Skip to main content

View Diary: jury duty (or: Twelve Angry Men, here we come...) (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  couple of things... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Senor Unoball, mmacdDE, JeffW

    one witness swore that there is only one way to work the harness and the prosecution's own pictures showed the child buckled into that van, with the harness upside down.

    the other witness swore that the upside down harness is a fair and accurate depiction of the harness on the day of the incident.

    both witnesses swore that the pictures of the harness in both positions were a fair and accurate depiction of the harness on the day of the incident.  

    the harness could not have been in both positions at the same time and both witnesses made inaccurate statements.  so, we had to include the inaccuracies and discrepancies in our assessment of the validity of their eyewitness testimonies.

    •  You were there and listened to all the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Senor Unoball, sexgenderbody

      evidence so I concede that all I know is what you're relating. You saw the witnesses so you had to make the decision and I respect that.  But again, were they mistaken on how the harness works?  And also how does that relate to other observations?  I would rather the decision rest on the observation of the claimed incident.  How far away were they?  How tinted were the windows? That sort of thing.  Basing the outcome of one observation and relating to another observation is tricky at best.  For example, if you asked them if they observed the sun coming up today you would have to say they are wrong because they didn't observe the harness assembly correctly.  You were asked to find beyond a reasonable doubt he struck the child not whether the harness was correctly installed.  However, you were there and I wasn't.  I do have a question though.  Did the defense attorney point this out and make the case that one wrong observation means the other is wrong?  

      Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

      by thestructureguy on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:57:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  to answer your question... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Senor Unoball, nswalls

        the harness and vest were not the issue.  the central issue is that the witnesses upon whom the core of the prosecution's case depended, made mistakes in both their perception and their certainty.  they did this in front of us with evidence that we could examine for ourselves in order to assess their reliability.

        the state did not clearly demonstrate the charge of battery, as defined by the law because the state's evidence and testimony conflicted one another.

        the defence did not not win that case, the prosecution failed to construct a solid, coherent case.

        we couldn't say 'innocent' and probably would not have.  but, neither could we say 'guilty' on the merits of the evidence we were given.

    •  I don't understand (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aravir, Senor Unoball, sexgenderbody

      What exactly is the importance of the harness in the first place that it was seemingly a central part of the case?  I mean there doesn't seem to a suggestion that the kid was maliciously restrained.  It was essentially just a supped up seat belt.  Even with just a normal seat belt the child would have little ability to elude or defend himself.

      •  we wondered too (3+ / 0-)

        we came to the conclusion that the prosecution wanted to appeal to pathos and paint the child as trapped and unable to defend himself.  we think it was an appeal to pathos, which it most certainly did.  during deliberations, we all spoke of how we felt emotionally.

        but we kept coming back to the 12 pictures, 3 pieces of physical evidence and two testimonies.  the jury instructions are clear that those 17 items are what we are to consider in reaching a verdict.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site