Posted on 12/15/2015 1:00:51 PM PST by detective
Edited on 12/15/2015 1:09:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A Baltimore jury is deadlocked in the trial of police officer William Porter, charged in the death of black detainee Freddie Gray, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Barry Williams said on Tuesday. Williams received a note from jurors and ordered them to keep deliberating.
They must be. I’m no lawyer, but I believe that wrongful death settlement payouts are supposed to represent the monetary worth/potential wages through productivity that the deceased would have earned over their lifetime.
The jury sent a note to the judge yesterday asking for videos, recordings, and documents. The judge said no, since the requested material wasn’t used as evidence by either prosecution or defense.
Given that, I’d say the jury wants to convict but can’t do it on the evidence given at the trial.
The nearest Nike store is 14 miles away, so it’s safe.
Which begs the question. Is Nike racist for not putting a store right in the inner city where a significant portion of the customer base is located, or just smart?
Ghetto lottery.
They asked the judge to clarify his jury instructions and he refused. I was on a jury where we started to question the jury instructions. We asked a specific question of the judge and received a clarification on something that wasn’t in the instructions. After the trial the judge came in to talk with us. We asked why what we wanted to know wasn’t in the instructions. He explained that the instructions were prepared by him and the lawyers and that info was purposely left out. He also said when we specially asked he was free to give it.
If the jury wanted to convict, they would have convicted.
This sounds like a case of a split jury. Those who know the officer is innocent and those who are playing the racism game.
“We can stretch this out for another week of free meals. Chili’s for lunch, everybody?”
I would say SOME want to convict, but others cannot get to that conclusion.
In a trial, as a juror, you can only use what is presented by both sides. You cannot try the case—you are trying the evidence put before you.
Also, as a juror, you must listen carefully, as sloppy lawyers on both sides will attempt to manipulate you into believing something that has not been put into evidence.
And when the law is unjust , you can nullify.
**the monetary worth/potential wages through productivity that the deceased would have earned over their lifetime.**
Apparently potential income includes robbery, welfare checks and EBT fraud.
——seven women and five men——
hmmm...... were there any Amish
Time for a beer summit!
It is not contradictory. A civil verdict requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., a scintilla more likely than not. Criminal verdicts require the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, which is much more demanding. It is entirely possible that the city could be found civilly liable even if the officers are innocent of any crime. However, in this case, I think the evidence of negligence is slim. It might justify a small payout in a a normal case not involving blackmail by the mob (and by mob I don’t mean Mafia). The best argument for the family is that he wasn’t seat belted, and they had a guideline that he should have been. The city could defend on the grounds of comparative negligence by Gray (did he do it to himself?) and on the amount of damages his drug-dealing life was worth. At best it was a $100k case, not $6 million.
No Father’s Day cards either.
The officer is clearly innocent. The system is rigged and the local “community leaders” are threatening riots.
...
So is one person holding out for guilt or is one person holding out for not guilty?
As a juror, when I decided that BOTH attorneys were BSing me and that the truth had not been presented ... I voted to acquit.
...
And that was correct. The burden is on the government.
Yep. This is code for they think he is innocent, but don’t want to be responsible for a riot if they deliver a non-PC verdict. It is much better to just deadlock and pass the responsibility off to a different jury.
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.