The trial that never ends comes to an end.

[Capetan Mihali]

I assumed you were the one being acquitted. 

Not yet, inshallah.  I also wanted to troll Beeb a bit but he's too busy with his serious lawyer discussions to react to a scrub like me.   

[Barrister]

I assumed you were the one being acquitted. 

Not yet, inshallah.  I also wanted to troll Beeb a bit but he's too busy with his serious lawyer discussions to react to a scrub like me.   

That's not much of a troll.  I'm sure the words "Not Guilty" are wonderful to hear when you're on that side of the courtroom.  Congrats!

[CountDeMoney]

State fucked the case up from the beginning by filing it as a death case.  While you are more likely to get a conservative/pro-law and order jury by seeking death (people opposed to the death penalty are disqualified from sitting on death penalty cases) you also raise the bar on what such a prospective jury wants to hear.  When the stakes are execution, people want to be convinced of guilt more than they ordinarily would be.

Thing is, unlike some states where the state will roll for capital and nothing else, and be locked in on only one possibility, all the possible options were available; the jury had virtually the entire sliding-scale spectrum to choose from: felony murder, first degree murder, second degree murder, and aggravated manslaughter. This wasn't a case of either/or.

We've seen murder convictions without a fucking body, so I don't give a fuck about that ZOMG WE DOAN NO HOW TEH KID DYED bullshit.  You can convict on enough circumstantial evidence.

This case was made solid enough to point in any number of directions the jury wanted to take it;  they simply chose not to.

[Admiral Yi]

It looks like the broad will have to live under police protection the rest of her life.

[HVC]

It looks like the broad will have to live under police protection the rest of her life.

nah, soon we'll be onto the next killer chick.

[Admiral Yi]

nah, soon we'll be onto the next killer chick.

Betcha someone takes a crack at her in the next five years.

If I win, you have to give Raz a foot massage.

I you win, you don't have to.

[HVC]

nah, soon we'll be onto the next killer chick.

Betcha someone takes a crack at her in the next five years.

If I win, you have to give Raz a foot massage.

I you win, you don't have to.

:Lol:

Have the ramsies or that lady who drowned her kids in her car ever been attacked?

[Caliga]

The lady that drowned her kids in her car is in prison, and AFAIK has never been attacked.  I assume you are referring to Susan Smith of South Carolina.

[HVC]

The lady that drowned her kids in her car is in prison, and AFAIK has never been attacked.  I assume you are referring to Susan Smith of South Carolina.

i thought she got off? was there more then one?

[HVC]

in Canadian news a doctor got sent to the psych ward instead of jail for stabbing his two kids.

[Neil]

in Canadian news a doctor got sent to the psych ward instead of jail for stabbing his two kids.

Yeah, but that's Quebec.  They do Eurojustice there.

[grumbler]

Thing is, unlike some states where the state will roll for capital and nothing else, and be locked in on only one possibility, all the possible options were available; the jury had virtually the entire sliding-scale spectrum to choose from: felony murder, first degree murder, second degree murder, and aggravated manslaughter. This wasn't a case of either/or.

We've seen murder convictions without a fucking body, so I don't give a fuck about that ZOMG WE DOAN NO HOW TEH KID DYED bullshit.  You can convict on enough circumstantial evidence.

This case was made solid enough to point in any number of directions the jury wanted to take it;  they simply chose not to.

The jury cannot take the case in any direction they want.  They had to take it in the direction the prosecution to them to take it, or not at all.  The prosecution told the jury to find that she killed her kid, or else acquit.  And then they conceded that there was no evidence she had anything to do with the death of the kid, except covering it up after the fact (which the jury convicted her of).

The jury wasn't allowed to find the kid's grandfather, grandmother, uncle, or aunt of murder, even though there was as much evidence against each of them as against the defendant.  You can, indeed, convict on circumstantial evidence, under some circumstances.  Had there been real circumstantial evidence in this case, that observation might even have a bearing on it.

[CountDeMoney]

Had there been real circumstantial evidence in this case, that observation might even have a bearing on it.

Well, there was more than enough for me. Harumph.

[Razgovory]

The lady that drowned her kids in her car is in prison, and AFAIK has never been attacked.  I assume you are referring to Susan Smith of South Carolina.

i thought she got off? was there more then one?

Maybe you are thinking of Andrea Yates.  She was found insane (which isn't exactly like getting off).

[ulmont]

Is being insane enough of a reason to be taken off a jury?  I've never been called up.

Usually, yeah.  Requires a doctor's note of mental or physical disability.
http://www.fultoncourt.org/sca200807/documents-and-forms/cat_view/70-jury-service.html