Replies

Sounds like a pretty weak circumstantial case, in your hypothetical. That's why hypotheticals are wasted on juries. They're not all dumb like Simpson-juries. This one sure wasn't. So - you think the jurors saw it that way with ole Scott? Did it sound like it when you listened to their comments at the press conference?

Cause . . . I heard something else. But I'm asking.

Did it sound like it when you listened to their comments at the press conference?

I agree with the verdict but obviously not with the death sentence as should be obvious from my comments in this thread. As for the jury, they made me sick listening to them. Rush is playing their comments now.

One idiot said, I wish I could have heard from him. I wish he would have taken the stand. I don't think I have ever heard any attorney suggest this would be a good idea. Did we have a juror that did not understand why he did not appear in his own defense? (besides the fact he is guilty and would have been ripped to shreads)

These jurors may have reached the right verdict in the criminal portion of the case, but they are in real la la land (must be a San Francisco thing). The ones that were interviewed anyhow.

Sounds like a pretty weak circumstantial case, in your hypothetical.

We were just getting started. Turns out the guy had an affair, he was broke and about to lose his house...I mean, come on. I don't have the resources of a state prosecutor to come up with circumstantial hypotheticals here. But, I have seen a kid convicted on less than what I detailed in my hypothetical.