I think it would depend on whether you were on trial for raping your hot sister.

Sounds like they seated a jury of his peers.

'hot' sister


dude on trial


/no luck finding pics of the juror

The guy deserves a new trial. You can't really say the last trial was fair when a juror changed his vote from Not Guilty to Guilty after the guys sister said she wouldn't meet up with him.

No

She obviously wasn't hot enough to get him a not guilty verdict.

If the sister agrees to go out w/ him.

That's one creepy juror.

Ryan2065: The guy deserves a new trial. You can't really say the last trial was fair when a juror changed his vote from Not Guilty to Guilty after the guys sister said she wouldn't meet up with him.

Yeah, that doesn't exactly say "hey, I'm impartial!"

Juries really need their own legal advisor, someone other than the judge. Juries also need to be told that if they fark up a case by their stupidity that they'll be seeing the inside of a jail cell. That this retard thought it was a good idea to contact a family member of the accused is beyond stupid.

Mistrials have been declared for far less.

Subby speaks as if being charged with sexual assault makes him more guilty. It does not. In fact, the importance of this case means we have to be very, very careful that the jurors are reaching the right verdict. If one of the jurors has been proven impartial, then he should definitely get a new trial.

depends on how hot the said sister is...

WHY does a news agency with a TF acct keep getting greenlit? I dont care if theyre funny or not this is like the 10th green in 2 days for these guys. Also, their traffic reports always suck.

No, Im not salty because Ive never submitted. OK thats a lie I submitted like 2 or 3 articles a long time ago. But still.

Yeah; I've got to say, it sounds like the guy is probably guilty, but this was Not Cool on the part of the juror. Clear conflict of interest equals mistrial, and that's the way it has to be, even for scum like this.

And the juror should go to jail for farking this up.

"A dozen counts of counts of luring females to Los Angeles and sexually assaulting them. His seven victims ranged in age from 14 to 21."

And the sister called the juror at first. The defendant's sister, who testified she called the juror because she was scared of angering him, did not say much beyond "thank you."

He's a bad raping man and his sister is a shameless floozy who probably manipulated the whole thing.

Befuddled: Juries really need their own legal advisor, someone other than the judge. Juries also need to be told that if they fark up a case by their stupidity that they'll be seeing the inside of a jail cell. That this retard thought it was a good idea to contact a family member of the accused is beyond stupid.

This.

There's a reason many juries have spare jurors. Dump the dumbass, preferebly in a cell, then bump up an alternate.

bassmaster that is my absolute favorite pic of her

"Convicted fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander"

What's the penalty for that?

Every jury I've been on has been instructed at every break to not discuss the case and not have any contact with any of the witnesses or others involved in the case. Does our juror in question think that only means if he doesn't have the warmies for one of them?

Phlyers: "Convicted fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander"

What's the penalty for that?

auf weidersehen!

Pervs judging pervs. nice

Befuddled: Juries also need to be told that if they fark up a case by their stupidity that they'll be seeing the inside of a jail cell.

The way that I understand it, your right to jury nullification ensures that you can not be punished for your verdict, regardless of how stupid it may be.

I would hate to live in a world where a juror could be punished for not "making the right call".

That aside, I believe this dude is a douche.

We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

The defendant and his sister conspired to involve the juror, not to get a "not guilty" verdict, but to force a mistrial. He does need a new trial, but not the same trial. That trial is over and should stand. The new trial should accuse the defendant and his sister of obstruction of justice or conspiracy or whatever the legal term for this is.

Ok enough about the case...

Would you hit it or not?


/would
//the chick not the dude.

Dirty Hot Linker: We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

There's a thing in the Constitution about a jury of your peers. We try to follow the Constitution, generally.

Dirty Hot Linker: We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

No, I disagree - but it would be nice if all employers were required to compensate people for serving jury duty. Here in Seattle, the jury pool consists almost exclusively of (a) college students, (b) retirees, (c) government employees, and (d) Boeing employees. Not exactly a cross-section of the community.

Dafatone: Dirty Hot Linker: We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

There's a thing in the Constitution about a jury of your peers. We try to follow the Constitution, generally.

And having a college degree really doesn't mean anything other than "I'm in debt."

Malachilenomade

And having a college degree really doesn't mean anything other than "I'm in debt."


Actually such a requirement would be pretty darn handy for weeding out most of the knuckle-draggers.

That may sound good, but it would inevitably result in juries of educated people passing judgment (so to speak) on Cletus and Brandeen; this would quickly turn into allegations that the elitist jury equated 'stupid' with 'guilty' and unfairly convicted the mouth-breather, ignoring any/all evidence to the contrary.

BMulligan: Dirty Hot Linker: We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

No, I disagree - but it would be nice if all employers were required to compensate people for serving jury duty. Here in Seattle, the jury pool consists almost exclusively of (a) college students, (b) retirees, (c) government employees, and (d) Boeing employees. Not exactly a cross-section of the community.

I guess I'm naive, I assumed they had to. That's crazy

Dirty Hot Linker: We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

Educated is not the same as wise. Sometimes an education represents an ego-based aversion to learning how things really are.

Englebert Slaptyback: Malachilenomade

And having a college degree really doesn't mean anything other than "I'm in debt."


Actually such a requirement would be pretty darn handy for weeding out most of the knuckle-draggers.

That may sound good, but it would inevitably result in juries of educated people passing judgment (so to speak) on Cletus and Brandeen; this would quickly turn into correct verdicts that the elitist jury equated 'stupid' with 'guilty' and correctly convicted the mouth-breather, ignoring any/all evidence to the contrary.

You say that like it's a bad thing, especially with the mandatory sterilization of the guilty laws that would need to be passed along with this.

Retort: Dirty Hot Linker: We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

Educated is not the same as wise. Sometimes an education represents an ego-based aversion to learning how things really are.

You sound uneducated.

msheda

Englebert Slaptyback: Malachilenomade

And having a college degree really doesn't mean anything other than "I'm in debt."


Actually such a requirement would be pretty darn handy for weeding out most of the knuckle-draggers.

That may sound good, but it would inevitably result in juries of educated people passing judgment (so to speak) on Cletus and Brandeen; this would quickly turn into correct verdicts that the elitist jury equated 'stupid' with 'guilty' and correctly convicted the mouth-breather, ignoring any/all evidence to the contrary.

You say that like it's a bad thing, especially with the mandatory sterilization of the guilty laws that would need to be passed along with this.


I did not say "correct verdicts"; I said "allegations". If you really need to modify someone's words, have a little integrity and indicate where you did so.

That change doesn't even make sense; the sentence structure doesn't work at all.

Dirty Hot Linker
We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

YES! because we know only smart, intelligent people have college degrees!

Menace II Sobriety: The way that I understand it, your right to jury nullification ensures that you can not be punished for your verdict, regardless of how stupid it may be.

The idea isn't to throw punish jurors for their verdicts, only their conduct. If you present the appearance of a conflict of interest, and you don't disclose it beforehand or step down immediately if prior disclosure isn't possible, then you should be held liable for obstruction of justice. Verdict is irrelevant; causing a mistrial is the problem.

Kyosuke: Sounds like they seated a jury of his peers.

This could be a first.

Englebert Slaptyback: Malachilenomade

And having a college degree really doesn't mean anything other than "I'm in debt."


Actually such a requirement would be pretty darn handy for weeding out most of the knuckle-draggers.

That may sound good, but it would inevitably result in juries of educated people passing judgment (so to speak) on Cletus and Brandeen; this would quickly turn into allegations that the elitist jury equated 'stupid' with 'guilty' and unfairly convicted the mouth-breather, ignoring any/all evidence to the contrary.

Also, it would de facto eliminate blacks from jury pools. Remember, literacy used to be used as a precondition of voting until it was noted how unjust that was.

bassmaster:

continuing that progression:

rippinthegears: WHY does a news agency with a TF acct keep getting greenlit? I dont care if theyre funny or not this is like the 10th green in 2 days for these guys. Also, their traffic reports always suck.

No, Im not salty because Ive never submitted. OK thats a lie I submitted like 2 or 3 articles a long time ago. But still.


What, you think links are approved by merit, and not by how much cash they pony up for shiat? Welcome to the real world.

Ryan2065: The guy deserves a new trial. You can't really say the last trial was fair when a juror changed his vote from Not Guilty to Guilty after the guys sister said she wouldn't meet up with him.

That's how I see it, also.

Loren: Ryan2065: The guy deserves a new trial. You can't really say the last trial was fair when a juror changed his vote from Not Guilty to Guilty after the guys sister said she wouldn't meet up with him.

That's how I see it, also.

That's what appellate courts are for, guys.

EggFool: "A dozen counts of counts of luring females to Los Angeles and sexually assaulting them. His seven victims ranged in age from 14 to 21."

And the sister called the juror at first. The defendant's sister, who testified she called the juror because she was scared of angering him, did not say much beyond "thank you."

He's a bad raping man and his sister is a shameless floozy who probably manipulated the whole thing.

This was my suspicion as well. The sister says that the juror initiated this by contacting her first; but what is there to corroborate that?

The whole story is just too convenient- her brother is convicted in this creepy case, and she pops up to play the "victim" of the juror. "Oh, and by great coincidence we have a tape, which we are revealing for the first time after the trial!"

Even if she is the one who initiated this, the juror is an epic dumbass for flirting with her. On the other hand, she is pretty hot and could probably convince you it'd be worth your while to try and hit it; and, like most jurors he was probably a regular joe without anything personally invested in being a juror- quite the opposite, being a juror was probably a costly and frequently-boring annoyance.

Meh.

Dafatone: There's a thing in the Constitution about a jury of your peers. We try to follow the Constitution, generally.

So if I get found guilty by a jury where all but 1 member has a college degree (such as myself), I have good grounds for appeal? I mean if I have a college degree, the constitution guarantees peers so that 1 person wouldn't constitute a peer. According to you.

BMulligan: No, I disagree - but it would be nice if all employers were required to compensate people for serving jury duty. Here in Seattle, the jury pool consists almost exclusively of (a) college students, (b) retirees, (c) government employees, and (d) Boeing employees. Not exactly a cross-section of the community.

I disagree with you disagreeing with me, but I agree that it should be law that employers should compensate employees.

Retort: Educated is not the same as wise. Sometimes an education represents an ego-based aversion to learning how things really are.

Ok, you're against the college thing. We get it. You're unique and you probably have tattoos as well as 3/4ths of an AA degree in liberal arts. But what about professional juries?

Azlefty: YES! because we know only smart, intelligent people have college degrees!

Irrelevant to my point. Bush is rich, he wouldn't need the money to serve on a professional jury. Try again. You can't cherry pick parts of my post. The person needs to be a professional juror AND have a degree.

Dirty Hot Linker: Dafatone: There's a thing in the Constitution about a jury of your peers. We try to follow the Constitution, generally.

So if I get found guilty by a jury where all but 1 member has a college degree (such as myself), I have good grounds for appeal? I mean if I have a college degree, the constitution guarantees peers so that 1 person wouldn't constitute a peer. According to you.

BMulligan: No, I disagree - but it would be nice if all employers were required to compensate people for serving jury duty. Here in Seattle, the jury pool consists almost exclusively of (a) college students, (b) retirees, (c) government employees, and (d) Boeing employees. Not exactly a cross-section of the community.

I disagree with you disagreeing with me, but I agree that it should be law that employers should compensate employees.

Retort: Educated is not the same as wise. Sometimes an education represents an ego-based aversion to learning how things really are.

Ok, you're against the college thing. We get it. You're unique and you probably have tattoos as well as 3/4ths of an AA degree in liberal arts. But what about professional juries?

Azlefty: YES! because we know only smart, intelligent people have college degrees!

Irrelevant to my point. Bush is rich, he wouldn't need the money to serve on a professional jury. Try again. You can't cherry pick parts of my post. The person needs to be a professional juror AND have a degree.

One take on professional jurors (new window)

Moar professional juror talk (new window)


But what the hell you might be right, no matter how imperfect the jury system might be (new window)

Dirty Hot Linker: We really need professional juries. Each juror would be required to have a college degree to sit.

Just how long do you think it would be before prosecution corrupted these so called professional juries? I would rather be judged by 12 people with common sense then 12 so called intelligent people with collage degrees.

Some of the stupidest people I know have degrees
Theres a gentleman here in our township with a 7th grade education. Most likely he has enough cash to buy and sell you. you don't get there by making stupid decisions. You get there by making smart decisions.

/Checks profile
SNORT,,, California, That explains it.

she was asking for it, look at what she was wearing.

Quartlow: Just how long do you think it would be before prosecution corrupted these so called professional juries? I would rather be judged by 12 people with common sense then 12 so called intelligent people with collage degrees.

Not me. Common sense is not as common as the name would imply. I'd much rather have a group of people that could process information given without being persuaded by subjective material (the whole OJ trial for example). While not every body who has a college degree is "intelligent." I would say that a person with a degree is more likely to be objective, and less likely to be swayed by the Cochrane chewbaca defense. If I am ever on trial I want educated people to be judging me.