|
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. |
dAPhREAk youre a lawyer right?
Can you give us an estimate of how long you expect the jury to deliberate?
I know you cant be accurate but you a ballpark figure?
|
On July 13 2013 04:33 Blacktion wrote:
dAPhREAk youre a lawyer right?
Can you give us an estimate of how long you expect the jury to deliberate?
I know you cant be accurate but you a ballpark figure?
yes.
decision before the weekend. they are sequestered and will want to go home. if they don't have a decision before the weekend, prosecutor should start sweating bullets because someone is riling up the crowd and that is never good for the prosecutor.
|
On July 13 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote:On July 13 2013 04:15 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:13 Sabu113 wrote:On July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:07 Trizz wrote:On July 13 2013 03:55 HystericaLaughter wrote:
Oh wow are the jury deciding Zimmerman's fate right now? I have only very loosely followed this case (by that I mean browsing the TL thread once a fortnight), what is the most likely outcome do we think? Innocent, guilty or will the jury be unable to come to a decision? It 'should' be not guilty, but you never know with America. oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands? Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) There are pros and cons to each. Most criminal cases at this level are settled by jury. Its the Defendant's choice. Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants prefer juries because they are more easily manipulated. civil defendants and criminal prosecutors prefer judges/arbitrators because they focus on the law and facts. this is obviously general though, and case-specific there may be instances where the latter is true.
So to put it bluntly, Juries are used as tool when your case is weaker on evidence and may be picked apart by a judge and/or when your case relies on emotional impact.
To me that is justification to remove them entirely.
|
On July 13 2013 04:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:33 Blacktion wrote:
dAPhREAk youre a lawyer right?
Can you give us an estimate of how long you expect the jury to deliberate?
I know you cant be accurate but you a ballpark figure? yes. decision before the weekend. they are sequestered and will want to go home. if they don't have a decision before the weekend, prosecutor should start sweating bullets because someone is riling up the crowd and that is never good for the prosecutor.
I see a future Life Time movie if it goes over the weekend:
6 Grumpy Ladies - The spiritual sequel to 12 Angry Men, where one mother convinces 5 others to use their mind as well as their hearts
The script writes itself.
|
On July 13 2013 04:35 HystericaLaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote:On July 13 2013 04:15 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:13 Sabu113 wrote:On July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:07 Trizz wrote:On July 13 2013 03:55 HystericaLaughter wrote:
Oh wow are the jury deciding Zimmerman's fate right now? I have only very loosely followed this case (by that I mean browsing the TL thread once a fortnight), what is the most likely outcome do we think? Innocent, guilty or will the jury be unable to come to a decision? It 'should' be not guilty, but you never know with America. oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands? Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) There are pros and cons to each. Most criminal cases at this level are settled by jury. Its the Defendant's choice. Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants prefer juries because they are more easily manipulated. civil defendants and criminal prosecutors prefer judges/arbitrators because they focus on the law and facts. this is obviously general though, and case-specific there may be instances where the latter is true. So to put it bluntly, Juries are used as tool when your case is weaker on evidence and may be picked apart by a judge and/or when your case relies on emotional impact. To me that is justification to remove them entirely.
judges and lawyers are prone to the same biases though. personally, i hate arbitrators and recommend my clients not go to arbitrations. those fuckers just want to delay cases because they get paid by the hour, and they disregard the law as much as jurors based on their personal biases. that is just my experience though. even though i have won both the arbitrations i have done, i believe the arbitration process is shit.
|
On July 13 2013 04:35 HystericaLaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote:On July 13 2013 04:15 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:13 Sabu113 wrote:On July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:07 Trizz wrote:On July 13 2013 03:55 HystericaLaughter wrote:
Oh wow are the jury deciding Zimmerman's fate right now? I have only very loosely followed this case (by that I mean browsing the TL thread once a fortnight), what is the most likely outcome do we think? Innocent, guilty or will the jury be unable to come to a decision? It 'should' be not guilty, but you never know with America. oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands? Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) There are pros and cons to each. Most criminal cases at this level are settled by jury. Its the Defendant's choice. Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants prefer juries because they are more easily manipulated. civil defendants and criminal prosecutors prefer judges/arbitrators because they focus on the law and facts. this is obviously general though, and case-specific there may be instances where the latter is true. So to put it bluntly, Juries are used as tool when your case is weaker on evidence and may be picked apart by a judge and/or when your case relies on emotional impact. To me that is justification to remove them entirely.
Its a jury of your peers and they can be tools for both sides. Judges are just as bad and panels of professionals have just as many flaws. There is no best system. I hate judges in our cases because they make us produce endless documents that they don't understand and they just assume there will be ANOTHER document that will explain it to them.
|
On July 13 2013 04:35 HystericaLaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote:On July 13 2013 04:15 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:13 Sabu113 wrote:On July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:07 Trizz wrote:On July 13 2013 03:55 HystericaLaughter wrote:
Oh wow are the jury deciding Zimmerman's fate right now? I have only very loosely followed this case (by that I mean browsing the TL thread once a fortnight), what is the most likely outcome do we think? Innocent, guilty or will the jury be unable to come to a decision? It 'should' be not guilty, but you never know with America. oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands? Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) There are pros and cons to each. Most criminal cases at this level are settled by jury. Its the Defendant's choice. Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants prefer juries because they are more easily manipulated. civil defendants and criminal prosecutors prefer judges/arbitrators because they focus on the law and facts. this is obviously general though, and case-specific there may be instances where the latter is true. So to put it bluntly, Juries are used as tool when your case is weaker on evidence and may be picked apart by a judge and/or when your case relies on emotional impact. To me that is justification to remove them entirely.
The right to a jury trial is there because it serves as a check to keep the system fair - supposedly, 12 random jurors are less likely to be controlled by an oppressive government than 1 professional judge.
|
On July 13 2013 04:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:35 HystericaLaughter wrote:On July 13 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote:On July 13 2013 04:15 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:13 Sabu113 wrote:On July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:07 Trizz wrote:On July 13 2013 03:55 HystericaLaughter wrote:
Oh wow are the jury deciding Zimmerman's fate right now? I have only very loosely followed this case (by that I mean browsing the TL thread once a fortnight), what is the most likely outcome do we think? Innocent, guilty or will the jury be unable to come to a decision? It 'should' be not guilty, but you never know with America. oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands? Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) There are pros and cons to each. Most criminal cases at this level are settled by jury. Its the Defendant's choice. Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants prefer juries because they are more easily manipulated. civil defendants and criminal prosecutors prefer judges/arbitrators because they focus on the law and facts. this is obviously general though, and case-specific there may be instances where the latter is true. So to put it bluntly, Juries are used as tool when your case is weaker on evidence and may be picked apart by a judge and/or when your case relies on emotional impact. To me that is justification to remove them entirely. judges and lawyers are prone to the same biases though. personally, i hate arbitrators and recommend my clients not go to arbitrations. those fuckers just want to delay cases because they get paid by the hour, and they disregard the law as much as jurors based on their personal biases. that is just my experience though. even though i have won both the arbitrations i have done, i believe the arbitration process is shit.
Yikes what a mess, people suck sometimes.
|
By preemptively calling for non-violence at the rendering of the verdict, aren't they "racially profiling" people, expecting them to riot at a not guilty verdict ? Isn't that exactly what they are accusing George Zimmerman of ?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:29 stratmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:17 BigFan wrote:On July 13 2013 04:13 woody60707 wrote:The reason why prison time is so long is due to mandatory minimum sentencing in florida when a firearm is used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-LifeIt's a stupid ass law imo. Marissa Alexander fired off her gun to scare her husband. Now she is guilty of battery. She went to her car to get a gun, and came back with the gun to scare (battery) her husband. But that is normally only a few years at the most (and with her clean record likely a lot less). But because she used a firearm, it is by law 20 years minimum. The jury had no clue when they passed the guilty verdict that is was 20 years minimum. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.htmlSo Zimmerman is looking at mandatory minimum sentencing of 25 years (or life) I believe, but I could be wrong. I think that case comes to mind. 20 years for just firing a firearm :O wow, that's a pretty bad law. I think they should inform the jury what the time frames are like but I guess that can create bias? Dont sugarcoat it. She fired a shot AT her ex and MISSED.
I'm not sugarcoating anything. I never followed that trial and only read the news article. I stand by my statement that I think the law is pretty bad. Heck, one of the people who created it even said it wasn't working as intended. Check towards end of article for that. As for who she fired it at, I have no clue. Unless there is 100% evidence that it was at him, I'm indifferent about it.
|
On July 13 2013 04:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:33 Blacktion wrote:
dAPhREAk youre a lawyer right?
Can you give us an estimate of how long you expect the jury to deliberate?
I know you cant be accurate but you a ballpark figure? yes. decision before the weekend. they are sequestered and will want to go home. if they don't have a decision before the weekend, prosecutor should start sweating bullets because someone is riling up the crowd and that is never good for the prosecutor. I see a future Life Time movie if it goes over the weekend: 6 Grumpy Ladies - The spiritual sequel to 12 Angry Men, where one mother convinces 5 others to use their mind as well as their hearts The script writes itself.
"A single hispanic female surrounded by a tide of white, checks the thermometer for the 15th time hoping against hope that this time it will turn on. A white mother of two says "we all know this racist wannabe cop just wanted to get rid of blacks in his neighborhood; we all know what to do, lets vote!" A single white female (who unknown by the rest carries a concealed firearm permit) says in a pleading voice, "can we take a look at John Good's testimony once more before we make that decision, please?" While another single white female says "god, zimmerman is fat, i can see why they call him the stay puft man." Two other females smile while thinking amorous thoughts of the second chair prosecutor (not the bald one with suits two sizes two large). These are our grumpy ladies destined to determine the fate of one George Zimmerman."
|
On July 13 2013 04:41 HystericaLaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:35 HystericaLaughter wrote:On July 13 2013 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote:On July 13 2013 04:15 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:13 Sabu113 wrote:On July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:07 Trizz wrote:On July 13 2013 03:55 HystericaLaughter wrote:
Oh wow are the jury deciding Zimmerman's fate right now? I have only very loosely followed this case (by that I mean browsing the TL thread once a fortnight), what is the most likely outcome do we think? Innocent, guilty or will the jury be unable to come to a decision? It 'should' be not guilty, but you never know with America. oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands? Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) There are pros and cons to each. Most criminal cases at this level are settled by jury. Its the Defendant's choice. Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants prefer juries because they are more easily manipulated. civil defendants and criminal prosecutors prefer judges/arbitrators because they focus on the law and facts. this is obviously general though, and case-specific there may be instances where the latter is true. So to put it bluntly, Juries are used as tool when your case is weaker on evidence and may be picked apart by a judge and/or when your case relies on emotional impact. To me that is justification to remove them entirely. judges and lawyers are prone to the same biases though. personally, i hate arbitrators and recommend my clients not go to arbitrations. those fuckers just want to delay cases because they get paid by the hour, and they disregard the law as much as jurors based on their personal biases. that is just my experience though. even though i have won both the arbitrations i have done, i believe the arbitration process is shit. Yikes what a mess, people suck sometimes.
People like to think that bias and human flaws are totally removed from the legal process. It is just not the case and there is no magic bullet to deal with it. People suck, so you fingure in what way they suck and work round it. Its part of being in the legal field.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:38 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:33 Blacktion wrote:
dAPhREAk youre a lawyer right?
Can you give us an estimate of how long you expect the jury to deliberate?
I know you cant be accurate but you a ballpark figure? yes. decision before the weekend. they are sequestered and will want to go home. if they don't have a decision before the weekend, prosecutor should start sweating bullets because someone is riling up the crowd and that is never good for the prosecutor. I see a future Life Time movie if it goes over the weekend: 6 Grumpy Ladies - The spiritual sequel to 12 Angry Men, where one mother convinces 5 others to use their mind as well as their hearts The script writes itself. "A single hispanic female surrounded by a tide of white, checks the thermometer for the 15th time hoping against hope that this time it will turn on. A white mother of two says "we all know this racist wannabe cop just wanted to get rid of blacks in his neighborhood; we all know what to do, lets vote!" A single white female (who unknown by the rest carries a concealed firearm permit) says in a pleading voice, "can we take a look at John Good's testimony once more before we make that decision, please?" While another single white female says "god, zimmerman is fat, i can see why they call him the stay puft man." Two other females smile while thinking amorous thoughts of the second chair prosecutor (not the bald one with suits two sizes two large). These are our grumpy ladies destined to determine the fate of one George Zimmerman."
Sounds like someone's been watching too many movies 
|
Riots are only fun when they are because Canada lost something involving hockey. All other riots are unfortunate.
Regardless of the outcome, public trials like Zimmerman's are a beautiful reminder that our legal system, for all its faults and inefficiency, nonetheless serves to keep the masses from handing out biblical justice in the heat of the moment.
|
On July 13 2013 04:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:33 Blacktion wrote:
dAPhREAk youre a lawyer right?
Can you give us an estimate of how long you expect the jury to deliberate?
I know you cant be accurate but you a ballpark figure? yes. decision before the weekend. they are sequestered and will want to go home. if they don't have a decision before the weekend, prosecutor should start sweating bullets because someone is riling up the crowd and that is never good for the prosecutor.
If a verdict comes today, I think it will be for the defense. If the jury has to deliberate for a very long time, it will be a hung jury. I think the sweet spot for the prosecution (to the extent that there is one), will be Monday-Tuesday next week.
|
This is probably a bit inappropriate, but here goes:
Poll: Ladies of the Jury, how do you find Mr. Zimmerman?Not Guilty (40) 67% Guilty only of stupidity (Not Guilty) (16) 27% Guilty of Manslaughter (3) 5% Guilty of Murder in the 2nd (1) 2% 60 total votes Your vote: Ladies of the Jury, how do you find Mr. Zimmerman? (Vote): Not Guilty
(Vote): Guilty of Murder in the 2nd
(Vote): Guilty of Manslaughter
(Vote): Guilty only of stupidity (Not Guilty)
|
On July 13 2013 04:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:38 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:33 Blacktion wrote:
dAPhREAk youre a lawyer right?
Can you give us an estimate of how long you expect the jury to deliberate?
I know you cant be accurate but you a ballpark figure? yes. decision before the weekend. they are sequestered and will want to go home. if they don't have a decision before the weekend, prosecutor should start sweating bullets because someone is riling up the crowd and that is never good for the prosecutor. I see a future Life Time movie if it goes over the weekend: 6 Grumpy Ladies - The spiritual sequel to 12 Angry Men, where one mother convinces 5 others to use their mind as well as their hearts The script writes itself. "A single hispanic female surrounded by a tide of white, checks the thermometer for the 15th time hoping against hope that this time it will turn on. A white mother of two says "we all know this racist wannabe cop just wanted to get rid of blacks in his neighborhood; we all know what to do, lets vote!" A single white female (who unknown by the rest carries a concealed firearm permit) says in a pleading voice, "can we take a look at John Good's testimony once more before we make that decision, please?" While another single white female says "god, zimmerman is fat, i can see why they call him the stay puft man." Two other females smile while thinking amorous thoughts of the second chair prosecutor (not the bald one with suits two sizes two large). These are our grumpy ladies destined to determine the fate of one George Zimmerman."
The broken AC is critical to linking the two works. That and racism. Its life time, so we has to make the world look like the world is the most dangerous place for any woman. Two of the jury members will have abusive husbands and one will have been sexually assaulted in college. This will all come up in the jury room.
|
On July 13 2013 04:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2013 04:38 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2013 04:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 13 2013 04:33 Blacktion wrote:
dAPhREAk youre a lawyer right?
Can you give us an estimate of how long you expect the jury to deliberate?
I know you cant be accurate but you a ballpark figure? yes. decision before the weekend. they are sequestered and will want to go home. if they don't have a decision before the weekend, prosecutor should start sweating bullets because someone is riling up the crowd and that is never good for the prosecutor. I see a future Life Time movie if it goes over the weekend: 6 Grumpy Ladies - The spiritual sequel to 12 Angry Men, where one mother convinces 5 others to use their mind as well as their hearts The script writes itself. "A single hispanic female surrounded by a tide of white, checks the thermometer for the 15th time hoping against hope that this time it will turn on. A white mother of two says "we all know this racist wannabe cop just wanted to get rid of blacks in his neighborhood; we all know what to do, lets vote!" A single white female (who unknown by the rest carries a concealed firearm permit) says in a pleading voice, "can we take a look at John Good's testimony once more before we make that decision, please?" While another single white female says "god, zimmerman is fat, i can see why they call him the stay puft man." Two other females smile while thinking amorous thoughts of the second chair prosecutor (not the bald one with suits two sizes two large). These are our grumpy ladies destined to determine the fate of one George Zimmerman."
Haha. 10/10
|
On July 13 2013 04:48 remedium wrote:
Riots are only fun when they are because Canada lost something involving hockey. All other riots are unfortunate.
Regardless of the outcome, public trials like Zimmerman's are a beautiful reminder that our legal system, for all its faults and inefficiency, nonetheless serves to keep the masses from handing out biblical justice in the heat of the moment.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Fake, she's not holding a hockey stick pfhh....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YiWbLLT7UYs/UI04dte4gwI/AAAAAAAARfU/PMGGq9WYgKo/s1600/biggest-riot-in-canadian-history.jpg)
