|
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040831/NEWS/40831002
Bakke said prospective jurors who said on their questionnaire that Bryant is
not guilty "indicates bias against the state." Bakke pointed to a state law
that says "when a juror expressed bias, prejudice, or enmity toward either
party, they may be challenged for cause" - or automatically dismissed.
Haddon pointed out that Bakke only sought to disqualify those who thought
Bryant was not guilty. "The same standard must be applied to the other
side," said Haddon. "The prosecution is trying, and not very subtly, to
apply a double standard."
How potential jurors came to their preconceived ideas is the crux of the
problem for Ruckriegle. He explained that while Bryant is entitled to a
presumption of innocence, he is not entitled to a preconceived notion of
being guilty or not guilty.
Bakke said information leading to preconceived decisions that Bryant is not
guilty have been based on anecdotal information that won't be heard in
court, and that the anecdotal information is almost always damaging to the
prosecution.
Ruckriegle said the question jurors - and the court - must answer goes to
the heart of the matter. "Can they set aside this other information and will
they make an unbiased decision," said Ruckriegle.
But how they came to see, read or hear that information, and what it might
be, has placed Ruckriegle in a dilemma.
Normally, he said, he probes for that information in closed-door sessions to
keep other jurors from hearing inadmissible anecdotes and tainting the
entire jury pool. But media attorneys have argued that jury selection should
be held in public.
Ruckriegle said that while no one has ever challenged his closed-door
juror-questioning sessions, they might no longer be possible.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040831/NEWS/40831002
Bakke said information leading to preconceived decisions that Bryant is not
guilty have been based on anecdotal information that won't be heard in
court, and that the anecdotal information is almost always damaging to the
prosecution.
Oh for the love of crap. It's almost always damaging to the DEFENSE.
After all, there are no "rape shield laws" protecting the accused...
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:ch3btg$p8@dispatch.concentric.net...
http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040831/NEWS/40831002
Bakke said prospective jurors who said on their questionnaire that Bryant is
not guilty "indicates bias against the state." Bakke pointed to a state law
that says "when a juror expressed bias, prejudice, or enmity toward either
party, they may be challenged for cause" - or automatically dismissed.
How about a presumption of innocence?
That's a hurdle for the prosecution to overcome. It isn't the juror's
fault that the prosecution has no case.
Are they trying to stack the jury with "hanging" jurors?
Alex
|
| |
| |
In article <ch3ja2$527$2@stan.redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote:
s_knight8 wrote:
Oh for the love of crap.
And you do love crap, don't you, Michael?
|
| |
| |
in article ch3ja2$527$2@stan.redhat.com, Michael Snyder at
msnyder@redhat.com wrote on 8/31/04 9:24 PM:
s_knight8 wrote:
Oh for the love of crap. It's almost always damaging to the DEFENSE.
After all, there are no "rape shield laws" protecting the accused...
Here! Here! It starts with the very first leak when prosecutors proudly step
out of the courthouse and announce to the world that so and so is be charged
with such and such. And then for a year everybody talks about what a
criminal so and so must be.
George Evans
|
| |
| |
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote
How about a presumption of innocence?
It's in place-
the 'presumption of innocence' is only about who bears the burden of proof
that the defendant has done what the Law Enforcement arm of the legal
community says he has.
It has nothing to do with the public ignoring obvious guilt or thinking that
Law Enforcement officers presume that people they charge are not guilty of
the crime.
They just caught a guy in LA who killed five people; caught him covered with
blood, he's confessed, there is a witness. He will enter the courtroom with
the presumption of innocence rather than having to prove he's not guilty-
the standard for defense in some other judicial systems.
Do you maintain that he is/should be presumed innocent in the public
discourse?
Chas
|
| |
| |
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
Here! Here!
"Hear, hear"; as in 'listen, listen'.
Unless you were hailing a cab, in which case I withdraw the correction.
It starts with the very first leak when prosecutors proudly step
out of the courthouse and announce to the world that so and so is be
charged
with such and such.
Yes; an offense against the State has been committed and the presumptive
miscreant has been charged.
Your law enforcement agency at work for the safety of us all.
And then for a year everybody talks about what a
criminal so and so must be.
And he gives such good dribble; how could he be weird?
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:33:14 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFE@wanadoo.nl> wrote
It's in place-
Nowhere in your posts.
|
| |
| |
in article T5CdndffQ_KWY6jcRVn-hg@comcast.com, Chas at
chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net wrote on 9/1/04 9:51 AM:
"George Evans" <georgee@pe.net> wrote
"Hear, hear"; as in 'listen, listen'.
Unless you were hailing a cab, in which case I withdraw the correction.
You're right, hear.
It starts with the very first leak when prosecutors proudly step
out of the courthouse and announce to the world that so and so is be
charged
with such and such.
Yes; an offense against the State has been committed and the presumptive
miscreant has been charged.
Your law enforcement agency at work for the safety of us all.
And he gives such good dribble; how could he be weird?
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Sports Fan" <sports@fan.home> wrote
How about a presumption of innocence?
It's in place-
Nowhere in your posts.
Nor is it required in the public discourse, only insofar as the attitude of
the jurors as they hear a case tried.
It is as contrasted with systems like the old French code which presupposed
guilt of the accused, and he had to prove his innocence.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:53:33 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Sports Fan" <sports@fan.home> wrote
How about a presumption of innocence?
It's in place-
Nor is it required in the public discourse,
So you admit that all your posts were biased right from the get go and
you were already convinced that Kobe was guilty.
So much for your earlier claims of being objective and want to see the
truth come out.
|
| |
| |
"Sports Fan" <sports@fan.home> wrote
So you admit that all your posts were biased right from the get go and
you were already convinced that Kobe was guilty.
No- it became obvious a bit later on.
So much for your earlier claims of being objective and want to see the
truth come out.
Oh; same claim made now- I'd love to have seen it go to trial, whatever
outcome. Notice that Kobe is in the same position as the Ramseys; good job
Haddon Firm.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:28:18 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Sports Fan" <sports@fan.home> wrote
No-
What no?
You responded to:
Previous Poster: How about a presumption of innocence?
You: It's in place-
Me: Nowhere in your posts.
With:
"Nor is it required in the public discourse, "
Which clearly shows that you do not agree with "presumption of
innocence" and therefore the following statement is true:
"So you admit that all your posts were biased right from the get go and
you were already convinced that Kobe was guilty.'
But your careful snipping and short memory span, is added to the fact
that you are slow, and causing your confusion and flood of lies.
it became obvious a bit later on.
What became obvious?
That Kate is a money/attention whore?
That was obvious right from the beginning, but you seem to be slow as
usual.
So much for your earlier claims of being objective and want to see the
truth come out.
Oh; same claim made now- I'd love to have seen it go to trial,
whatever outcome.
Of course you do, since you are not the one being accused.
If you were that one, you would be looking for a way out.
People like you are always loud and noisy, but when the going gets
tough, you disappear.
Notice that Kobe is in the same position as the Ramseys;
You seem to be obsessed with that case too, of course looking at your
history here, it doesn't need a rocket scientist to see that you think
that they got away with murder despite all the facts of the police
misconduct that led to the public opinion about them.
good job Haddon Firm.
Unlike you, and your teen idol 19 year old skank, the sheriff's office,
or the DA, they have class, and have proven that Kobe is innocent
LEGALLY without any sleazy investigation, or violating anyone's civil
rights, and because of that, the DA fell apart and so did the skank
accuser.
|
| |
| |
"Sports Fan" <sports@fan.home> wrote
Which clearly shows that you do not agree with "presumption of
innocence" and therefore the following statement is true:
Geez; what tortured reasoning, and in a vacuum as well.
Of course I support the 'presumption of innocence', in the courtroom where
it is the arbiter of the burden of proof on the prosecutor.
Do I presume the innocence of everyone charged with a crime?
Of course not. That would be to presume that the police/prosecutors were
lying every time they charge someone with an offense.
People like you are always loud and noisy, but when the going gets
tough, you disappear.
I sign my own name, 'Sports Fan'; my address is easily found- that's as
contrasted with your own anonymous cowardice.
You seem to be obsessed with that case too,
A peripheral involvement-
and it's local- as is Haddon Firm.
Chas
|
| |
| |
|
