Lucky... 0
normiss 622
What about when we "bend" our decisions based on media snips of the entire court case?
There's no way we say everything that happened in either trial.
There are an assload of details commonly missed when the media covers legal issues.
Not defending him in anyway...but a court room is much different that what the TV and newspapers tell us it is.
A jury of your peers simply is not possible. My peers seem to always find a way out of jury duty.
Lucky... 0
Quote
Point is, all jury members knew of the 95 murders and most/all thought he did it. All white jury of his peers????
The murder trial Simpson went through was so highly publicized that we would have been hard pressed to find 12 people that had not heard of it. Therefore, in this case, it is fair that he was tried by 12 Americans who are imperfect humans that may or may not have an opinion on his past actions or perceived actions.
I am not sure what color has to do with this. A man in this context is a man, not a black man or a white man, whether the defendant or a juror.
I don't get this continuos use of, "imperfect." Is that a regurgitation of McCain's election speech?
As far as finding anyone not aware of OJ's murder acquittal, agreed. But to stack the jury with 12 whites and pretend it wasn't fixed by using 2 black alternates is sooooooooooooooo obvious. Again, not defending OJ, society is better off, just saying the system was bent to get a fast conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...that may or may not have an opinion on his past actions or perceived actions.
Oh no, at least 5 said they disagreed with his 95 acquittal. Make no misunderstanding. If you are ever tried for a crime and you feel the justice system is unfair, just look at this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>I am not sure what color has to do with this.
That's becuase you have no or little experience/education with the justice system. Again, picture yourself in Georgia in a highly black area, charged with a crime by a black cop, go to trial with a black judge and all-black jury. I understanhd you can't fathom that, nor can I, but try to. Sooooooooo many SCOTUS cases have been based about that very issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial
The US COnst took a hit too:
The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
With 5 of the 12 saying they disagreed with his acquittal, how can that be impartial. In all rights the state should not have had the right to try OJ until they could assemble such a jury, which I'm sure will be a major component to the appeal.
You may have heard me say what a joke teh US Const is in this forum. This is why. If followed it would be great, but even under its inception the authors went home to their slaves. It's typical American political fluff, fodder for the nationalists. Aside from everyone's dislike for OJ, which is certainly justified, you cannot honestly take the rendering of teh 6th above and saying the jury was fair and impartial. Simply calling them imperfect would get you expelled from any law school, but probably works in an internet forum.
This is very interesting and true:
http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/jury_peers.html
The Sixth Amendment simply guarantees the right to "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Some of the most significant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court controlling jury composition, moreover, have been based not on the Sixth Amendment but on the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws. "
I bet a ton of cases refering to the living constitution (case law) involve race and jury composition. In fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The case overruled Swain v. Alabama by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must show in order to make a prima facie case (which does not require proof or reasoning) of purposeful discrimination.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=476&invol=79
Lucky... 0
QuoteWhat about when we "bend" our decisions based on media snips of the entire court case?
There's no way we say everything that happened in either trial.
There are an assload of details commonly missed when the media covers legal issues.
Not defending him in anyway...but a court room is much different that what the TV and newspapers tell us it is.
A jury of your peers simply is not possible. My peers seem to always find a way out of jury duty.
>>>>>>>>>What about when we "bend" our decisions based on media snips of the entire court case?
We don't make decisions, just have opinions based on occurrences. The media is irrelevant in court cases and is often banned. We can't blame constitutional missteps on the media.
So, are you saying the media released false jury questionaires that admited by at least 5 jurors to feel that the 95 acquittal was disagreeable? Did the media lie or do you believe that? So the aweful liberal media loves gays, lazy people and now OJ.... Hmmm, ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's no way we say everything that happened in either trial.
No, but we do know thatteh jury was stacked with whitey, whitey that didn't like OJ's 95 acquittal....is that impartial by our beloved US constitution?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..There are an assload of details commonly missed when the media covers legal issues.
So let's just call it good and turn our heads. We do know that 5 of 12 didn't like this free.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not defending him in anyway...but a court room is much different that what the TV and newspapers tell us it is.
I know, that's why I have a degree in justice and have attended many high profile cases at trial and sentencing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A jury of your peers simply is not possible. My peers seem to always find a way out of jury duty.
Well, that isn't guaranteed by the 6th anyway, the 14th points to equal protection. But an impartial jury is guaranteed and I think we can all agree that a jury comprised of 5 of 12 who think the guy shouldn't be out walking around isn't impartial.... and that doesn't even address the racial composition issue.
normiss 622
QuoteAre you saying the media released false jury questionaires that admited by at least 5 jurors to feel that the 95 acquittal was disagreeable? Did the media lie or do you believe that? So the aweful liberal media loves gays, lazy people and now OJ.... Hmmm, ok.
Wow. THAT was a leap.
I was trying to say that what the public thinks made him guilty in a case where he was found NOT guilty, the majority of people made that decision based on the news, not on the case that was put to a judge and jury. Nothing more, nothing less.
No views regarding sexual preference or energy output levels of any individuals. or OJ personally.
Lighten up there Francis.
The murder trial Simpson went through was so highly publicized that we would have been hard pressed to find 12 people that had not heard of it. Therefore, in this case, it is fair that he was tried by 12 Americans who are imperfect humans that may or may not have an opinion on his past actions or perceived actions.
I am not sure what color has to do with this. A man in this context is a man, not a black man or a white man, whether the defendant or a juror.
Volumes of SCOTUS cases have to do with race, jury compilations and the sort. The 1972 Furhman V Georgia has to do with racial inequalities and teh death penalty, so much that a 4-year moratorium was used to rethink the process.
I realize your justice education/experience is probably limited, not meant as an insult, but if you had more you would understand the issues behind race and the entire justice system.
With that said, OJ is a murderous POS and I feel no sympathy for him, but when we "bend" the rules to bag him, then "bending" the rules become acceptable. Ends justifies the means is scary and is what drove Salem and other eras in world history.
An all white jury today is an atrocity. Black Americans represent 13% of pur population, with a 12-person jury, 1.56 should have been black to be a fair representation. If you were on trial for the same crimes against black people, would you be ok looking up and seeing 12 black jurors? We can pretend race has no variance on US justice, but that has been historically impeached.