Posted on 11/09/2004 2:24:48 PM PST by Tuxedo
Just announced on Fox News! Who of us will be able to sleep tonight? Will Greta now have a two-hour show? Will the state of Kalifornia ever be the same? We need to send Scott Peterson to France to take out Arafat! Help me somebody.... brain beginning to melt....
IMHO: there could be national implications to this trial. The fact that Scott is facing TWO counts of murder is significant. Why? Well, the baby was a fetus when it was murdered, leading to potential implications for abortion. Then again, I could be all wet.
I guess the object lesson here is if you want to kill someone, do it in California. But, seriously, I think the rules for any successful prosecution far favor the "potentially guilty". I agree with the premise of presumed innocent, but it annoys me when people like OJ are able to get away with cold-blooded murder.
It always seems to be an XX that screws up the deliberations!
Good point. While I think this trial is overly sensationalized, there is certainly room for some good discussion on our criminal justice system.
Hey Howlin' - I was just relaying what Judge Napolitano was saying. He modified his statement somewhat since.
I smell mistrial. Close minded, independent investigation, clearly unable to take direction from the judge.. T'aint funny Juror #7. You're costing the taxpayers a bundle, and inflicting more pain on the families. She should be jailed for being a moron. 30 dyas in the Guantanamo pokey... whay say you??
And will they be able to clean up the resulting 60 pounds of baby fat that will be coating everything in the broadcast studio?
--Boot Hill
This sounds like the basis for a new TV drama series. The main character (with the assistance of a court employee) would get himself on a different jury every week, do his own research, and crack cases. Or even better, a "reality" series.
Hey! I LIKE Rita's babyfat - it makes her look juicy and able to bear young!
Sadly, Nicole and Ron Brown will cry out for justice forever, it appears. I wish I were a prosecutor.
I think it is a good thing that the prosecution must prove guilt, rather than the defense prove innocence. I have been on three juries (two for felony changes) and I know how difficult it is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Since I was not on the OJ jury, and I suspexct neither were you, it is difficult to second guess any jury. Since that jury acquitted 12-0, there must have been something that convinced them. Like the S.P. trial, my guess would have been for a hung jury.
Hung jury for OJ would have made sense. 12-0 though is hard to believe. I doubt we'll ever know what really went on in deliberation.
Concur.
My near instantanious reaction to reading "Juror #7 Removed" was
"please, oh, please, oh, please let juror #7 be the imbedded reporter".
I'm attracted to her, too, and for the same reasons, but why let good taste and decency interfere with a cheap shot?
--Boot Hill
Deja Vu.
Thanks. it's not all that funny sometimes seems like it's become one big pajama party in here.
Ditto.
Ok, so they throw a juror off because she has made up her mind that he is innocent. What about the ones that have made up their mind that he is guilty? Aren't they subject to the same rules? I think this is very unnerving and I am glad I am not on trial with this judge who seems to think the jurors should all vote guilty. I thought the idea was to make sure the defendent was guilty before actually convicting them and I thought that was the jury's job not the judge. He told them yesterday to change their opinions so they wouldn't have a hung jury. This is nonsense for a judge to be telling a jury. There will be a mistrial or at very least the verdict will be thrown out on appeal if he is convicted. This judge sounds like an idiot and prejudiced to boot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.