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

To: JLS

I wouldn’t convict someone of speeding on a 70% probability. This isn’t a civil case where the standard is the preponderance of the evidence — it’s higher by design. As for the folks who are outraged, you win some, you lose some, but the duty of a jury is to check their emotions at the door and follow the law.


814 posted on 07/05/2011 11:59:51 AM PDT by Windcatcher (Obama is a COMMUNIST and the MSM is his armband-wearing propaganda machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies ]


To: Windcatcher
BAEZ, take your fake humble and go pound sand!!!!!!!!
827 posted on 07/05/2011 12:01:34 PM PDT by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies ]

To: Windcatcher

They are not suppose to check their common sense at the door!


849 posted on 07/05/2011 12:04:21 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies ]

To: Windcatcher

Right that is what I was saying. That the jury had to answer both questions, homicide or accident and if homicide who did it, make it harder for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The one thing I did not realize until I typed up my previous post, I think the tougher the penalties, the harder it is to establish to me beyond a reasonable doubt. I would guess in theory reasonable doubt for running a stop sign and murder should be the same thing, but what the state wants to do in each case is so different.


908 posted on 07/05/2011 12:11:53 PM PDT by JLS (How to turn a recession into a depression: elect a Dem president with a big majorities in Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | 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