You really ought to visit the real world now and again. I can't believe you're dumb enough to believe what you wrote there.Seth wrote:They will be asked if they have seen news coverage of the event as a part of voir dire, and if they have, they will likely not be seated on the jury because either the prosecutor or the defense will strike them with a preemptory challenge. The difficulty for both sides will be finding and seating a jury that has not been contaminated by the news coverage, but that's the case in every notable crime covered by the media. It's done all the time, it just takes more time while questioning jurors to be sure they haven't seen the coverage and haven't drawn any conclusions.mistermack wrote:What bollocks from across the water.
Firstly, the jury has almost certainly ALREADY seen that footage. How fucking gullible can you get?
You really ought not make claims about a process that it's clear you know absolutely nothing about.
That's the theory. In practice, if someone fancies sitting on that jury, they will answer "no" when asked if they have seen the coverage.
Everybody knows that, but you, apparently.
I really don't believe you are THAT dumb, so you must be just bullshitting as usual.
As for the rest of your post, I KNOW all that shit. Everybody knows it. I just made the point that ignoring the defendant's refusal to talk, PRETENDING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, is misleading the jury.
In this country, it gets pointed out to the jury. That's all. The jury can draw an inference, or ignore it, or regard it as understandable.
It's part of the EVIDENCE because it happened. It's a relevant fact.
In your country, they like to keep all sorts of things from a jury. That's why people like O.J. Simpson get away with murder.