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

To: freedumb2003

Appeals might as well be a “redo” if the appellate court decides the issue at hand tainted the trial.

Why not permit the defense to propose a clearly unjustified theory if he’s guilty as sin? That would only get unsympathy from the jury. In the meantime, everyone else’s jury trial rights will not be chipped away at by example. If I were on that jury I might say that I cannot constrain my thoughts to what the judge ordered, and so that if I believed “entrapment” happened I would be conscience bound to vote not guilty.


7 posted on 08/30/2011 6:30:47 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (There's gonna be a Redneck Revolution! (See my freep page) [rednecks come in many colors])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: HiTech RedNeck

>>Why not permit the defense to propose a clearly unjustified theory if he’s guilty as sin? <<

Two words: Casey Anthony. They snuck their alternatives through the back door and it worked.

Every direct argument needs a legal and factual foundation. It is just the way the law works.


8 posted on 08/30/2011 6:39:04 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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