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

To: Red Badger
I served on a jury once.

Two teen aged girls who were in a street fight with another girl.

The two teens were charged, and so was the mother of the 2. Mom was charged for instigating and encouraging the girls to fight.

During the course of the trial, we, the jury, were removed from the courtroom while the judge and lawyers talked.

To make a long story short, we eventually found the mother guilty of two of the three charges against her, finding her “not guilty” of the one felony charge.

Some time after to trial, I found out that when we were out of the courtroom, the judge and lawyer were debating whether or not to allow evidence that incriminated the mom.

These girls and their mom had regularly posted videos on YouTube, and they were all of street fights that mom and her girls had instigated and participated in.

Of course the defense attorney got the evidence silenced. The judge ruled it had no bearing on the trial at hand.

I will always remember this. It will affect any future juries I sit on in the future.

19 posted on 07/12/2011 8:14:09 AM PDT by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: airborne
Of course the defense attorney got the evidence silenced. The judge ruled it had no bearing on the trial at hand.

It shows a pattern of behavior. That's what they use in sexual assault trials (such as Monica-Gate).
When a child is molested, or a woman is raped, the first thing the investigators do is check the people in the area with molestation or rape records.

27 posted on 07/12/2011 8:25:16 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: airborne

“Two teen aged girls who were in a street fight with another girl.

The two teens were charged, and so was the mother of the 2. Mom was charged for instigating and encouraging the girls to fight.”

Based on this evidence from your post alone, I would have voted to convict.
I don’t need 3 days of lawyer BS to make up my mind on a case like this.


28 posted on 07/12/2011 8:26:55 AM PDT by wilco200 (11/4/08 - The Day America Jumped the Shark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: airborne

” I will always remember this. It wil always affect the juries I sit on in the future. “ <<

Your experience is a real concern. I would feel the same way. On the other hand, I sat on a grand jury where ham sandwiches can get indicted by the district attorney and it’s ruinous if they’re wrong, but in one case before the jury, I did ask for the accused to be scheduled to speak. I then had to be absent and missed his testimony altogether, of all things! However, after hearing him the other grand jury members did vote to drop the charges. Guess it cuts both ways for sure.


30 posted on 07/12/2011 8:27:51 AM PDT by RitaOK (We hang together or will hang separately. 2012, or bust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: airborne

“”Some time after to trial, I found out that when we were out of the courtroom, the judge and lawyer were debating whether or not to allow evidence that incriminated the mom.””

That’s why it’s so irritating to hear Anthony’s defense team say that the jury saw the trial and the rest of us didn’t.

They were taken out of the courtroom so often and the cameras were still there so we could see the discussions and arguments taking place between the prosecution and defense. We got to see MORE than the jury did.


38 posted on 07/12/2011 9:13:47 AM PDT by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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