JoPoy88 Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 14 hours ago, PatsFanNH said: First the case would be in Houston where everyone knows who he is even non football fans. (My wife hates football still knows who Cam Newton is. ) Second the press and social media down there be 10X worse and the chances of getting 12 people who truly didn’t know anything about it is slimmer than winning the lotto. second as I said the reason. I charges are filed because there is no evidence he did anything. Unlike civil cases to get a conviction or heck even an a grand jury to endite you need SOME proof. Right now it’s all “he made me do this” with hi. Saying he didn’t. As for football they are tough when the player is either at the end of his career or sucks.. even then they usually get it wrong. wow all that legal lecturing and then you throw an “endite” in there 🤡. 1
Doc Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 With that many accusers, convicted or not, there is no way he’s not getting suspended for a good period of time. If I am the Texans, I hold onto him until the legal stuff/suspension is done and then look to trade him and get the maximum value.
PatsFanNH Posted July 28, 2021 Posted July 28, 2021 54 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said: wow all that legal lecturing and then you throw an “endite” in there 🤡. Lmao hey I watch enough cop shows!! Lol seriously though I’ve seen it before.. there is zero chance to get an unpolluted jury.
Beast Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 9 hours ago, PatsFanNH said: Lmao hey I watch enough cop shows!! Lol seriously though I’ve seen it before.. there is zero chance to get an unpolluted jury. No? Did nobody hear of OJ Simpson? Bill Cosby? You can hear about things all you want before jury selection. One of the questions jurors get asked is can they come to a just and fair decision regardless of who it is on trial.
PatsFanNH Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 11 minutes ago, Beast said: No? Did nobody hear of OJ Simpson? Bill Cosby? You can hear about things all you want before jury selection. One of the questions jurors get asked is can they come to a just and fair decision regardless of who it is on trial. If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution)
Warcodered Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 3 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said: If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) Not everybody cares about football. 1
Beast Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said: If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) It doesn’t matter if they’ve heard of the case or they haven’t. What matters is can they be fair and impartial. End of story. Edited July 29, 2021 by Beast 1
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 12 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said: If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) They must not ask that question on the cop shows. That’s his point - it’s not important whether the juror have heard of the case or not, the question is, can they be fair and impartial? Whether or not you think it’s stupid is irrelevant.
Putin Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Beast said: It doesn’t matter if they’ve heard of the case or they haven’t. What matters is can they be fair and impartial. End of story. Well if they/jury already lied not hearing about the case (then ? ) Edited July 29, 2021 by Putin
GunnerBill Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased.
Johnnycage46 Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. Agreed. Jury selection almost becomes the most important event of any trial. If, for instance, there is a high-profile case with a polarizing nature to it, whichever lawyer is able to be more effective with the jury selection begins the trial with a huge advantage. 1 1
sherpa Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 41 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. We kind of think the same about the way you "choose" your king/queen. JK. 1
GunnerBill Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 4 minutes ago, sherpa said: We kind of think the same about the way you "choose" your king/queen. JK. You won't get any disagreement from me on that.... 🤣
PatsFanNH Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: They must not ask that question on the cop shows. That’s his point - it’s not important whether the juror have heard of the case or not, the question is, can they be fair and impartial? Whether or not you think it’s stupid is irrelevant. I believe the question is stupid because everyone comes partial one way or the other in those cases. For example up here the Boston Marathon bomber there is zero chance anyone answered that question honestly. Because everyone wanted blood after it happened and we ALL saw the victims faces. Also the OJ Case was perfect too for the other side, he was found not guilty because those jurors feared for their Lives and everyone else’s lives in LA if they convicted. All I am saying is just because you have a question doesn’t mean people will be honest, there is a very good chance in high profile cases they will lie for one way or the other. 1
Beast Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, Putin said: Well if they/jury already lied not hearing about the case (then ? ) I don’t even know what you are talking about here. 1 hour ago, GunnerBill said: The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. It’s not crazy at all. If people bring a prejudice into the jury box the whole case can be decided on that. But we do have what you prefer but it’s called our Grand Jury process to see if there is sufficient cause to proceed with a case. To get back to your point, we’ve had absolute slam dunks of a cases presented before Grand Jury’s where, during the month they sit, there is one person that votes to no-bill all those cases. If that person sits on an actual trial jury, it will result in a hung jury. The process we have isn’t perfect but I have yet to hear of a better one. Edited July 29, 2021 by Beast 1
SinceThe70s Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 1 hour ago, GunnerBill said: The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. Agreed on this. I got cross examined for jury duty twice (both civil cases). The first time I thought it would be nice to sit on a jury for a week instead of going to work (I got paid either way) so I answered all of the questions in a way that neither the defense nor the prosecution would have a reason to disqualify me and I got selected. When the trial started I realized what a dumb-ass I was for wanting to be on the jury but fortunately the case settled that morning and I went back to work the next day. The second time I made it clear that I couldn't be partial and I got thrown out.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 2 hours ago, GunnerBill said: The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy totally cray-cray to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. FIFY. Though the cross-examination is probably less extensive and less dramatic than Bull and other TV shows make it seem. At least when I’ve been selected for a jury pool it was. But I think you guys do civil cases completely differently - no jury?
GunnerBill Posted July 29, 2021 Posted July 29, 2021 10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: FIFY. Though the cross-examination is probably less extensive and less dramatic than Bull and other TV shows make it seem. At least when I’ve been selected for a jury pool it was. But I think you guys do civil cases completely differently - no jury? Yep, most civil trials are judge alone in the UK. There remain a very small number of civil matters - false imprisonment, fraud and defamation - where there is a possibility of jury trial in theory but it almost never occurs in practice. Defamation was the last civil matter to have a presumption for jury trial (although again in practice it was a presumption that was always rebutted) but I worked on reforms under the coalition Government in 2012/13 to abolish that presumption.
Recommended Posts