Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MACVSOG68
When a jury can take about 1 hour to review a year's worth of evidence to find not guilty, justice has not been served. Jury nullification is an all to common practice. Why is that so sacrosanct? Frequently juries are in awe of celebrities such as Robert Blake and OJ, as well as their attorneys. At least with judges, celebrity attorneys don't trump lower paid prosecutors as they all too often do with juries. I have to accept it, but both cases show the weaknesses of juries.

Judge Ito should bear a significant portion of the blame for the Simpson trial result, since he allowed a ridiculous amount of showboating by defense counsel. The prosecuting attorney also made a number of mistakes. I don't see why a jury should be blamed for the fact that they were not given a good, solid, and unambiguous case to work with.

Basically, what jurors would have seen would be a bunch of investigators who could have acted to prevent evidence contamination but failed to do so. It may well be that investigators are often sloppy but defense counsel usually don't call them on it. Even if that's true, though, I would see no reason for jurors to excuse such sloppiness in evaluating the state's case.

My own personal belief about the O.J. case is that (1) Simpson most likely did kill the victims, but (2) there is a significant likelihood that some of the evidence may have been tainted, i.e. that the police framed a guilty man. To be sure, I haven't seen anything close to all the evidence the jury saw, but if I were on a jury and reached those conclusions, I would acquit.

662 posted on 04/10/2005 2:23:44 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
My own personal belief about the O.J. case is that (1) Simpson most likely did kill the victims, but (2) there is a significant likelihood that some of the evidence may have been tainted, i.e. that the police framed a guilty man. To be sure, I haven't seen anything close to all the evidence the jury saw, but if I were on a jury and reached those conclusions, I would acquit.

The only way the jury could have acquitted OJ was by doing what they did....refuse to look at the case laid out and the evidence. By not looking at any of the evidence, the timelines and the case as laid out by the prosecutor, they could safely write it all off. To look at it, however, was to realize that, as some analysts had put it, less than 20% of the available evidence would have been sufficient. But that was jury nullification plain and simple. And BTW, there are Freepers here who swear by jury nullification. They believe that a juror has an absolute right to find not guilty if they are in disagreement of the law itself, such as tax evasion, drugs, or weapons violations. This is the reason why I am less than high on juries on occasion.

As for the Schiavo affair, as I said, the states need to look at their laws carefully, and consider technology, living wills, incapacitation, guardianship, etc. As for Greer? Up to the people, but I have seen nothing to disqualify him.

666 posted on 04/10/2005 3:11:47 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson