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:03 Yorke wrote: Glad they took a 15 minute break, my sides can't take this. Some people enjoy the strangest things o.o @fil, i think it depends on theory vs practice, in theory maybe not, in practice it obviously does | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:03 m4inbrain wrote: Well, that remains to be seen. As far as i understand it, it's not only about the evidence, but also about the jury actually believing the evidence. Lets see how she "performs against" the defense. Maybe i'm wrong and i'm completely misjudging her, might as well be. Well, part of her testimony was the Trayvon said "get off me". Whether it's true or not, there is nobody else on earth who can testify as to having heard that, since none of the neighbors apparently did. If they want that in the record, she is the only witness to get it in. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:08 Fildun wrote: Hi, I'm from the Netherlands where we don't have a jury system and I'd like to ask a question. How big is the role of emotion in general in deciding the jury's verdict? With that I mean the "tears" that were displayed etc. I know a few judges here and they say that they give really little value to it because the law is based on facts, but does a jury do that too? A jury is "suppose" to be indifferent to displays of emotion, but in reality these gestures are likely going to be effective in influencing the jury's opinion. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:07 Tewks44 wrote: I think they likely took the break so the attorneys can coach their rather incompetent witness on how to respond to certain questions that are likely to be asked. I admit I know nothing about the legal process, so I'm not sure if the prosecution attorneys are allowed to speak with witnesses during a break, so I could be totally off base here, but it seems like a possibility to me. didnt the defense attorney ask for a break? i may be confused. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:08 Fildun wrote: Hi, I'm from the Netherlands where we don't have a jury system and I'd like to ask a question. How big is the role of emotion in general in deciding the jury's verdict? With that I mean the "tears" that were displayed etc. I know a few judges here and they say that they give really little value to it because the law is based on facts, but does a jury do that too? A jury of his peers. They are ordinary people with emotions themselves. They are instructed to only consider the evidence presented and assess credibility of witnesses, but they do what they do. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:08 Fildun wrote: Hi, I'm from the Netherlands where we don't have a jury system and I'd like to ask a question. How big is the role of emotion in general in deciding the jury's verdict? With that I mean the "tears" that were displayed etc. I know a few judges here and they say that they give really little value to it because the law is based on facts, but does a jury do that too? juries are unpredictable specifically because of the fact that nobody knows what they will base their decision on. if they dont like your haircut, they may convict you; if they don't like the way you looked at them, they may convict you. these are, of course, exaggerated, but get the point across i hope. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:11 dAPhREAk wrote: didnt the defense attorney ask for a break? i may be confused. I'm not sure, I'm studying while I loosely keep up with the trial so if one of us is confused, chances are it's me. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:03 m4inbrain wrote: Well, that remains to be seen. As far as i understand it, it's not only about the evidence, but also about the jury actually believing the evidence. Lets see how she "performs against" the defense. Maybe i'm wrong and i'm completely misjudging her, might as well be. The jury will be given an instruction that says that they are to judge the credibility of every witness based upon what they observed and heard in the court room, and that the jury is free to discount some or all of the testimony of any witness that they deem to lack credibility. If the Defense is able to thrash this witness on cross, then I doubt that the jury will care much about what she had to say. | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:13 xDaunt wrote: The jury will be given an instruction that says that they are to judge the credibility of every witness based upon what they observed and heard in the court room, and that the jury is free to discount some or all of the testimony of any witness that they deem to lack credibility. If the Defense is able to thrash this witness on cross, then I doubt that the jury will care much about what she had to say. whats ur source? experience? lawyer? just wonderin, becoming interested in law | ||
|
.Wilsh.
United States133 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:11 Kaitlin wrote: A jury of his peers. They are ordinary people with emotions themselves. They are instructed to only consider the evidence presented and assess credibility of witnesses, but they do what they do. The jury really can do as they please. There is a de facto power the jury holds called jury nullification. I always found it interesting and important... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification | ||
|
Fildun
Netherlands4123 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2013 04:14 AdamBanks wrote: whats ur source? experience? lawyer? just wonderin, becoming interested in law I'm a lawyer. | ||
|
bugser
61 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
HomeStory Cup
ShoWTimE vs sOs
Serral vs Reynor
Zoun vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs Lambo
3DClanTV
 2OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
