|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 31, 2006 20:51:11 GMT -5
So, the jury selection hasn't even started yet.  Supposed to start the week of April 10th. Meanwhile, the defense attorneys have attempted to have this, that and the other thrown out as evidence. Judge Parsons says "NO". Meanwhile, the judge did agree to allow the defense attorneys a list of the selected jurors. WTF?! are they going to with that? My guess is to dig up whatever negative history they can come up with to discredit a person as a juror. Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 1, 2006 0:15:40 GMT -5
They should see if any are have been arrested or convicted of anything.
Jurors do not always tell the truth on the forms they fill out and it can cause a mistrial.
I hope the prosecution is doing the same.
The more trials the more chance of getting off with lessor charges or getting off all together.
JMayo
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Apr 1, 2006 0:35:42 GMT -5
Apparently Tonya likes the idea of the defense not being allowed to strike jurors who they feel are biased.
Hey Tonya, how 'bout we give the X-Box suspects (they're still only suspects) a true jury of their peers--twelve convicted felons. Probably wouldn't like it so much if you thought the jurors might be biased in favor f a defendant, huh? What's good for the goose...
|
|
|
|
Post by Calcasieu on Apr 1, 2006 4:29:24 GMT -5
LOUD NOISES!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Apr 1, 2006 22:51:07 GMT -5
And tell us Reason exactly what bias means here. Is a person bias because they don't approve of a bludgeoning horrific murder of 5 people and one victim's pet dog? Defense isn't looking for bias, they're looking to intimidate the jurors, plain and simple. TonyaEdited to correct the number of human victims. It was 6.  |
|
|
|
Post by IncogNITO on Apr 2, 2006 0:24:41 GMT -5
If I were arrested for anything I would expect my defense to do what ever it took to prove me innocent. It is my right until I am proven guilty by the jury of my peers. At no time are you guilty in the eyes of the law until that time, no matter how much evidence there is against you. It is one of those pesky little checks that does manage to keep innocent people from spending a lifetime in jail for crimes they did not commit. If the defense were not give the same information as the prosecution then about 90% of the people in jail would be the wrong people in jail. Might as well not have a court and keep stringing up innocents until you get the killers. I don't care how brutal a crime is. You might as well chuck the Constitution out the window and burn the flag.
JMayo
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Apr 2, 2006 16:51:01 GMT -5
And tell us Reason exactly what bias means here. Is a person bias because they don't approve of a bludgeoning horrific murder of 5 people and one victim's pet dog? Defense isn't looking for bias, they're looking to intimidate the jurors, plain and simple. Tonya, my misguided anti-civil libertarian friend. Bias is having preconceived notions. Why are you so hostile about this? Both sides will have opportunity to voir dire the venire. You think only the prosecution should be able to question and strike jurors of which they disapprove? I bet you'd scream if the state wasn't allowed to inquire whether prospective jurors have a scruple against capital punishment. I think you know full well what bias is, and if not, see www.dictionary.com . As for intimidation of jurors, that notion is laughable. How in hell do you propose that three incarcerated defendants and their attorneys are going to persuade any of the jurors to vote NG through their actions and statements during the voir dire process? C'mon, get serious. What is your basic, fundamental objection to an accused getting a fair trial? Do you think due process is only for the falsely accused? Only the truly innocent has rights under our constitution? |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Apr 2, 2006 23:54:58 GMT -5
Misguided, anti-civil libertarian eh? Why are you so Hell bent on making me sound like an idiot when we all know full well they know.......BUT.....Will they tell the truth? Their attorneys are grasping for threads to have the evidence thrown out?!!!!!  Seems deceitful but after all, they are just doing their "CIVIL DUTY" representing killers, right? This is one case you're not going to convince me or any other juror anywhere that the accused are innocent until we hear them speak. THEM, not the attorneys, not the media, but THEM, in a court of law. And yeah, Reason, I'm about as anti-civil as Aunt Jemima. Direct your accusations to the defense attorneys........  Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by evryman69 on Apr 3, 2006 1:28:43 GMT -5
I fail to understand where there is a problem with how this case is progressing. Didn't it take years for a conviction in that Ormond Beach store slayings case?
These things take time ... They need to - or bloodlust will rule.
And Reason, you contradicted yourself by first noting they are "Accused" of criminal activity and then saying a Jury of their peers would be convicts ... sounds like you are biased also ... ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Apr 3, 2006 10:46:08 GMT -5
Misguided, anti-civil libertarian eh? Why are you so Hell bent on making me sound like an idiot when we all know full well they know.......BUT.....Will they tell the truth? Their attorneys are grasping for threads to have the evidence thrown out?!!!!! Seems deceitful but after all, they are just doing their "CIVIL DUTY" representing killers, right? TonyaWhy do you speak of attorneys representing killers as though it is something other than a noble enterprise? You appear to have disdain for lawyers defending accused people. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by evryman69 on Apr 3, 2006 14:32:58 GMT -5
C'mon reason you don't live in a bubble - you know lawyers are characterized as hell-spawn ...
Lawyer's have the WORST public relations organization known to man ... if they have any organization beyond the bar ...
Lawyer's reputations have been demonized to the benefit of big money special interest groups like insurance ... these days, since that public relations machine has been running for decades now ... your potential jurors expect more show than info ...
I believe they not only expect to be lied to, but will choose based on who they feel lied best.
Not saying lawyers lie - I'm saying their association/organization - whoever gets paid to represent lawyers as an industry isn't doing much to promote positive rolemodels within that business.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Apr 3, 2006 23:18:13 GMT -5
Misguided, anti-civil libertarian eh? Why are you so Hell bent on making me sound like an idiot when we all know full well they know.......BUT.....Will they tell the truth? Their attorneys are grasping for threads to have the evidence thrown out?!!!!! Seems deceitful but after all, they are just doing their "CIVIL DUTY" representing killers, right? TonyaWhy do you speak of attorneys representing killers as though it is something other than a noble enterprise? You appear to have disdain for lawyers defending accused people. Why? A noble enterprise. Hmmm, how noble is a person that knowingly, AND I REPEAT SHOUTING RUDELY IF YOU WILL.......... KNOWINGLY REPRESENT A MURDERER? Now, quiet time. Noble is defending an innocent person, correct? You know as well as I do that the attorneys have already sliced and diced this case up between them. They already know what evidence is going to be presented, they already know who they are representing. Now, with that being said, how can anyone DEFEND someone whom they have a 99.9% guess is guilty of cold blooded murder and be NOBLE? Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Apr 4, 2006 10:09:25 GMT -5
A noble enterprise. Hmmm, how noble is a person that knowingly, AND I REPEAT SHOUTING RUDELY IF YOU WILL.......... KNOWINGLY REPRESENT A MURDERER?
Now, quiet time. Noble is defending an innocent person, correct? You know as well as I do that the attorneys have already sliced and diced this case up between them. They already know what evidence is going to be presented, they already know who they are representing.
Now, with that being said, how can anyone DEFEND someone whom they have a 99.9% guess is guilty of cold blooded murder and be NOBLE? That's the system. It's adversarial. Before the State can deprive a defendant of life, liberty or property (fines and seizures) by virtue of its power to enforce the criminal laws, it must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To do this, the state employs a prosecutor who has, at his or her disposal, the investigative resources of the state, which are considerable, all paid for from the public treasury. The defendant has the right to counsel (and if he cannot afford to retain one, one will be appointed for him by the state). Because the state has the greater resources and the consequences, in Western society that prizes individual liberty, so severe, the state has the burden of proof. The process is adversarial, and both lawyers have an ethical duty to advocate their client's (state or defendant) position zealously. A judge or a jury makes the determination whether the client is "guilty" or "not guilty." The defense lawyer has a duty to make the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, to attack the holes in the state's case, and to raise every legitimate defense and mitigating fact. The system doesn't work the way in which it was intended to work if the defense attorney doesn't represent the "potentially guilty" as well as the "potentially not guilty." The "guilty" are separated from the "not guilty" only when the trier of law and fact has made its determination. The attorneys don't make the call. If you want "justice," in the terms of "innocence" and "guilt," human beings can't give it to you. You'd better look to God for that type of "justice." In our society of laws, "the process," functioning as it is intended to function (with all the flaws to which fallible human beings can subject it), is the best form of "justice" a civilized society can construct here on Earth, in my opinion. I accept this system, which has evolved out of the British common law system, and has been adopted by the U.S. and all of the current and former members of the British Commonwealth. If you feel otherwise, try to change the system to something "better." Obviously, enough citizens feel that, on balance, it provides enough "rough justice" that they refrain from "self-help" (vigilante action), except in isolated instances that are usually, themselves, punished by the system. I never felt bad about doing the job the system expected me to do and that I agreed to do, which is not to judge "guilt," but to provide the best defense to the prosecution's charges that I can provide. I would have felt worse if I hadn't done my best. It's rarely that cut and dried, of course, which makes the question more theoretical than realistic. If to a defense attorney a client is "obviously guilty" of the crime with which he or she is charged, that means that the prosecution's unimpeachable evidence is very strong and the defenses are poor. In such a case, the defense attorney will do his or her best to get the most favorable plea bargain for the client, and make a recommendation to the client to accept it. The client makes the final decision, not the attorney. |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Apr 4, 2006 10:16:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Apr 4, 2006 10:21:22 GMT -5
How 'bout this, Tonya: The lawyer is in charge of determining whether the defendant is guilty or not. If the lawyer takes on the representation of the client, the prosecutor drops the charges, because obviously the defendant is not guilty.
Hey, I think you're onto something. This would be much cheaper and faster than our current system!
|
|
