| Topic Name: |
Way To Go, Jurors.... |
| Message Name: |
1964th... |
| Date Posted: |
06/15/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
It's pretty standard during voir dire to ask potential jurors if they can set aside preconceived thoughts or opinions and judge the case soley on the evidence from the witness stand.
Most jurors take that seriously.
American law requires a jury to return a guilty verdict if the prosecution has proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Many jurors struggle with that one....but ultimately reach a verdict.
In other words: Yes, a defendant may have done it. Yes you, as a juror, may have entered the courtroom with that preconceived notion. Yes you may leave the courtroom wondering whether there were other acts committed....why those acts weren't introduced...why the defendant didn't testify why...why...why?
But if, DURING THIS TRIAL, AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, THE PROSECUTION DIDN'T *PROVE* THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT you have to return a verdict of not guilty.
What you think before or after doesn't matter.
GET IT????? Good. You can return to your talk radio. |
| Message: |
All the prosecution proved was that MJ had adult magazines and drank booze. That means 90% of men 21-65 should be on trial. He let boys sleep in his room...which is more like a wing of the house. He didn't have the boys in one at a time...and when they were on the bed he usually slept on the floor. The guy is weird, but in this country you need something called proof. Perhaps you would like our legal system to be more like Gitmo. The testimony of one boy who tried to scam several other celebrities had absolutely no credibility. Just like your arguments.
|
|
