218358 Bullies, 8080 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1 to 9 of 9
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. CapnMunchh is offline
    CapnMunchh's Avatar

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    796

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 1:53pm

    supporting member
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Jury Nullification vs Stupidty OJ Case derail

    Quote Originally Posted by BKR View Post
    Juries do unexpected t hings. That is one reason that people who are guilty in reality go to jury trial, to take that chance that the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (in criminal cases). If one person on the jury buys the defense story, and has reasonable doubt, pfft, not guilty.

    The guy must have had a pretty good defense team.
    Its so common there's even a name for it -- jury nullification. Therein lies the main problem with our system of trial by jury. Just ask the families of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
  2. BKR is offline
    BKR's Avatar

    My dog is cuter and smarter than yours.

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    3,799

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 2:00pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Kodokan Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    Its so common there's even a name for it -- jury nullification. Therein lies the main problem with our system of trial by jury. Just ask the families of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
    That may or may not be what happened in this particular case. Juries find people not guilty for other reasons. If one juror has reasonable doubt, that does not amount to jury nullification. That's how the system is supposed to work.

    Didn't OJ get convicted in civil court, though? In any case, OJ's criminal trial was a mess. Good reason to not allow cameras in the courtroom.

    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    Its so common there's even a name for it -- jury nullification. Therein lies the main problem with our system of trial by jury. Just ask the families of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
    That may or may not be what happened in this particular case. Juries find people not guilty for other reasons. If one juror has reasonable doubt, that does not amount to jury nullification. That's how the system is supposed to work.

    Didn't OJ get convicted in civil court, though? In any case, OJ's criminal trial was a mess. Good reason to not allow cameras in the courtroom.
    Falling for Judo since 1980
  3. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,608

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 2:01pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    Its so common there's even a name for it -- jury nullification. Therein lies the main problem with our system of trial by jury. Just ask the families of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
    Nope, I wouldn't ask them they are biased and rightly so.

    Go read up on ALL the evidence the prosecution screwed up, tainted, didn't present and used to paint themselves into a corner. Naw, that wasn't jury nullification or the race card, it was two stupid arrogant prosecutors and idiotic forensic technicians top to bottom.

    Yes, I believe OJ did it or paid someone to do it.
  4. CapnMunchh is offline
    CapnMunchh's Avatar

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    796

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 2:40pm

    supporting member
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BKR View Post
    That may or may not be what happened in this particular case. Juries find people not guilty for other reasons. If one juror has reasonable doubt, that does not amount to jury nullification. That's how the system is supposed to work.

    Didn't OJ get convicted in civil court, though? In any case, OJ's criminal trial was a mess. Good reason to not allow cameras in the courtroom.



    That may or may not be what happened in this particular case. Juries find people not guilty for other reasons. If one juror has reasonable doubt, that does not amount to jury nullification. That's how the system is supposed to work.

    Didn't OJ get convicted in civil court, though? In any case, OJ's criminal trial was a mess. Good reason to not allow cameras in the courtroom.

    Actually, you're right, it is hard to tell without talking to the jurors.
    Jury nullification occurs when the jury knows a defendant is guilty based on the facts, but either finds him sympathetic or disagrees with the law under which he is prosecuted. I did not hear the evidence, but I gather from what I have heard that it is possible the jury concluded that her behavior evidenced consent under the facts because she should have known what was going to happen when she drank and accompanied these men -- which would be the jury doing their job -- or it could have happened that, as some people still believe, one or more jurors thought that a man should not be found guilty of rape if if a woman first gives consent and later changes her mind, in spite of what the law says.

    OJ did get hit with a $30 million+ civil verdict but, in true dirtbag fashion, later got himself locked up for armed robbery and paid none of it. He was actually arrogant enough to write a book titled "If I Did It," tho I think a court later ordered that all profits from the book go to the victims' families.
  5. CapnMunchh is offline
    CapnMunchh's Avatar

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    796

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 3:00pm

    supporting member
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Nope, I wouldn't ask them they are biased and rightly so.

    Go read up on ALL the evidence the prosecution screwed up, tainted, didn't present and used to paint themselves into a corner. Naw, that wasn't jury nullification or the race card, it was two stupid arrogant prosecutors and idiotic forensic technicians top to bottom.

    Yes, I believe OJ did it or paid someone to do it.

    The prosecution was somewhat inept. As I recall, there were problems with the chain of custody of blood samples, and the lab that had analyzed the samples had made mistakes in other cases. Still I dont think that the prosecution screwed up so much that it obscured the obvious verdict. I don't know anybody who thinks that OJ didnt do it.

    It definitely wasnt the race card, but it could have been jury nullification, if someone on the jury thought that he snapped because his ex wife, the mother of his children, was screwing someone in "his" house, and his behavior was somehow understandable. Kind of like those cases in which muslim women are killed or mutilated for allegedly cheating on their husbands, which is apparently acceptable in certain cultures. I think that cases that involve a moral or legal sexual offense are particularly susceptible to nullification because people have strong moral and even religious ideas about what is right or wrong in such matters, and these can take precedence over the instructions given by a judge.
  6. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,608

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 5:15pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    The prosecution was somewhat inept. As I recall, there were problems with the chain of custody of blood samples, and the lab that had analyzed the samples had made mistakes in other cases. Still I dont think that the prosecution screwed up so much that it obscured the obvious verdict. I don't know anybody who thinks that OJ didnt do it.
    You let the defendant put his own glove on. Oh sorry, the glove left at the scene. Idiocy.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ith-glove.html

    One of the people walked around the scene with OJ's blood in his pocket. Idiocy.
    They opened the door to Furhman's(?) I never said "THE N-WORD." Idiocy.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns036.htm

    Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I watched most of that trial and inept doesn't describe the idiocy. If my law degree is from Law & Order and I am going "wtf," you did a piss poor job.



    It definitely wasnt the race card, but it could have been jury nullification, if someone on the jury thought that he snapped because his ex wife, the mother of his children, was screwing someone in "his" house, and his behavior was somehow understandable. Kind of like those cases in which muslim women are killed or mutilated for allegedly cheating on their husbands, which is apparently acceptable in certain cultures. I think that cases that involve a moral or legal sexual offense are particularly susceptible to nullification because people have strong moral and even religious ideas about what is right or wrong in such matters, and these can take precedence over the instructions given by a judge.
    We will disagree about this for the OJ case like I stated. I never said it doesn't exist, so why you felt the need to explain it I do not know.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 10/31/2013 5:19pm at .
  7. CapnMunchh is offline
    CapnMunchh's Avatar

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    796

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 5:30pm

    supporting member
     Style: TangSooDo/Yubiwaza

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    You let the defendant put his own glove on. Oh sorry, the glove left at the scene. Idiocy.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ith-glove.html

    One of the people walked around the scene with OJ's blood in his pocket. Idiocy.
    They opened the door to Furhman's(?) I never said "THE N-WORD." Idiocy.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns036.htm

    Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I watched most of that trial and inept doesn't describe the idiocy. If my law degree is from Law & Order and I am going "wtf," you did a piss poor job.


    We will disagree about this for the OJ case like I stated. I never said it doesn't exist, so why you felt the need to explain it I do not know.

    Just to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Anyway, I think we can agree that the Maldonado case is the more current disappointment.
  8. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,608

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 5:32pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by CapnMunchh View Post
    Just to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Anyway, I think we can agree that the Maldonado case is the more current disappointment.
    As you can see the posts have been moved to another thread.
  9. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    4,616

    Posted On:
    10/31/2013 5:42pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    OJ simpson? **** man if you watched only what was presented to the Jury. You would think he is innocent. Its crazy how bad the prosecution botched that one up. A lot of evidence was thrown out before the Jury even got to hear it because of really bad procedurals stuff. Also I do believe the Defence had a pretty compelling argument to show some planted evidence which tained even more evidence.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.