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   ( ) divider line
    More: Obvious, CSI, New Jersey  
•       •       •

8337 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2013 at 11:33 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

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

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

2013-06-28 04:23:23 PM  

Medic Zero: 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?!

No, on a DVD player.
2013-06-28 04:28:29 PM  

rev. dave: That technology does not exist because people who create technology care very little about cops.  Plus cops are complete morons when it comes to technology.

Nerds vs jocks, to put it simply.
2013-06-28 04:43:29 PM  

redmid17: special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!

[ image 600x335]

As a death investigator, this is my favorite scene. During our morning meetings whenever someone asks me to zoom in a photo you hear several "enhance"s in the room as I click the zoom button.
2013-06-28 05:02:10 PM  

vernonFL: [ image 550x825]

I found a partial print from a bullet fragment and ran it through AFIS and it was a perfect match to our suspect.

/it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?

as she ages in real life that whole gag for that show gets WAY sadder.
2013-06-28 06:48:06 PM  

bibli0phile: 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.

Eyewitness is absolutely unreliable, but it's also all that's legally required in the state of Lousiana when seeking a life sentence. I also said "lots of eyewitnesses that have no relationship to the victim or the accused. They only had two eyewitnesses, one for the defendant, one for the prosecution, both related, both with too much prior relationships with the accused AND victim. That wasn't enough for me to send two men to prison for life. You also missed my follow up response to New York Monty. I'm sorry I'm not the mouth breather you'd hoped I'd be.
2013-06-28 07:13:26 PM  

Buffalo77: 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

watching NCIS and such pissed her off, but if she was in the mood for sex, it would be her who initiated coitus, as opposed to me all the time, in order to shut off the horrible tv and get her groove on.  I like NCIS and similar shows, so if feeling randy, I'd turn something like that on and wait for her to come "distract" me.  Got to be a game of sorts.

/sometimes I'd just turn the show on because I really do like watching them, but would end up having sex with a wonderful goth chick who knew how to do things which made my toes curl
//go ahead, have your gf call you daddy, see if it doesn't make you feel dirty... ruined it for me
2013-06-28 08:04:08 PM  

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

mooseyfate: 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?

Yeah, I really made my own rules that week.  I quietly and impartially observed the trial and the evidence presented to me, then in deliberations talked 3 jurors into changing their verdict because they were basing their verdict of guilt solely on the fact that the two men on trial didn't testify.  I told them, "You literally can't do that.  If that's the ONLY reason you're voting guilty, by virtue of the law you HAVE to vote not guilty."  If I hadn't been there to say those things, those two men might be serving a life sentence right now.  I'm not saying we, as jurors, made the right call.  But we can only work with what we were given, and we were given NOTHING that said those two men pulled a trigger that night, let alone that they shot a man to death, or that they tried to cover it up.  If anything, it looked like the NOPD was protecting one of their own by throwing two neighborhood boys under the bus, but that didn't enter in to why I voted not guilty, because it wasn't relevant.  What was relevant was the evidence, the forensics, the expert witnesses, and the eyewitness testimony.  And none of those pointed towards those two men murdering someone.  Just wasn't there.
2013-06-28 08:44:38 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: 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.

From the outside, they give a great target for a between-the-eyes shot...
2013-06-28 08:50:20 PM  
BarkingUnicorn: Where is LE getting this feedback from jurors?  I don't think jurors get to ask for DNA test results during trials.  Are jurors debriefed about their decision-making process routinely, or is this "CSI effect" presumed from random news reports of what a few jurors said  after trials?

Lawyers can and do talk to jurors after the case is over to ask about their discussions and how they reached the verdict.

I was talking to a prosecutor at a party years ago, she was complaining about the CSI effect. She had just lost a case, child sexual abuse that happened seven years prior. The victim testified, there was some other evidence (don't remember exactly). Jury found the guy not guilty. She talked to them afterwards, they said it was because there was no DNA evidence.
2013-06-28 10:21:45 PM  
That patriots player got his ass CSI'ed real farkin good. Ive personally got a theory that basically any crime could be solved, it's just a matter of resources.... And not very many people warrant big time resources, sadly.
2013-06-29 12:06:57 AM
2013-06-29 01:56:38 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Where is LE getting this feedback from jurors?  I don't think jurors get to ask for DNA test results during trials.  Are jurors debriefed about their decision-making process routinely, or is this "CSI effect" presumed from random news reports of what a few jurors said  after trials?

It seems likely that LE is projecting defense attorneys' questions onto jurors who vote to acquit.

That was my very first thought. Glad to see it's covered.

/"Of course we knew he was guilty all along, those jurors must be misled by CSI fantasies to acquit anyone I bring to trial!"
Displayed 12 of 162 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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.