News0 min ago
American Man Aquited Of Murder
Answers
In the UK he would have been done for at least man slaughter as he doesn't deny killing him (in the chest and not a bullet wound) but to be guilty of absolutely nothing is incredible.
17:08 Sun 14th Jul 2013
@Naomi - Thanks for the link; I did not imagine it then.
Interesting that they make a distinction of 12 for a capital offence and 6 for all others, and I must confess I automatically assumed that all juries comprised 12 people.
Still find it slightly peculiar, given the nature of the case, that the jury was all women and 1 hispanic/5 white though......
Interesting that they make a distinction of 12 for a capital offence and 6 for all others, and I must confess I automatically assumed that all juries comprised 12 people.
Still find it slightly peculiar, given the nature of the case, that the jury was all women and 1 hispanic/5 white though......
This woman, mentioned earlier by Cochinelle and LG, who fired warning shots at her abusive husband who was not injured at all got 20 years! How can that be right?
http://
http://
"Baz, even as someone who partly agrees with you on this one you are just coming across as a rude, obnoxious moron. "
you are perfectly entitled to your opinion
but do you think I care.........like the chancellor of the exchequor says "If people like me then i'm not doing my job properly " or words to that effect
but its ok to call me an eejit is it.....double standards on Ab...quelle suprise !
some of the (mainly) lefties on here do seem to get away with murder (no pun intended)
lighten up jim, dont take this site so seriously
you are perfectly entitled to your opinion
but do you think I care.........like the chancellor of the exchequor says "If people like me then i'm not doing my job properly " or words to that effect
but its ok to call me an eejit is it.....double standards on Ab...quelle suprise !
some of the (mainly) lefties on here do seem to get away with murder (no pun intended)
lighten up jim, dont take this site so seriously
LG , an American jury is not 'random'. Not only is there a right of objection to any juror, but the defence draft an approved questionnaire in advance, and that is completed by everyone on the vast, by our standards, panel of potential jurors. And the defence employ psychologists and experts on jury behaviour to sort out those who might by unfavourable.
Here, the right of the defence to object to any juror "as they come to the book to be sworn", without giving any reason, was abolished years ago. We just called out "Challenge your Honour/my Lord [on behalf of [name] iif representing more than one defendant]" We used to have the right to challenge 6 each, then it was reduced to 3. Counsel would agree who to challenge and decide to share challenges; if one had no challenges,or one, say, for his client he would challenge nonetheless but actually on behalf of someone else, so they got extra challenges. Contrary to popular belief,we didn't challenge anyone who carried a Daily Telegraph and wore a suit and tie; what we wanted was a mix, ideally of all types, so they'd argue. And in most sexual assault and rape cases we wanted a lot of women on the jury. Women were far less sympathetic, or perhaps less gullible and more perceptive, than men were, to women complainants.
Here, the right of the defence to object to any juror "as they come to the book to be sworn", without giving any reason, was abolished years ago. We just called out "Challenge your Honour/my Lord [on behalf of [name] iif representing more than one defendant]" We used to have the right to challenge 6 each, then it was reduced to 3. Counsel would agree who to challenge and decide to share challenges; if one had no challenges,or one, say, for his client he would challenge nonetheless but actually on behalf of someone else, so they got extra challenges. Contrary to popular belief,we didn't challenge anyone who carried a Daily Telegraph and wore a suit and tie; what we wanted was a mix, ideally of all types, so they'd argue. And in most sexual assault and rape cases we wanted a lot of women on the jury. Women were far less sympathetic, or perhaps less gullible and more perceptive, than men were, to women complainants.
@ Fred - Thanks for the input. I worded my comment carelessly; I was actually aware of the process of challenge of prospective jurors in the US. Voir Dire or something, I think it is called?
In a way though, that makes the racial and gender makeup of the jury even more surprising, don't you think?
And I do not know why the number 12 was settled on for juries originally - but is 6 really sufficient do you think? Wasn't the point of a jury that it should be large enough to properly mirror the local cultural diversity? And I still cannot find out if this reduced panel size is unique to Florida within the US, or whether other states do the same - bit distracted and not much time for research tday
In a way though, that makes the racial and gender makeup of the jury even more surprising, don't you think?
And I do not know why the number 12 was settled on for juries originally - but is 6 really sufficient do you think? Wasn't the point of a jury that it should be large enough to properly mirror the local cultural diversity? And I still cannot find out if this reduced panel size is unique to Florida within the US, or whether other states do the same - bit distracted and not much time for research tday
LG, //I do not know why the number 12 was settled on for juries originally//
This might throw some light on it.
http://
This might throw some light on it.
http://
The Scots have 15 on their juries and the verdict; one of three, being guilty, not guilty, and not proven; is by simple majority, 8-7 being always enough.
The jury's original task was, as residents, to name those who they thought from personal knowledge or repute, to be suspect of particular crimes on their 'patch'. The Americans still have the remnants of this process, the Grand Jury, which certifies cases as fit for trial. And another jury would try the case in due course, as it still does. We got rid of the Grand Jury at least 100 years ago and had magistrates do the same job, and even that is now a mere formality.
The jury's original task was, as residents, to name those who they thought from personal knowledge or repute, to be suspect of particular crimes on their 'patch'. The Americans still have the remnants of this process, the Grand Jury, which certifies cases as fit for trial. And another jury would try the case in due course, as it still does. We got rid of the Grand Jury at least 100 years ago and had magistrates do the same job, and even that is now a mere formality.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.