-
Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
-
Contact:
Post
by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:27 pm
Animavore wrote:Who?


Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
-
laklak
- Posts: 21022
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
- About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
- Location: Tannhauser Gate
-
Contact:
Post
by laklak » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:57 pm
In Florida capital murder cases there is a separate penalty phase, where the jury recommends either death or life in prison. This recommendation isn't binding and only requires a simple majority vote, though it is extremely rare that a judge will order death when the jury recommends life in prison (the only two allowable sentences for capital murder, and Florida does not grant parole so life means life). Judges are more likely to override a death recommendation. Sentencing someone to death is a non-trivial decision.
In the penalty phase evidence may be presented that was not permitted in the first phase, previous convictions, for example.
All jury members would have been quizzed on their position on the death penalty prior to being seated. It is rare that someone who is adamantly opposed to the death penalty would be seated on a capital case, unless the prosecution ran out of peremptory challenges.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
-
Wumbologist
- I want a do-over
- Posts: 4720
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:04 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Wumbologist » Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:59 pm
Is she still single?
-
Coito ergo sum
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:10 pm
....and ready to mingle...
Make sure you only let her give you blowjobs,though. She can't be trusted to use her vagina wisely.
-
Coito ergo sum
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:51 pm
Huekler laid out three reasons:
The prosecution "didn't present the evidence that would have sustained either a murder charge or a manslaughter charge."
They also failed to show a motive. "We ... kept waiting to see what was the motive — just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly, you know, kill Caylee.”
And the prosecution was also unable to say "how did Caylee actually pass away."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651613/ns ... nd_courts/
-
Warren Dew
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Somerville, MA, USA
-
Contact:
Post
by Warren Dew » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:51 pm
Coito ergo sum wrote:mistermack wrote:
Then you say that the verdict would have been different for a black, old, or ugly person.
Yes, quite possibly for a number of reasons, and that's not contrary to them very properly finding her not guilty. Not the least reason is that the trial would not have been so elaborate, and the defense would not have had the resources to present its argument as deliberately and in as much detail, and with as much counter-expert testimony to controvert the prosecution's experts. If the trial had not received the media hype that it it did, and it wouldn't have if it was an inner city black mother, or a white single father (non-celebrity).
The situation would have been different, but not necessarily worse for the defendant. If it hadn't been for the publicity, the prosecutor would not have felt obligated to maintain the murder charge, and the whole thing would likely have been plea bargained down to manslaughter, or maybe even just child neglect given her insistence that she was innocent. The defendant's legal team would have had a lot less resources, but the prosecutors would have devoted a lot less resources, too.
-
Coito ergo sum
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:25 pm
Yes, all that is true, but also the prosecutor would likely have extorted the plea bargain from an underfunded defendant. That's what happens - prosecutor "overcharges" the case in order to put the defendant at extreme risk and then offers "plea to this lesser charge, or we're throwing the book at you." Failing to accept the plea the prosecutor wants you to take means that the prosecutor and the judge will fuck you up, essentially.
-
Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Post
by Gallstones » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Tyrannical wrote:Well, maybe her she and OJ can go look for the real killers now.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
-
Coito ergo sum
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:33 pm
Gallstones wrote:Tyrannical wrote:Well, maybe her she and OJ can go look for the real killers now.
It's not the job of a defendant to provide an alternative defendant to take the rap. The prosecution ought not to have charged first degree murder if they didn't have solid evidence that someone was murdered. That's the real crux of this. They couldn't say how the child died, which means they could not say that a murder occurred. Therefore, it is impossible to say beyond any reasonable doubt that anyone, including Casey, murdered Caley. Prosecutors love to over-charge cases, though, because a defendant is more likely to take a plea deal that entails prison time if the defendant has to "roll the dice" that a jury will convict on the more serious charge.
-
Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Post
by Gallstones » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:35 pm
Let's say I am on the jury and I think she is guilty but the evidence is technically not strong enough for a conviction. Can't I abstain and force a mistrial so that the prosecution can have another chance to present a better case? As a single juror I have the power to manipulate the case somewhat. That is a lot of power. More than the attorneys and more than the judge.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
-
Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Post
by Gallstones » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:38 pm
Coito ergo sum wrote:Gallstones wrote:Tyrannical wrote:Well, maybe her she and OJ can go look for the real killers now.
It's not the job of a defendant to provide an alternative defendant to take the rap. The prosecution ought not to have charged first degree murder if they didn't have solid evidence that someone was murdered. That's the real crux of this. They couldn't say how the child died, which means they could not say that a murder occurred. Therefore, it is impossible to say beyond any reasonable doubt that anyone, including Casey, murdered Caley. Prosecutors love to over-charge cases, though, because a defendant is more likely to take a plea deal that entails prison time if the defendant has to "roll the dice" that a jury will convict on the more serious charge.

------->

<-------Me
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
-
Coito ergo sum
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:40 pm
Yes, you can. However, the judge will make you take a long, long time to deliberate until the jury just flatly refuses to reach a verdict.
But, if the evidence is not strong enough for a conviction, why wouldn't you just vote to acquit? If you were on trial, would you want jurors to abstain because while they thought there was a reasonable doubt, they surmised that you probably did it?
And, as far as giving prosecutors another chance - the prosecutors have all the resources they need. They have the team of law enforcement officers that investigated the crime and made the arrest, expert witnesses by the boat load, laboratories, all sorts of stuff, all on the taxpayer dime. How many chances do the fuckers need to make a "better case?"
-
Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Post
by Gallstones » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:55 pm
Coito ergo sum wrote:Yes, you can. However, the judge will make you take a long, long time to deliberate until the jury just flatly refuses to reach a verdict.
But, if the evidence is not strong enough for a conviction, why wouldn't you just vote to acquit? If you were on trial, would you want jurors to abstain because while they thought there was a reasonable doubt, they surmised that you probably did it?
And, as far as giving prosecutors another chance - the prosecutors have all the resources they need. They have the team of law enforcement officers that investigated the crime and made the arrest, expert witnesses by the boat load, laboratories, all sorts of stuff, all on the taxpayer dime. How many chances do the fuckers need to make a "better case?"
Maybe just one more.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
-
Coito ergo sum
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Coito ergo sum » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:08 pm
Gallstones wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:Yes, you can. However, the judge will make you take a long, long time to deliberate until the jury just flatly refuses to reach a verdict.
But, if the evidence is not strong enough for a conviction, why wouldn't you just vote to acquit? If you were on trial, would you want jurors to abstain because while they thought there was a reasonable doubt, they surmised that you probably did it?
And, as far as giving prosecutors another chance - the prosecutors have all the resources they need. They have the team of law enforcement officers that investigated the crime and made the arrest, expert witnesses by the boat load, laboratories, all sorts of stuff, all on the taxpayer dime. How many chances do the fuckers need to make a "better case?"
Maybe just one more.
I would reverse that burden, and I would suggest that if a juror is leaning toward finding that "technically" the prosecution seems to have produced enough evidence to convict, that the juror should abstain and force a mistrial. That way, the typically underfunded and out-gunned defense can have another chance to fight the typically extortionately over-charged case.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 18 guests