[Poohbah]

Then you shouldn't be on any jury. The judge will properly instruct the jury to consider the evidence in its totality. Jurors can't throw out evidence merely because they don't like the proponent of the evidence.

Yup. And I do properly consider the totality of the evidence. And that totality includes the integrity of the parties presenting that evidence.

If you're willing to lie when the odds of getting caught are extremely high (as they were in that event), then you're at least equally likely to lie when the odds are that much lower. It's not mere dislike that drives this--it's understanding that people who lie are likely to not just lie once.

[agarrett]

Yup. And I do properly consider the totality of the evidence. And that totality includes the integrity of the parties presenting that evidence.

  If I recall correctly, the police admitted they lied in order to get a warrant. Do you therefore discount all their testimony?

  The dog guy (can't remember his name, only the "180" nickname), was shown to have lied on the stand, when he had to recant his claim that he'd told the police about the alert. Do you discount that testimony? Does it reflect badly on the prosecution?

  The first bug guy, Faulkner, was hired by the prosecution, but dismissed when his findings conflicted with their theories. Does this count as dishonest, and if so, does it impact your view of the prosecution?

  Now, I agree that Feldman's bit with the porn was dishonest, and he shouldn't have done it. You can even weight it against the defense - but to ignore their entire case because of it is unreasonable, unless you are willing to apply the same standard to the prosecution (in which case, as far as I can tell, there's no case at all, and we're just imagining the whole thing)

Drew Garrett

[Freedom2specul8]

Since we're not on a jury....we can't possibly be expected to follow the rules they have to succumb to. We know too much and watch tv or listen to the radio or read news articles and OOOPS we discuss the case every day.. :)

[Henrietta]

And I do properly consider the totality of the evidence. And that totality includes the integrity of the parties presenting that evidence.

You seem to be confused about the difference between totality of the evidence and the reliability of witnesses.

Just because one side puts on a witness who a juror feels is not reliable does not mean that you can throw out any old evidence that you don't wish to consider. Jurors must consider ALL of the evidence. Jurors may, however, make judgments as to the reliability of the witnesses and their testimony by considering things like bias, motivation to fabricate, prior inconsistent testimony, prior consistent testimony, and whether the witness was capable of observing the scene accurately.

[UCANSEE2]

it's understanding that people who lie are likely to not just lie once.

Like the Van Dam's, their witnesses, and the police ?