![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tumblr, 9-9-2022:
Here's what you do if asked to serve on a jury for an "obviously guilty" dickhead. You wait until you hear the actual evidence and are in the jury room to voice your opinion on the person's guilt or innocence. The news media doesn't have all the evidence--maybe the prosecution picked this guy because they looked like an easy win, and let the cops drop comments about all kinds of evidence they have against him. What, you don't think cops and the DA would collude to taint the jury pool? Please don't get on a jury, then.
If you're on a jury, listen to the testimony, view the evidence, listen to the arguments. Engage all your critical thinking skills; do not let your emotional hot-buttons get pressed. If either side seems to be appealing to emotion rather than providing evidence supporting their case, they likely have a weak case, and want to get you reacting rather than thinking too much about it.
The prosecution MUST prove that the defendent (a) committed the crime, (b) of which he was accused. Laws have specified conditions to meet for something to be a crime; if you're not certain what they are, you are allowed to ask. Did the prosecutor establish that the defendent met those conditions? It doesn't count if the defendent committed some other crime other than what he was charged with. (This is why Ammon Bundy got off for the Malheurer Wildlife Refuge invasion--the prosecutor charged him with Conspiracy, instead of the easy-to-prove trespassing, littering, carrying firearms on federal property, and damaging federal property, and then didn't prove the conspiracy charge.)
I am not a lawyer, but I have served on a jury in a criminal trial.
Here's what you do if asked to serve on a jury for an "obviously guilty" dickhead. You wait until you hear the actual evidence and are in the jury room to voice your opinion on the person's guilt or innocence. The news media doesn't have all the evidence--maybe the prosecution picked this guy because they looked like an easy win, and let the cops drop comments about all kinds of evidence they have against him. What, you don't think cops and the DA would collude to taint the jury pool? Please don't get on a jury, then.
If you're on a jury, listen to the testimony, view the evidence, listen to the arguments. Engage all your critical thinking skills; do not let your emotional hot-buttons get pressed. If either side seems to be appealing to emotion rather than providing evidence supporting their case, they likely have a weak case, and want to get you reacting rather than thinking too much about it.
The prosecution MUST prove that the defendent (a) committed the crime, (b) of which he was accused. Laws have specified conditions to meet for something to be a crime; if you're not certain what they are, you are allowed to ask. Did the prosecutor establish that the defendent met those conditions? It doesn't count if the defendent committed some other crime other than what he was charged with. (This is why Ammon Bundy got off for the Malheurer Wildlife Refuge invasion--the prosecutor charged him with Conspiracy, instead of the easy-to-prove trespassing, littering, carrying firearms on federal property, and damaging federal property, and then didn't prove the conspiracy charge.)
I am not a lawyer, but I have served on a jury in a criminal trial.
