Slager gets mistrial

[Darth Yan]

http://www.wyff4.com/article/several-ju ... ys/8465454

Apparently one juror adamantly refused and as such they didn't have a choice but damn it. The guy shot a man in the back and planted his weapon on the corpse. Slager was guilty as sin. That one juror is an idiot

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://www.wyff4.com/article/several-ju ... ys/8465454

Apparently one juror adamantly refused and as such they didn't have a choice but damn it. The guy shot a man in the back and planted his weapon on the corpse. Slager was guilty as sin. That one juror is an idiot racist

Corrected that for you.

Slager could have hung the victim from a tree, and that juror would have voted to acquit.

[Flagg]

I give Nikki Haley credit for her response which was totally reasonable while not necessarily taking a side. I figured she would have hailed a mistrial as a triumph to pander to the Police lobbyists. Glad my cynicism of South Carolina's executive branch was unfounded. As for the jury, it only takes one chucklefuck to sink even seemingly clear cut cases like this. Unfortunately there are a lot of those when it comes to cops shooting anyone.

[Darth Yan]

I'm relived it was one man. Most of the jury was white so that they were willing to convict the bastard is a good sign.

[Flagg]

I'm relived it was one man. Most of the jury was white so that they were willing to convict the bastard is a good sign.

Yeah, the sad part is, how many people think like that and will never vote to convict a cop and are willing to lie during Jury selection?

[Aether]

Wasn't there a quote from the juror who refused to convict?

I remember, a long time ago, Bill Maher remarked "trial by jury" was outdated. It was fine for the time when "said person stole your neighbor's goat."

Can we really expect people who have no experience (theory or practice) to understand legal concepts? The jury asked for clarification, but they have hours or days to deliberate amongst themselves to apply their interpretations to said concepts. Or am I off base here? I guess that is the job of the lawyers to argue during closing.

[Zwinmar]

My experience with jury selection was that a juror is not allowed to process anything not told by them by the lawyers or judge, and they can not ask questions.

[Flagg]

My experience with jury selection was that a juror is not allowed to process anything not told by them by the lawyers or judge, and they can not ask questions.

They can ask the judge to clarify or repeat their instructions and that's it. They are only to consider the evidence and arguments made in court and have to disregard statements or testimony the Judge tells them to and can only discuss the case with anyone, especially fellow jurors, during deliberations. But the only way to ensure they don't discuss the case with other jurors, do their own research into or watch news and learn facts, evidence, or conjecture about the case not presented in court about the case before reaching a decision is to sequester them. That has its own problems as juries have come to verdicts without really considering the evidence and testimony simply to be able to go home, especially on Friday's and before holidays.

The jury system really needs to be reformed. I think the best way is to have a legal expert or experts as a professional juror who serves as part of a jury who can call bullshit on such things as coin flips to settle deadlocks in an effort to have Jesus decide and jurors who know more about the case than they are allowed to and introduce facts and conjecture not presented in court. Because while this case and way too many other police charged with murder get off due to jury nullification, far more innocent people are wrongly convicted.

I generally hold the view that I'd rather see 100 guilty people be acquitted than have 1 innocent convicted.

[Flagg]

Wasn't there a quote from the juror who refused to convict?

I remember, a long time ago, Bill Maher remarked "trial by jury" was outdated. It was fine for the time when "said person stole your neighbor's goat."

Can we really expect people who have no experience (theory or practice) to understand legal concepts? The jury asked for clarification, but they have hours or days to deliberate amongst themselves to apply their interpretations to said concepts. Or am I off base here? I guess that is the job of the lawyers to argue during closing.

The jury is not to interpret the law, they are to make their decision based on the judges interpretation of the law which is given to them when the judge gives them instructions before they begin deliberations.

[Zwinmar]

Wasn't there a quote from the juror who refused to convict?

I remember, a long time ago, Bill Maher remarked "trial by jury" was outdated. It was fine for the time when "said person stole your neighbor's goat."

Can we really expect people who have no experience (theory or practice) to understand legal concepts? The jury asked for clarification, but they have hours or days to deliberate amongst themselves to apply their interpretations to said concepts. Or am I off base here? I guess that is the job of the lawyers to argue during closing.

The jury is not to interpret the law, they are to make their decision based on the judges interpretation of the law which is given to them when the judge gives them instructions before they begin deliberations.

And yet, there is a thing called nullification
To me it seems like a whole bait and switch while appealing to emtions.

[Flagg]

Wasn't there a quote from the juror who refused to convict?

I remember, a long time ago, Bill Maher remarked "trial by jury" was outdated. It was fine for the time when "said person stole your neighbor's goat."

Can we really expect people who have no experience (theory or practice) to understand legal concepts? The jury asked for clarification, but they have hours or days to deliberate amongst themselves to apply their interpretations to said concepts. Or am I off base here? I guess that is the job of the lawyers to argue during closing.

The jury is not to interpret the law, they are to make their decision based on the judges interpretation of the law which is given to them when the judge gives them instructions before they begin deliberations.

And yet, there is a thing called nullification
To me it seems like a whole bait and switch while appealing to emtions.

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean.

[RogueIce]

The jury is not to interpret the law, they are to make their decision based on the judges interpretation of the law which is given to them when the judge gives them instructions before they begin deliberations.

And yet, there is a thing called nullification
To me it seems like a whole bait and switch while appealing to emtions.

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean.

I think his general point is that, in general, people's opinions on whether nullification is good or not depends entirely on whether they happen to agree with the nullification in the first place.

Ultimately of course, you're correct in what the jury is supposed to do. In practice, of course, since they're not required to justify their decision to anyone, nullification can and does occur.

And opinions vary on whether or not that's a good thing, and often tend to swing back and forth depending on the case and circumstances and POV of whoever is commentating at the time. *shrug*

[Flagg]

And yet, there is a thing called nullification
To me it seems like a whole bait and switch while appealing to emtions.

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean.

I think his general point is that, in general, people's opinions on whether nullification is good or not depends entirely on whether they happen to agree with the nullification in the first place.

Ultimately of course, you're correct in what the jury is supposed to do. In practice, of course, since they're not required to justify their decision to anyone, nullification can and does occur.

And opinions vary on whether or not that's a good thing, and often tend to swing back and forth depending on the case and circumstances and POV of whoever is commentating at the time. *shrug*

Ok, that makes sense. I'd be for it in the case of a woman who killed a physically and emotionally abuser, but against it in the case of racists lynching a black man. Except that it was done far more for the racists and far less for the abuse survivor.