Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan
A jury weighed the credibilities, and decided they believed the smuggler rather than the officers who tried to cover up their crime. It's called falsus in uno.

The jury was not given all the information necessary to make that decision about credibility. The judge prohibited the defense from bringing up this guy's past and the fact that he had been arrested for drug smuggling even after this incident. BTW juries are composed of people who are generally too stupid to find an excuse or reason to get out of jury duty. And many jurors lie about whether or not they have prejudged a case just so that they can sit on a jury, especially in a high profile case, since there is the chance to hit the lottery with a book deal.

A prosecutor with an agenda and an unlimited budget can usually find a way to convict anyone of anything. If the Duke case had gone to trial, I suspect those white boys would have been convicted regardless of the lack of evidence. The jury would have ignored the forensic evidence and found a way to believe the lying prostitute.

51 posted on 07/17/2007 6:27:26 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: P-Marlowe
he judge prohibited the defense from bringing up this guy's past and the fact that he had been arrested for drug smuggling even after this incident

It has no legal relevance. It wasn't known by Campos and Ramos at the time of the crime, nor does it bear upon his credibility. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, uncharged prior bad acts are admissible only if they relate to truthfulness. Drug dealing isn't considered one of those (since you could conceivably be an "honest" drug dealer. Yeah, I know.)

Even if it weren't inadmissible under that Rule, it would still be inadmissible as unduly prejudicial under F.R.E. 403. "He's an illegal drug dealer, so he should have been shot"? That defense just won't fly in any respectable courtroom.

61 posted on 07/17/2007 6:36:15 AM PDT by jude24 (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; kabar

I want to know:

Was he shot in the back, the side, or the buttocks?

Since it obviously didn’t kill him, did it even render him immobile?

Was he truly a drug smuggler?

If he got away, could the agents have picked up their brass because they didn’t think they hit anything?


71 posted on 07/17/2007 6:49:14 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe
BTW juries are composed of people who are generally too stupid to find an excuse or reason to get out of jury duty. And many jurors lie about whether or not they have prejudged a case just so that they can sit on a jury, especially in a high profile case, since there is the chance to hit the lottery with a book de

Climbing up on my soap box

Your post is troubling. Have you ever been on a jury? I have. Multiple times. Each time I'm called, I have found a way to serve. I am not stupid. The people on the juries were not stupid. Yeah there is always a "free him" and a "hang him" on each one. Both sides see to this. This is good IMO though because the scale seems to balance in the middle. Instead of beating up the "uneducated" how about more of the "smart" people stop trying to get out of their duty and serving their country. Anyone who has ever made an excuse, that's what it was because we all find the time and a way to do what we want.

stepping down now:')

84 posted on 07/17/2007 7:22:14 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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