Posted on 11/16/2021 11:37:16 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Most don’t know this, but after their names are removed, the six non-selected jurors then proceed to man the bake sale table where they are required to sell cookies and brownies during business hours until their former colleagues render a verdict.
The case is decided by a jury of 12. There are usually one or two “alternate” jurors. Here, the judge must have used six alternates to make sure he could finish the trial. Different courts use different systems to select the alternates. This lottery approach is fine. The main thing is that all jurors hear all testimony and the alternates do not know who they are until the case goes to the jury.
It makes no sense to me at all, but maybe we should pick our Congress critters and Presidents this way.
he should have said, give me the 9 men the bull dyke, the transwoman and the old lady.
We couldn’t do any worse.
Ha! Double-chocolate-chip for me, please. :-)
the prosecution asked geuspunke to draw a slip of paper, but for some reason he couldn’t reach into the barrel.
It went from 18 - 12
What the...? If the verdict comes back guilty, will the poor kid need to spin a wheel to determine his sentence?
“Reducing the jury from 12 to 6 increases the odds of a unanimous conviction.”
Know the facts before wasting bandwidth with your rants!
I’m worried.
Ive been thinking about Richard’s summation and why it left me uneasy. It’s in part the anger and the contempt he expressed over the deceased attackers.
His first mistake: never speak ill of the dead. It doesn’t matter that they got themselves that way, people don’t want to hear bad things about them. Everybody who dies earns at least a small dollop of sanctity and their past sins evaporate.
Related to this is another innate human trait overlooked: whenever some event causes a fatality, regardless who died or why, people seem to perceive that their world has been injured, that the fabric of order has been scarred. They need to see balance restored which means somebody has to accept blame. Richards did not dress that wound; he did not provide an alternate scapegoat. He could have blamed the hospital or the mayor but he didn’t. Kyle remains first in line on this.
Hopefully I’m wrong about this.
>> They [the jury members] need to see balance restored which means somebody has to accept blame. Richards did not dress that wound; he did not provide an alternate scapegoat. <<
I suppose he meant to place the blame on the attackers, who do deserve it, but the ones who were killed acquire some sympathy just from that. I thought Kyle did better when he looked genuinely pained as he said I didn’t want to kill them but I had to.
I was somewhat disappointed in what I heard from Richards, especially considering that the preponderance of the evidence is on the defense’s side — and common sense too. At times he exaggerated unnecessarily and gave openings to the prosecution. (I missed the first part of his closing argument, and he may have done better in that part.)
Also I didn’t like the way he phrased his final remarks to the jury, which need to be something that will stick in their minds. He said something to the effect that Kyle’s actions were “privileged” as self defense. That may be a common usage among lawyers, but “privileged” carries a negative connotation for most persons. He could have said “justified” or used some other more positive word.
In any case I was convinced from the evidence — actually just from the videos themselves — that Kyle should be found not guilty, and no way of phrasing things by the lawyers is going to change that. Let’s hope the jury has people on it who will view the evidence properly and reach a fair conclusion.
You're right, I remember that turn of phrase caught my attention but I think I dismissed it as lawyer-talk.,
Recalling it triggered another, more disturbing thought: they are referring to the exercise of constitutional rights "privileged" actions.
This may have been the manner of address long before, but seeing two starkly different characterizations brought so close together is disturbing.
You're also right about Kyle's testimony balancing Richard's summation.
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.