Good points
I agree. Good Points, KBrady. I got sucked in to that stuff about removing the drain plug too, when this case was discussed more than a year ago, but that was before I saw what the plug was actually like. On seeing the location of the plug, it should be obvious to anyone that its removal could hardly have been relevant. The fact that the prosecution indicated that it was relevant simply shows that they are idiots (and I’d be happy to tell them as much).
As to “saving face”, it’s an unfortunate fact that those who are attracted to law enforcement are notoriously bad at admitting flaws and mistakes, and frequently value their own reputation more than they value truth (which of course, backfires, big-time, as far as their reputations go, but I don’t think they even realize it). I’ve seen dozens of documentaries dealing with those convicted of murder and other violent crimes being acquitted later with excellent, even irrefutable evidence, and almost NEVER will the police or prosecution admit they got it wrong the first time. This is veering off-topic, but the worst example I ever saw was an adult man, not particularly talented or bright (and thus an easy target), who was convicted of premeditated murder by arson when his elderly parents died in a house fire. The police “determined” the cause of the fire to be arson, but the person doing the investigation was no more qualified to make such a determination than you or I (and what’s wrong with police mentality that they see no problem with this?). Years later, a world-renouned fire and arson investigator unequivocally proved the fire to have been caused by a faulty clothes drier, and he even provided flawless evidence regarding the real cause of the so-called “pour patterns” of burning on the floor which the police said had been due to some kind of liquid accelerant. Due to a mountain of excellent evidence, the charges were dismissed and the man was released from prison, but did the police ever admit they were wrong? Nope. To this day they call the man’s release a case of judicial over-reach (I can’t recall the name of the town where this happened. I wish I could so that people could look up the details. The way they botched the case was beyond belief).
A lot of the times, police and investigators really impress me with the way they solve a case. Other times, they horrify me. I never just assume that what they report is correct.
Juries can be a farce, too. I was on a jury on a case of far less consequence than the above -to anyone but the defendant - but the experience was illuminating. After deliberating for a couple of hours or so, we were deadlocked at 11-1 to convict and the one holdout was adamant that he was innocent. While the others were discussing something, she turned to me and asked “What happens if we don’t reach a verdict today?” I replied that we would come back tomorrow and go back to deliberating. She immediately changed her vote, since her personal inconvenience was apparently more important than the “principle” she had been holding out for. I was stunned at how blatant this was at the time, but I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised.
The only saving grace was that the defendant was clearly guilty and nobody could understand the twisted logic the holdout juror was using to make her case. It was obvious she had no grasp of the evidence and was not too bright (in addition to being a hypocrite, as we learned later). It really threw into doubt the entire “jury of your peers” concept of justice in my mind.
@castoff said:
And my teachers always said there are no stupid questions!
@bnystrom said:
Juries can be a farce, too. I was on a jury on a case of far less consequence than the above -to anyone but the defendant - but the experience was illuminating. After deliberating for a couple of hours or so, we were deadlocked at 11-1 to convict and the one holdout was adamant that he was innocent. While the others were discussing something, she turned to me and asked “What happens if we don’t reach a verdict today?” I replied that we would come back tomorrow and go back to deliberating. She immediately changed her vote, since her personal inconvenience was apparently more important than the “principle” she had been holding out for. I was stunned at how blatant this was at the time, but I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised.The only saving grace was that the defendant was clearly guilty and nobody could understand the twisted logic the holdout juror was using to make her case. It was obvious she had no grasp of the evidence and was not too bright (in addition to being a hypocrite, as we learned later). It really threw into doubt the entire “jury of your peers” concept of justice in my mind.
You what they say about Friday juries.
You can forgo the jury and leave it to a judge. Not much you can do about how prosecution or enforcement handles things if you are a defendant. I for one am gald the burden of proof falls on enforcement and prosecution. The concept of reasonable doubt is supposed to be there to protect us from misguided or malicious intent. I do agree our justice system and laws are often flawed, but you do get to decide if you trust a judge or jury more.
What it comes down to is people are flawed. That means you, me and them. Therefore the need of a system to try and overcome those flaws of judgement. The problem is people and their failings are involved in its implementation. The common denominator is the idea that you and I aren’t flawed it’s “them”!
One of my law professors called juries “the 12 idiots in the box” - and he was a defense attorney.
@Seadddict said:
One of my law professors called juries “the 12 idiots in the box” - and he was a defense attorney.
And who’s fault is that? Both my father and my brother have gone through jury selection, and both of them said that the attorneys on both sides clearly wanted to eliminate every potential juror that they could who had something beyond a high-school education. They’d find any excuse that they could to give someone the boot, and would look ridiculous in applying their “reasons”, but the trend was too clear for their motive not to be obvious.
I have been through selection a few times. You could guarantee not to be picked by dressing business casual and responding with a little confidence.
@string said:
I have been through selection a few times. You could guarantee not to be picked by dressing business casual and responding with a little confidence.
Just remember, a Starfleet uniform won’t do the trick - I wore a jacket and tie, and the lawyers wanted me gone…
@string said:
I have been through selection a few times. You could guarantee not to be picked by dressing business casual and responding with a little confidence.
In my jury experience it’s just the opposite. They only pick the well-dressed articulate people. Maybe because it’s a red state and they still believe in the law.
@DrowningDave said:
@string said:
I have been through selection a few times. You could guarantee not to be picked by dressing business casual and responding with a little confidence.In my jury experience it’s just the opposite. They only pick the well-dressed articulate people. Maybe because it’s a red state and they still believe in the law.
Oh dear. 
You can count on Dave to turn things political.
@DrowningDave said:
They only pick the well-dressed articulate people. Maybe because it’s a red state and they still believe in the law.
Once again you make a wrong assumption. The only 2 states string has lived in are Texas and South Carolina both deep red.
Not all the areas in deep red states are red. Charleston is very blue as is Houston.
And most are postmodernist that don’t believe truth is real or knowable.
Back to getting picked for a jury though - I have found it is most likely if I am wearing a women’s suit. I got on one jury from hell some years ago where both attorneys were trying to dump jurors right and left. The judge finally got tired of it because the trial was supposed to run that afternoon. He came in and pretty much pointed at people without giving them much change to get out of it. Unless you could convincingly lie about not wanting to support the truth, if you were dressed for work on the nicer side and were out of your 20’s you were on the jury. I couldn’t figure out how to lie about that.
This is also where I sometimes suspect the prosecution. Our jury found the guy not guilty of severe charges under the relatively new Patriot Act. He was a local character who should have been charged under some misdemeanor levels for maybe being off his meds and having remarkably poor judgement. Turned out that the majority of the better dressed folks they chose were state workers, who had better things to do than hand the prosecution a win for evidence that was a joke. They eventually filed new charges, arrested him again and this time convinced a jury he was guilty of something and sent him off to state prison. Where he basically came back a vegetable.
Last time I was called for jury duty I wore scrubby jeans and didn’t wash may hair that morning.
@string said:
I have been through selection a few times. You could guarantee not to be picked by dressing business casual and responding with a little confidence.
Jury selection is more complex than you think. Might not have been your attire but something you wrote on your jury questionnaire, your current/past employment, or even your interactions with those next to you.
In high stakes cases jury consultants are hired. The Internet and social media make the work of jury consultants easier and the attorneys may even know what a prospective juror had for dinner the previous night.