Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Jersey 101.5)   Detective: CSI is ruining our jury members because they're asking for crazy technology that doesn't exist   (nj1015.com) divider line 162
    More: Obvious, CSI, New Jersey  
•       •       •

8314 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2013 at 11:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-28 01:22:07 PM  
I covered several trials where the prosecutor asked potential jurors if the watch CSI, and if they did, made sure they understood that criminal investigation doesn't really work that way.
 
2013-06-28 01:22:11 PM  
In Denton county the DA has gotten a life sentence in a "murder" case that had no body, no crime scene, and nothing CSI worthy. And I'm sure I haven't gotten a jury summons in the past 14 years because I personally have a grudge with the DA for not carrying my charges against an attacker because she was female.

That being said, epithelial DNA technique has gotten too sensitive to be trusted. The Amanda Knox case got taken apart because the tech handled something of hers, then the apparent murder weapon. Of course there's going to be epithelial transfer. I'm less inclined to help a little old lady if my epithelial debris left on her shoulder are going to result in talking to the cops.
 
2013-06-28 01:23:06 PM  

Molavian: Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.

They're always class c addresses, so that helps.


Unless the hacker has been into the hard CIDR.
 
2013-06-28 01:23:11 PM  

Frank and Beans: Goth chix like show no pleasure-related emotion whatsoever about taking it in the butt.


FTFY.
 
2013-06-28 01:25:47 PM  

Mentat: Then stop picking idiot jurors instead of chasing away anyone with a brain who might actually try to think about the evidence they're seeing.


But you can also call into question the evidence that you're not being presented when evaluating whether the state has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Say your undercover cop witnessed 3 guys offering drugs - the swoop-in screwed up and they got away - later you recognized one of the guys.  If all you have is "I recognized the guy" your case is kind of thin. Show me drugs, show me the results of a search warrant - give me something other than "he said, she said" if you want me to deprive someone of his freedom.
 
2013-06-28 01:30:51 PM  

Gunny Walker: They'd have it if Torchwood would release it to the public.


i1353.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-28 01:31:13 PM  
When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.
 
2013-06-28 01:31:58 PM  
Next thing you know people who read sci-fi as kids think we can colonize space like it's a drive-in Wal Mart.
 
2013-06-28 01:38:37 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Next thing you know people who read sci-fi as kids think we can colonize space like it's a drive-in Wal Mart.


Don't worry, we'll always have sanctimonious douchebags that threadshiat anything that has to do with nascent technology so it balances out.  3d print yourself a short pier to take a long walk off of.
 
2013-06-28 01:41:33 PM  

Lerxst2k: Since when can juries ask questions?

I don't remember that part of the trial when I served, unless this can happen in a grand jury.


Juries ask questions of each other in deliberations while they try to reach a consensus. They can also ask that testimony be re-read to them and can question the judge as to points of law relating to the case.
 
2013-06-28 01:42:33 PM  

dj_bigbird: Maybe if they quit using junk science like bite marks and blood splatter, they'd be more believable.


7/10 not bad. Going for the subtle angle helps.
 
2013-06-28 01:45:33 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: BafflerMeal: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html


DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.

Fair enough, we are limited by detectable SNiPs, but the ability to do so reliably has always been increasing and allows for investigations to be revisited (Assuming you come from a civilized place without the death penalty).  I don't think it is the same problem as with fingerprints because that is literally, "Hey, this looks like it, what do you think George?"  DNA analysis uses clearly defined and programmed metrics not ACE-V where each letter of the acronym is just another word for look closely.  Also a person analyzing a DNA sample today will get the same result by the same metrics tomorrow.  Whereas a fingerprint examiner can produce variability in their determination depending on how tired they are that day.


So software doing image matches gets tired?

huh, learn something new every day.
 
2013-06-28 01:45:39 PM  
Recently I had to get fingerprinted for a job, so I went in to where they do that and it turns out I don't have fingerprints. I mean, you can see them, but they don't show up on either the ink style or the computer scanner style. Apparently the ridges are too shallow and they just leave smudges.

I'm totally going into a life of crime. Good luck catching me now, biatches!

(That's how it works, right? No fingerprints, they can't catch me?)
 
2013-06-28 01:45:58 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: Wodan11: It's actually STAR TREK's fault, for popularizing and making semi-mainstream the deus ex machina of using some whiz-bang science to solve plot twists.

Several cold cases were recently solved when the crime lab figured out how to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish and then light up the cloaked evidence with an inverse tachyon beam after routing the full power of the warp engines through the plasma bypass.


You forgot to explain that using a simple analogy.

"Like putting too much air into a balloon!"
"Of course, it's so simple!!"
 
2013-06-28 01:48:35 PM  
Yeah this is a repeat from like 5-10 years ago.
 
2013-06-28 01:52:29 PM  

Ambitwistor: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 366x1500]


that was perfect.
 
2013-06-28 01:53:00 PM  

BafflerMeal: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html


DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.


"In 2002, Lydia Fairchild was denied public assistance when DNA evidence showed that she was not related to her children. After hearing of a human chimera in New England, Karen Keegan, it was eventually found that she too was a chimera and thus had two sets of DNA." - Wiki
 
2013-06-28 01:57:00 PM  
As a juror, it's you solemn duty to doubt. Your go-to position should always be, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." (Not "maybe guilty" or "probably guilty".) This means that any doubt at all should be grounds for acquittal. You are the last line of defense the Defendant has. The entire system, from the police, to the CSI, to the DA, to the Judge, are all on the same team. They hang out at the same bars, and work in the same building, and generally see each other every day. The Judge will always give the benefit of the doubt to any of the others. The Defense attorney will try to work the system, but the deck is generally stacked against him as well as his client. And, you can pretty much forget about a fair trial if it's a Public Defender. They always try to get the defendant to plea-bargain, even if they're not guilty.
 
2013-06-28 02:00:17 PM  

mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.


Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.
 
2013-06-28 02:03:26 PM  
I also think you'd see a different attitude about Jury Duty if being "excused" from duty also meant being disqualified from voting.
 
2013-06-28 02:03:34 PM  

redmid17: special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


I reference this all the time at work on my computer. This made my day.
 
2013-06-28 02:04:32 PM  

new_york_monty: Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.


Again- PROVEN guilty. Not "probably guilty" or "possibly guilty."
 
2013-06-28 02:05:03 PM  
Trance354
Angry goth sex is fun, but I think she figured out what I was doing rather quickly.

If you were too quick and she couldn't tell you were having sex with her, then I can see why she is your Ex GF

\ You are doing it wrong
 
2013-06-28 02:07:41 PM  
blog.bradblanks.com

I'm just gonna set up some sockets for my permitter on the subnets and I'll send it to your screen...
 
2013-06-28 02:11:50 PM  
My favorite CSI quotes:

Head scientist guy "Well, terminal velocity of a human being is 9.8m/s/s"

Junior scientist guy "So, the nail in the tire grounded the vehicle, and the guy inside got electrocuted when lightning struck the car"

Defense atty: "There's no law saying that's illegal."  CSI lady "Doesn't mean that there's one that says it is"

CSI lady (to suspect, a minor) "you killed him, didn't you?"  Defense counsel (to client, the suspect, a minor) "you don't have to answer that, but if you've got a good explanation, I think we'd all like to hear it"

CSI guy with the big hair "so (suspect) must have heard "habeas corpus" and thought they were talking about a body, when actually habeas corpus is just the collection of evidence that makes up a case"
 
2013-06-28 02:11:55 PM  

HAMMERTOE: new_york_monty: Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

Again- PROVEN guilty. Not "probably guilty" or "possibly guilty."


The standard is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, no reasonable member of the community should doubt the verdict. Outliers will always have doubts (some people will object to anything) but those doubts are seen as unreasonable by most people. I'm not arguing that the accused should ever have to prove their innocence--that burden must rest solely on the prosecution (except in an affirmative defense). Regardless, the prosecution is not required to prove guilt beyond any doubt, simply beyond any reasonable doubt. Beyond any doubt is, quite frankly, an unreasonable standard.
 
2013-06-28 02:12:51 PM  

Carousel Beast: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: BafflerMeal: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html


DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.

Fair enough, we are limited by detectable SNiPs, but the ability to do so reliably has always been increasing and allows for investigations to be revisited (Assuming you come from a civilized place without the death penalty).  I don't think it is the same problem as with fingerprints because that is literally, "Hey, this looks like it, what do you think George?"  DNA analysis uses clearly defined and programmed metrics not ACE-V where each letter of the acronym is just another word for look closely.  Also a person analyzing a DNA sample today will get the same result by the same metrics tomorrow.  Whereas a fingerprint examiner can produce variability in their determination depending on how tired they are that day.

So software doing image matches gets tired?

huh, learn something new every day.


No, but the software generates a list based on how many of 20 similar characteristics are present.  Many of these characteristics are not detected by the software itself but inputted by a user.  Then from a list of hundreds, a separate examiner has to use his fallible human sensory system to find a match.  Or did you think that the computer just scans through a massive database and pulls out the one true match?  Or do you believe far fetched scenarios on CSI more than the National Academy of Sciences which criticizes the lack of ANY scientific standards, absolutely zero central oversight with no intention of allowing academic institutions to see if fingerprint analysis is valid, and nonexistent regulation.

Or just ask Brandon Mayfield.  Dumbass.
 
2013-06-28 02:13:18 PM  
But Snowden said they could pull recordings from all the cell phones in the area to play the sound of gunshots and triangulate where the shot came from.
 
2013-06-28 02:14:23 PM  

HAMMERTOE: As a juror, it's you solemn duty to doubt. Your go-to position should always be, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." (Not "maybe guilty" or "probably guilty".) This means that any reasonable doubt at all should be grounds for acquittal. You are the last line of defense the Defendant has. The entire system, from the police, to the CSI, to the DA, to the Judge, are all on the same team. They hang out at the same bars, and work in the same building, and generally see each other every day. The Judge will always give the benefit of the doubt to any of the others. The Defense attorney will try to work the system, but the deck is generally stacked against him as well as his client. And, you can pretty much forget about a fair trial if it's a Public Defender. They always try to get the defendant to plea-bargain, even if they're not guilty.


FTFY.

Defendant: "Your honor, I was with the lizard people on Omicron Persei 8 at the time, and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Santa Clause to frame me since I beat him at baccarat that one time in college."

You: "Seems legit."
 
2013-06-28 02:15:03 PM  

HAMMERTOE: new_york_monty: Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

Again- PROVEN guilty. Not "probably guilty" or "possibly guilty."


That isn't the standard.  "I have no reasonable doubts of his guilt" is the standard.

You should have been bounced from the jury. You can't even follow simple directions, and want to impose your own standard on America.
 
2013-06-28 02:19:28 PM  

new_york_monty: Beyond any doubt is, quite frankly, an unreasonable standard.


How about, as a minimum standard of "proof", we do with the same level of "proof" that the IRS requires  for a deduction during an audit? What happens to "Beyond any doubt is an unreasonable standard," then?
 
2013-06-28 02:22:59 PM  

the cake is a pie: Defendant: "Your honor, I was with the lizard people on Omicron Persei 8 at the time, and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Santa Clause to frame me since I beat him at baccarat that one time in college."

You: "Seems legit."


Hardly. But then again, no less "legit" than the bible people are required to swear upon in court.
 
2013-06-28 02:26:59 PM  

HAMMERTOE: new_york_monty: Beyond any doubt is, quite frankly, an unreasonable standard.

How about, as a minimum standard of "proof", we do with the same level of "proof" that the IRS requires  for a deduction during an audit? What happens to "Beyond any doubt is an unreasonable standard," then?


Fortunately, I have not been subjected to an audit, so I am unaware of the IRS standards in that case.

Nonetheless, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is a good one. I think we incarcerate far too many people in this country and need to strike a lot of laws from the books. But we do need to maintain the ability to prosecute dangerous criminals. As a juror, even if there was crystal clear video and forensic evidence of someone's guilt, I would still have some doubts. It would be up to me (and the 11 people with me) to discuss the reasonableness of those doubts. It's an imperfect system, but it's the best we've come up with so far.
 
2013-06-28 02:34:49 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Quantum Apostrophe: Next thing you know people who read sci-fi as kids think we can colonize space like it's a drive-in Wal Mart.

Don't worry, we'll always have sanctimonious douchebags that threadshiat anything that has to do with nascent technology so it balances out.  3d print yourself a short pier to take a long walk off of.


Nascent technology? "3D printing" is over three decades old by now. Yet even to print a short pier, you'd need a 3D printer that doesn't exist. Weird how we can laugh at rubes that watch TV and ask for impossible technology but if we saw it in Star Trek it is holy and must never be questioned.

Or we should totally just call anything remotely related "3D printing" then fantasize that every single capability is in one single device that people will all have at home.
 
2013-06-28 02:34:51 PM  
"They have some pre-conceived notions of what abilities we have. It leads them to ask some questions sometimes of detectives, of our crime scene detectives. 'Did you do this because I saw it on TV,' when that technology doesn't exist."
Welcome to a jury of your moronic peers.


"We just keep asking questions until someone gives up and confesses."
A rough semblance of one of James Garners movie quotes.
 
2013-06-28 02:38:57 PM  

new_york_monty: mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.

Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.


I apologize, I consider "reasonable" to have been an unspoken standard. So I mistyped. I should have posted "ANY reasonable doubt". And I wasn't bounced, I was selected. And as I also pointed out, there were massive heaps of doubt practically smothering this case from start to finish. No one got even close to putting a gun in the hands of the accused. All the witnesses, however, placed a gun firmly in the hands of a man named Kevin (don't remember his last name at this second) aka Big Kev, but after a 10 minute phone call from an NOPD detective, they decided he wasn't a person of interest. Oh, did I mention that this Big Kev was ex-NOPD? Or that they've been unable to track him down since that phone call, even with the FBI and US Marshall's helping?
 
2013-06-28 02:43:17 PM  

Rent Party: [blog.bradblanks.com image 400x300]

I'm just gonna set up some sockets for my permitter on the subnets and I'll send it to your screen...


I hate you so much right now ...

/listening to random inane techno-babble in these shows has given me a permanent nervous tick
 
2013-06-28 02:46:35 PM  

mooseyfate: new_york_monty: mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.

Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

I apologize, I consider "reasonable" to have been an unspoken standard. So I mistyped. I should have posted "ANY reasonable doubt". And I wasn't bounced, I was selected. And as I also pointed out, there were massive heaps of doubt practically smothering this case from start to finish. No one got even close to putting a gun in the hands of the accused. All the witnesses, however, placed a gun firmly in the hands of a man named Kevin (don't remember his last name at this second) aka Big Kev, but after a 10 minute phone call from an NOPD detective, they decided he wasn't a person of interest. Oh, did I mention that this Big Kev was ex-NOPD? Or that they've been unable to track him down since that phone call, even with the FBI and US Marshall's helping?


That's a lot of very reasonable doubt then. Sorry to jump on you about that, but reasonable/any doubt is a pet peeve of mine. I've met too many people who genuinely believe it is beyond any doubt. You seem like exactly the type of person I would want on my jury if I was ever on trial.

/Here's hoping they track down the dirty bastard
 
2013-06-28 02:51:44 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.

geektyrant.com
/I knew you'd say that
//I can't be the only one wondering why those crossed red lines would be placed on the helmet so they directly cover the eyes
 
2013-06-28 02:53:00 PM  

Lerxst2k: Since when can juries ask questions?

I don't remember that part of the trial when I served, unless this can happen in a grand jury.


Probably depends on the jurisdiction - the jury I served on got to ask questions in writing, and the judge decided which ones could be asked and presented them herself.  And they really were pretty basic, but key questions of fact - the prosecutors did a terrible job assembling and presenting their case.
 
2013-06-28 02:55:06 PM  
I realize that Hollywood movies aren't necessarily a standard to go by, but I had an epiphany once, while watching "The Fugitive". I realized that I would have voted to convict the poor shmuck, given the evidence, and that this vote would have been in error. So, the standard of what constitutes a "reasonable" doubt, can be very wide.
 
2013-06-28 02:55:47 PM  

brap: Funny years ago when I was on a Grand Jury that shiate was happening.  Half the dopes had to be reminded that we weren't even trying the got damned case, just saying if case deserved an indictment.

Between that, the horrific nature of all the crap we had to listen to all day, and the woman that kept watching Blue Collar Comics DVDs over and over and over for the whole two week duration of the thing, I wept for humanity rather frequently.


During the trial?!
 
2013-06-28 03:08:53 PM  

Marcintosh: "They have some pre-conceived notions of what abilities we have. It leads them to ask some questions sometimes of detectives, of our crime scene detectives. 'Did you do this because I saw it on TV,' when that technology doesn't exist."
Welcome to a jury of your moronic peers.


It's the myth of hypercompetence. People have more contact with movies and video games than reality, so they don't realize how limited reality actually is.
 
2013-06-28 03:09:19 PM  
MythDragon:
//I can't be the only one wondering why those crossed red lines would be placed on the helmet so they directly cover the eyes

Presumably it's a heads up display.
 
2013-06-28 03:36:08 PM  
I have this relevant XKCD on my lab door:
http://xkcd.com/683/

/ there's ALWAYS a relevant XKCD.
 
2013-06-28 03:36:51 PM  

MythDragon: AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.
[geektyrant.com image 620x413]
/I knew you'd say that
//I can't be the only one wondering why those crossed red lines would be placed on the helmet so they directly cover the eyes


Because justice is blind even if it isn't a naked chick holding a scale
 
2013-06-28 03:50:45 PM  

Ambitwistor: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 366x1500]


lol +1
 
2013-06-28 04:08:15 PM  

mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.


Wow, so you are one of the uninformed jurors you so hate since eyewitness testimony is the LEAST reliable testimony there is.
 
2013-06-28 04:17:35 PM  

mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.


Well, good to know that we have jurors who blatently disregard the law and their role.
 
2013-06-28 04:23:07 PM  

meanmutton: mooseyfate: When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.

Well, good to know that we have jurors who blatently disregard the law and their role.


^ what he said too, cannot believe I missed that as well.
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report