Posted on 06/15/2017 11:01:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
with the OJ fiasco we saw how blacks often decide cases by the race of the people involved.
If I am wrong I'll be the first to apologize.
He invited ingenues up to his room. They went. Then when they thought they could get a payday.....cried rape.
Cosby is a dirty old guy. He had this ‘drug them’ kink going on. There are crimes involved. But these women knew what they were getting into.
Two questions for those who know their way around a courtroom. Unlike me.”Conveyor Belt-Style” Traffic Court is my extent of exp. with the legal system.
!.Does a deadlocked jury = Automatic Acquittal?
2. If so, how long must this be the case that no decision can be reached?
That's probably what the white people on the OJ jury said to themselves.
Hey hey hey!
Does anyone still suspect that he might be innocent?
I mean, what happened to the scores of women who accused him? Where are they now, and why are there only three charges?
I suspect this has more to do with his proselytizing of conservative principles than with rape.
From what I heard I don’t see how they could convict him I wasn’t in the courtroom however.
I agree with you.
I hope he is found GUILTY and I don’t care if he is old, ( What a filthy old goat.
Watch the video of Kardashian when the verdict was read. He turned all shades of green and looked like he was going to throw up. Even in this picture. He knew exactly what OJ did and suddenly realized he got a murderer off.
It’s sketchy...
No matter what the verdict may be, he’ll not spend a night in jail. He’ll die of old age before the appeals run out.
That was my suspicion also. OJ jurors and the black reactions thereafter showed there was LOTS of prejudice in the big city jury system. That the judge is keeping them deliberating tells me the vote is close to either acquittal, or more likely, guilt. I bet one or both of the jurors are holding out
RE: Does a deadlocked jury = Automatic Acquittal?
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
In the United States, the result is a mistrial, and the case may be retried (United States v. Perez, 1824). Some jurisdictions permit the court to give the jury a so-called Allen charge, inviting the dissenting jurors to re-examine their opinions, as a last-ditch effort to prevent the jury from hanging. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state, “The verdict must be unanimous.... If there are multiple defendants, the jury may return a verdict at any time during its deliberations as to any defendant about whom it has agreed.... If the jury cannot agree on all counts as to any defendant, the jury may return a verdict on those counts on which it has agreed.... If the jury cannot agree on a verdict on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts. A hung jury does not imply either the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The government may retry any defendant on any count on which the jury could not agree.”
Juries in criminal cases are generally, as a rule, required to reach a unanimous verdict, and juries in civil cases typically have to reach a majority on some level. If a defendant has been found guilty of a capital offense, one that could result in the death penalty if the person is eligible, the opinion of the jury must be unanimous if the defendant is to be sentenced to death. Currently, two states, Oregon and Louisiana, do not require unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. Each requires a 10-2 majority for conviction, except for capital crimes: Oregon requires at least 11 votes and Louisiana requires all 12.
In jurisdictions giving those involved in the case a choice of jury size (such as between a six-person and twelve-person jury), defense counsel in both civil and criminal cases frequently opt for the larger number of jurors. A common axiom in criminal cases is that “it takes only one to hang,” referring to the fact that in some cases, a single juror can defeat the required unanimity.
One proposal for dealing with the difficulties associated with hung juries has been to introduce supermajority verdicts to allow juries to convict defendants without unanimous agreements amongst the jurors. Hence, a 12-member jury that would otherwise be deadlocked at 11 for conviction and 1 against, would be recorded as a guilty verdict. The rationale for majority verdicts usually includes arguments involving so-called ‘rogue jurors’ who unreasonably impede the course of justice. Opponents of majority verdicts argue that it undermines public confidence in criminal justice systems and results in a higher number of individuals convicted of crimes they did not commit.
The jury wants out before the weekend.
Thanks for the complete answer.
If I had to bet, it would be that he will not be found guilty. It's far too easy to find fawning idiots who lack critical thinking skills, or are simply determined to let their heroes escape avoid punishment.
I have not followed the case enough to form an opinion of his guilt or innocence. Too many other things to worry about...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.