New Witness...TRAYVON was beating Zimmerman up!

[bigrebnc1775]

One is too many.

True but don't throw the baby out with the wash water.

Ok, that makes no sense.

The second article (from '06) said there were 130; not sure what the current number is, but the authors were discussing the reliability of eye-witness accounts, and used that figure to illustrate that a majority of people we know are innocent have been wrongly convicted of crimes based on eye-witness testimony. And of course, that doesn't mean there have been only 130 people wrongly convicted.

You're willing to throw away eyewitness statements because 60 people in 12 years were convicted falsely? 60 people out of how many in 12 years my dear?

 

[koshergrl]

tsk tsk, that's just how many we know about. Emma *knows* that there were a lot more. Based on her *feelings*.

 

[Si modo]

I am, and that's exactly what you're saying.

First, you try to establish that the actual events don't matter, what matters is your *feelings* about the disjointed and incorrect information you have collected from here, there, and your own imagination..

When you saw that didn't work, you determined that eyewitness testimony, even from multiple sources that agree about what they saw, and in turn with Zimmerman's account, is worthless.

It's all about railroading. The left is great at it.

I think Emma is very one-sided in this discussion - on the side of finding out what really happened, not what she may want to have happened.

Seeing this thread, and that Emma and a few others are doing just that, compared to far more already having an idea in their head on what happened, I am wondering how juries can actually operate effectively when a case is already in the press.

And, the press determines thought for WAY too many.

Well the jury system can't work with retards like Emma and other race baiting lunatics.

Thankfully, they're the fringe element of our society. She probably doesn't even vote; she's so backward in her approach I find it hard to believe she has the intelligence or the drive to figure out how to do it...she is too lazy intellectually to be terribly motivated in any other area.

I think most people when they are actually in the courtroom, faced with the real people and exposed to the true system and real evidence, do an okay job. But juries are fickle, it all depends on what sort of personalities you ahve in there.

Emma isn't a strong enough personality to worry bout. And she isn't smart enough to hide her flaws from the prosecutors..I really doubt she'd ever make jury duty. They'd toss her.

Emma isn't race baiting. She would be excellent on a jury.

And, you single HER out?



There are real race baiters and biased persons in this thread.

 

[Emma]

I am, and that's exactly what you're saying.

First, you try to establish that the actual events don't matter, what matters is your *feelings* about the disjointed and incorrect information you have collected from here, there, and your own imagination..

When you saw that didn't work, you determined that eyewitness testimony, even from multiple sources that agree about what they saw, and in turn with Zimmerman's account, is worthless.

It's all about railroading. The left is great at it.

I think Emma is very one-sided in this discussion - on the side of finding out what really happened, not what she may want to have happened.

Seeing this thread, and that Emma and a few others are doing just that, compared to far more already having an idea in their head on what happened, I am wondering how juries can actually operate effectively when a case is already in the press.

And, the press determines thought for WAY too many.

Thank you.

You bring up a good point ... if this ever does go to trial, how in the world are they going to find an unbiased jury?

In some countries, the press is not given the name (or not allowed to print the name) of a suspect until they're charged. Considering this and other cases where the media and internet have gone nuts, and both parties have been demonized, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

 

[Si modo]

I am, and that's exactly what you're saying.

First, you try to establish that the actual events don't matter, what matters is your *feelings* about the disjointed and incorrect information you have collected from here, there, and your own imagination..

When you saw that didn't work, you determined that eyewitness testimony, even from multiple sources that agree about what they saw, and in turn with Zimmerman's account, is worthless.

It's all about railroading. The left is great at it.

I think Emma is very one-sided in this discussion - on the side of finding out what really happened, not what she may want to have happened.

Seeing this thread, and that Emma and a few others are doing just that, compared to far more already having an idea in their head on what happened, I am wondering how juries can actually operate effectively when a case is already in the press.

And, the press determines thought for WAY too many.

Thank you.

You bring up a good point ... if this ever does go to trial, how in the world are they going to find an unbiased jury?

In some countries, the press is not given the name (or not allowed to print the name) of a suspect until they're charged. Considering this and other cases where the media and internet have gone nuts, and both parties have been demonized, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Exactly. The attorneys for both sides will have to spend a significant amount of time querying the potential jurists.

In public cases, I believe that the attorneys should have more time and more chances to eliminate potential jurists. I think each one only gets a few chances to eliminate jurists. Dunno, though

 

[Emma]

True but don't throw the baby out with the wash water.

Ok, that makes no sense.

The second article (from '06) said there were 130; not sure what the current number is, but the authors were discussing the reliability of eye-witness accounts, and used that figure to illustrate that a majority of people we know are innocent have been wrongly convicted of crimes based on eye-witness testimony. And of course, that doesn't mean there have been only 130 people wrongly convicted.

You're willing to throw away eyewitness statements because 60 people in 12 years were convicted falsely? 60 people out of how many in 12 years my dear?

Well, again ... one is too many. And again, you can't extrapolate from their results that only 130 people have ever been wrongly convicted. And no, I am not advocating throwing away eye-witness statements. That research I linked to contains recommendations on how to diminish the chances that they are unreliable.

 

[Emma]

Emma isn't race baiting. She would be excellent on a jury.

And, you single HER out?



There are real race baiters and biased persons in this thread.

eh, don't waste your time. That person doesn't contribute anything of substance to any discussion, it's all ad hominem.

 

[paperview]

I think Emma is very one-sided in this discussion - on the side of finding out what really happened, not what she may want to have happened.

Seeing this thread, and that Emma and a few others are doing just that, compared to far more already having an idea in their head on what happened, I am wondering how juries can actually operate effectively when a case is already in the press.

And, the press determines thought for WAY too many.

Thank you.

You bring up a good point ... if this ever does go to trial, how in the world are they going to find an unbiased jury?

In some countries, the press is not given the name (or not allowed to print the name) of a suspect until they're charged. Considering this and other cases where the media and internet have gone nuts, and both parties have been demonized, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Exactly. The attorneys for both sides will have to spend a significant amount of time querying the potential jurists.

In public cases, I believe that the attorneys should have more time and more chances to eliminate potential jurists. I think each one only gets a few chances to eliminate jurists. Dunno, though

From my experience as a juror on a double murder trial, they get to pick from a very large pool of people who first had to fill out a long questionnaire,

then the process of elimination begins, first with wide swaths of people knocked off who may know either the victims, the defendant, or any of the names on the witness list, then some more elimination, then it gets down to a smaller pool (which still could be many hundreds) eliminate, eliminate...

...till it gets to the point, (and there still could be hundreds) where you have to walk into the courtroom, sit in the witness stand, take the oath, then with defendant(s) and his/her lawyer(s) there, and state prosecution and judge there, they pepper you with questions for as long as they need.

Way it was in my case, and of course it may vary in other states.

 

[paperview]

Emma isn't race baiting. She would be excellent on a jury.

And, you single HER out?



There are real race baiters and biased persons in this thread.

eh, don't waste your time. That person doesn't contribute anything of substance to any discussion, it's all ad hominem.

Yup.

 

[Si modo]

Thank you.

You bring up a good point ... if this ever does go to trial, how in the world are they going to find an unbiased jury?

In some countries, the press is not given the name (or not allowed to print the name) of a suspect until they're charged. Considering this and other cases where the media and internet have gone nuts, and both parties have been demonized, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Exactly. The attorneys for both sides will have to spend a significant amount of time querying the potential jurists.

In public cases, I believe that the attorneys should have more time and more chances to eliminate potential jurists. I think each one only gets a few chances to eliminate jurists. Dunno, though

From my experience as a juror on a double murder trial, they get to pick from a very large pool of people who first had to fill out a long questionnaire,

then the process of elimination begins, first with wide swaths of people knocked off who may know either the victims, the defendant, or any of the names on the witness list, then some more elimination, then it gets down to a smaller pool (which still could be many hundreds) eliminate, eliminate...

...till it gets to the point, where you have to walk into the courtroom, sit in the witness stand, take the oath, then with defendant(s) and his/her lawyer(s) there, and state prosecution and judge there, they pepper you with questions for as long as they need.

Way it was in my case, and of course it may vary in other states.

Well, that IS good news.

I am glad to hear that.

I only served on a jury once. Hundreds of us were called that day. They split us into two equal-numbered groups - one for civil cases and one for criminal cases.

I went into the civil pool, and there is no way either attorney in that case should have had me on the jury. It was a very quick selection of all of us.

So, thanks for reassuring me.

 

[Si modo]

Emma isn't race baiting. She would be excellent on a jury.

And, you single HER out?



There are real race baiters and biased persons in this thread.

eh, don't waste your time. That person doesn't contribute anything of substance to any discussion, it's all ad hominem.

Yup.

I have to weigh in on KG. I find more of her posts contain substance than either of you may believe. And, that's fine to disagree on that.

But, I DO agree that once her emotions are in gear, yeah...they lose substance.

 

[paperview]

Exactly. The attorneys for both sides will have to spend a significant amount of time querying the potential jurists.

In public cases, I believe that the attorneys should have more time and more chances to eliminate potential jurists. I think each one only gets a few chances to eliminate jurists. Dunno, though

From my experience as a juror on a double murder trial, they get to pick from a very large pool of people who first had to fill out a long questionnaire,

then the process of elimination begins, first with wide swaths of people knocked off who may know either the victims, the defendant, or any of the names on the witness list, then some more elimination, then it gets down to a smaller pool (which still could be many hundreds) eliminate, eliminate...

...till it gets to the point, where you have to walk into the courtroom, sit in the witness stand, take the oath, then with defendant(s) and his/her lawyer(s) there, and state prosecution and judge there, they pepper you with questions for as long as they need.

Way it was in my case, and of course it may vary in other states.

Well, that IS good news.

I am glad to hear that.

I only served on a jury once. Hundreds of us were called that day. They split us into two equal-numbered groups - one for civil cases and one for criminal cases.

I went into the civil pool, and there is no way either attorney in that case should have had me on the jury. It was a very quick selection of all of us.

So, thanks for reassuring me.

You're welcome.

The process of Voir Dire (that's the pepper you with questions part) works pretty good. The defense gets to keep off ~anyone~ they think would be prejudiced against their client, and likewise, prejudicial Statewise; they both have to agree on the ones that are picked.

 

[Emma]

Well, that IS good news.

I am glad to hear that.

I only served on a jury once. Hundreds of us were called that day. They split us into two equal-numbered groups - one for civil cases and one for criminal cases.

I went into the civil pool, and there is no way either attorney in that case should have had me on the jury. It was a very quick selection of all of us.

So, thanks for reassuring me.

I served on a personal injury case. The plaintiff's attorney really wanted me and another nurse on the jury; I guess he thought we'd have compassion and give his client a huge award for her injuries. Only problem was, we both picked up on the fact that she wasn't suffering from the injuries she claimed. So we all agreed to give her lost wages for time off work and the amount spent in medical bills in the immediate time after the accident. It was a mere pittance compared to the millions she was asking for ... and when it was announced, she cried.

 

[PredFan]

I have no doubt that I could serve on the jury IF Zimmerman ever goes to trial. From day one, I have assumed innocent until proven guilty. I still maintain that I don't know what happened and that the ONLY question is that if Zimmerman's story fits the evidence or not. If he's guilty then we would find that out. If he isn't he would be released. Justice.

 

[paperview]

eh, don't waste your time. That person doesn't contribute anything of substance to any discussion, it's all ad hominem.

Yup.

I have to weigh in on KG. I find more of her posts contain substance than either of you may believe. And, that's fine to disagree on that.

But, I DO agree that once her emotions are in gear, yeah...they lose substance.

That may be the case, I just haven't seen it. Then again, I'm not here a whole lot.

What she said about Emm was terrible though.

Emma is top notch smart, warm and witty and a great asset to any board

 

[Emma]

eh, don't waste your time. That person doesn't contribute anything of substance to any discussion, it's all ad hominem.

Yup.

I have to weigh in on KG. I find more of her posts contain substance than either of you may believe. And, that's fine to disagree on that.

But, I DO agree that once her emotions are in gear, yeah...they lose substance.

I believe you

I guess the only posts I've seen of hers are those attacking myself or others. Perhaps I'll come across some where she isn't doing that.

 

[koshergrl]

From my experience as a juror on a double murder trial, they get to pick from a very large pool of people who first had to fill out a long questionnaire,

then the process of elimination begins, first with wide swaths of people knocked off who may know either the victims, the defendant, or any of the names on the witness list, then some more elimination, then it gets down to a smaller pool (which still could be many hundreds) eliminate, eliminate...

...till it gets to the point, where you have to walk into the courtroom, sit in the witness stand, take the oath, then with defendant(s) and his/her lawyer(s) there, and state prosecution and judge there, they pepper you with questions for as long as they need.

Way it was in my case, and of course it may vary in other states.

Well, that IS good news.

I am glad to hear that.

I only served on a jury once. Hundreds of us were called that day. They split us into two equal-numbered groups - one for civil cases and one for criminal cases.

I went into the civil pool, and there is no way either attorney in that case should have had me on the jury. It was a very quick selection of all of us.

So, thanks for reassuring me.

You're welcome.

The process of Voir Dire (that's the pepper you with questions part) works pretty good. The defense gets to keep off ~anyone~ they think would be prejudiced against their client, and likewise, prejudicial Statewise; they both have to agree on the ones that are picked.

Each side can only *strike* a certain number of jurors.

 

[koshergrl]

Yup.

I have to weigh in on KG. I find more of her posts contain substance than either of you may believe. And, that's fine to disagree on that.

But, I DO agree that once her emotions are in gear, yeah...they lose substance.

That may be the case, I just haven't seen it. Then again, I'm not here a whole lot.

What she said about Emm was terrible though.

Emma is top notch smart, warm and witty and a great asset to any board

You haven't seen it because you don't register truth, fact, or scholarship.

And when you do, you hate it....

 

[paperview]

Well, that IS good news.

I am glad to hear that.

I only served on a jury once. Hundreds of us were called that day. They split us into two equal-numbered groups - one for civil cases and one for criminal cases.

I went into the civil pool, and there is no way either attorney in that case should have had me on the jury. It was a very quick selection of all of us.

So, thanks for reassuring me.

You're welcome.

The process of Voir Dire (that's the pepper you with questions part) works pretty good. The defense gets to keep off ~anyone~ they think would be prejudiced against their client, and likewise, prejudicial Statewise; they both have to agree on the ones that are picked.

Each side can only *strike* a certain number of jurors.

Wrong. Again/

 

[paperview]

Strike for cause (or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.


During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.[1] An example would be a juror who, being considered for seating on a jury in a capital punishment case, states that s/he would never sentence a defendant to the death penalty.


Unlike a peremptory challenge, the number of which are limited by the court during voir dire, there is no limit to the number of strikes for cause that attorneys on either side of a case can be granted. However, also unlike a peremptory challenge, a strike for cause must be granted by the trial judge, and often the opposing attorney, and sometimes the judge, may question the potential juror to determine if valid cause exists to strike. If one attorney moves to strike a juror for cause but the judge rejects the motion, the attorney may still use a peremptory challenge (if s/he has any remaining) to strike the juror, and on appeal may raise a claim that the motion should have been granted."


Strike for cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia