Skip to main content

View Diary: Tsarnaev Presumed Guilty: Government Leaks Ill-Gotten Incriminating Statements (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You really believe this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias
    The jurors will be asked at trial if they can only consider the evidence presented at trial and not what they have heard via the media.
    I'm not that naive. How does a prospective juror "prove" this?

    Would you allow me on a trial against a drug dealer if you knew I supported the repeal of drug laws? Or if I had a family member that was hurt or killed while doing their job at the DEA?

    I guess your definition of "innocent until proven guilty" is not equal to mine.  I expect justice to be done by an impartial judge and jury.

    Why do we sequester juries during trials? Why are jurors told not to discuss the case with anyone, including spouse if they are not sequestered?

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 08:18:57 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I can be impartial even if I have seen (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen, gramofsam1

      the bombings on TV and seen the pictures of the bombers.

      Impartial is not the same as completely unaware of the news of the world.

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Fri May 03, 2013 at 08:27:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Next question: (0+ / 0-)

        Is he guilty?

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 08:55:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If I were a juror, I would follow instructions. It (0+ / 0-)

          seems likely that a jury may not even be asked to determine if he did it, but rather whether to agree with defense arguments for extenuating circumstances, for example.

          “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

          by jeff in nyc on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:00:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not an answer, do you believe he is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias

            guilty right now?

            Do you believe he created a bomb and placed it near the finish line subsequently killing 3 and hurting hundreds?

            As a juror, it's your duty, is it not, to walk into the court room without preconceived notions? Especially of innocence or guilt?

            You've already stated you believe he did it.  Guilty until proven otherwise is not justice or impartiality.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:24:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I thought he did it the same time as everyone else (0+ / 0-)

              but that is not what guilty means in the legal realm. I made that clear that innocent until proven guilty is how he must be treated in court. This is not a contradiction.

              “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

              by jeff in nyc on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:29:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And it is an answer. It is the duty of a juror (0+ / 0-)

              to treat the evidence objectively and as instructed. It is not a "duty" to be completely ignorant of the world around you.

              “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

              by jeff in nyc on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:30:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sadly, we disagree again...ROFL. (0+ / 0-)

                I do not defer to judges opinion.  That's why many States have the duty of a juror to weigh the facts AND the law itself.

                Being completely ignorant is not something I even considered or thought.  You've created this argument to beat me over the head with it.

                Justice is supposed to be blind.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:36:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not my intention. We all have prejudices (0+ / 0-)

                  And a galaxy of prior ideas about events. What is necessary for justice is to hold those notions in suspension while executing the duties of the juror.

                  “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                  by jeff in nyc on Fri May 03, 2013 at 04:19:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Do YOU believe he did it? (0+ / 0-)

              Non futuis apud Boston

              by kenlac on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:36:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can only go on what the media has reported (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias

                what the government has said "anonymously".

                From that limited AND unverified source material, he would be guilty.  But isn't hearsay not admissible?

                Why does the government want me to believe he is guilty?

                Shouldn't they want justice to be done? Equally and blindly? And without prejudice?

                Why are they prejudicing the public before a trial?

                If they have facts and proof he did it, won't they come out in a trail?

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 09:56:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Why does the government want me to believe... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sviscusi

                  ...he is guilty?"

                  Because... they... fucking... think... HE DID IT.

                  That's why they are PROSECUTING HIM FOR IT.

                  What planet do you live on? Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Are you just going to intellectually masturbate your entire lives away?

                  Fuck the don't be a dick rule. I got no other tools left in the bag at this point.

                  Non futuis apud Boston

                  by kenlac on Fri May 03, 2013 at 10:15:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What they believe should be kept in the (0+ / 0-)

                    court room, not leaked out to the media by "anonymous insiders".

                    These aren't games or "mental masturbation".  Due process does not include intentionally tainting the jury pool.

                    That's actually a crime, btw, maybe the ones whom leaked it should be sought out and prosecuted.

                    Either we are a nation ruled by the law or we become just like any other Banana Republic.  Remember history?  The show trials of Stalin?  That's what this is starting to look like in this nation.

                    Maybe you don't have time to revisit recent history so here's a short clip to get you started:

                    Screw due process, screw that damn piece of paper, we'll tell you who is guilty and you'll accept it as the gospel truth.  If the government believes you're guilty, then you are.

                    We gave them the authority to charge and prosecute those they believe are guilty, IN A COURT OF LAW...not anonymously in the local newspaper.

                    This kind of bullshit reeks of desperation.  A Hail Mary to obfuscate history.   Recall the Hutaree?  Remember the media frenzy?  Everyone believed they were dangerous mental patients that were going to attempt to overthrow our government?  We had to live in abject fear that there were disgruntled "hate groups" "with a plan".  "If you see something, say something!"

                    Well, they were found innocent and the judge rebuked the prosecutor.  

                    And be clear here, I don't know if this idiot is guilty, he "appears" to be, but that doesn't make it true, not yet.

                    This isn't third grade and it surely isn't a game.  We must prosecute the guilty and do so constitutionally through judicial due process, if and when they are found guilty, then, then justice is accomplished.

                    Isn't every American entitled to justice? Even if they are guilty?  Or should we just summarily execute those the government tells us are "really bad people"?

                    Think about what you're getting so hellbent out of shape from here.  

                    Think about it.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 08:49:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Jurors (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen, Adam B, gramofsam1

      with issues like the ones you posit would be excluded.

      You do not understand the jury selection process.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Fri May 03, 2013 at 08:37:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe, maybe not, I was once picked for a jury (0+ / 0-)

        does that count?

        I was also released from another one, because I told the truth.

        How many juror's "tell the truth" about what they really feel?  Hell, how many humans even know what they feel and are actually honest about it?

        The basic questions weren't that probing in either case.  The defense attorney asked questions and the prosecutor did as well.

        Do you tailor you questions to the specific case?

        Neither side really cared about what life experiences I had or how they may have colored my "objectivity".

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Fri May 03, 2013 at 08:45:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In any death penalty (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, gerrilea, jeff in nyc, gramofsam1

          case voir dire will is extensive - it certainly was in the death penalty case I tried.

          Voir Dire is an art - and my guess is that the questions you answered were more revealing than you think.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Fri May 03, 2013 at 08:55:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site