Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DK Zimmerman

"Are we a bit paranoid?"

I don't know... are we? You wrote in your post that maybe a "lawyer" could correct you and I inferred from that statement that you don't think I am an attorney.

You would make a great juror to kick off a jury. Your verbal contortions are way off. Lawyers look for people capable of understanding critical and unemotional thinking. And you demonstrate the opposite. You are, however, a defense attorney's dream juror. All wrapped up in emotion and believing you have knowledge from "reading a lot."

Have you listened to jury instructions in a capital case? Do you have the written instructions given to this jury or any jury about what "reasonable doubt" is? YES, their doubt, if reasonable, MUST fit the evidence. The burden of proof is on the government but the burden of reasonableness is on the jury. You can't just sit in a jury room and say, "well, I have doubt." The doubt has to be explained and be in sync with the evidence.


186 posted on 11/30/2004 1:54:29 PM PST by spiralsue (I will never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]


To: spiralsue
You apparently are (paranoid). I neither implied you were or were not a lawyer.

If you accurately state you are (something you have yet to do), then you may well be the one I was looking for. Unfortunately, you aren't automatically right, simply because you have a sheepskin and made a statement.

193 posted on 11/30/2004 2:06:39 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson