41 ms·

I've served on two juries, on trials 20 years apart and in different states, that involved child molestation. We acquitted one defendant after a day's delibera

by kabdib 8y ago

I've served on two juries, on trials 20 years apart and in different states, that involved child molestation. We acquitted one defendant after a day's deliberation. We sent the other to jail for a LONG time after spending half an hour talking about it, it was really crystal clear from the evidence (which included a videotaped confession . . . yet the goober insisted on a jury trial, go figure). I sleep well at nights. Also, if cops seat you in front of a video camera and try to ask questions, don't say anything.

candiodari 8y ago
You make it sound like this guy was tricked into confessing. How sure are you that he was guilty assuming his confession was "extracted" ?
- kabdib 8y ago
  In this case the police did tell him he didn't have to say anything until he'd talked to a lawyer. Then the guy basically broke down, said "I was stupid, I don't know why I did it" and proceeded to tell his tale. Stupid. Really don't say anything to cops, especially if you've been placed under arrest. Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. Early on the judge mentioned that the defendant had insisted on a jury trial, over the advice of his lawyer (and to some extent the judge, who was broadly hinting that sentencing from a guilty verdict by a jury was going to be a lot harsher than one he could reach with a deal of some kind). I have to say that his lawyer (a public defender appointed to him, since he could not afford his own) was pretty bad, at least by my unpracticed eye.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Believe it or not, despite the police constantly exploiting people's (legal) stupidity, it should not be a crime. > Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. If the video of his confession, which you know has been edited by the police and prosecutor's office, I would have voted to let him go. You don't know the pressure that was on the guy during that video, you don't know what else the police left out (e.g. one thing is they do is refusing to help someone, or claiming to refuse, until a confession is extracted and signed, then edit out the part where they refused to help, or lied) What if the person lied and confessed because the police threatened not to call an ambulance for someone ? Ironically, this may very well be the reason the "goober" wanted a jury trial in the first place, as people do that thinking it will provide more opportunities for the truth to come out.

by kabdib 8y ago

candiodari 8y ago

You make it sound like this guy was tricked into confessing. How sure are you that he was guilty assuming his confession was "extracted" ?

kabdib 8y ago
In this case the police did tell him he didn't have to say anything until he'd talked to a lawyer. Then the guy basically broke down, said "I was stupid, I don't know why I did it" and proceeded to tell his tale. Stupid. Really don't say anything to cops, especially if you've been placed under arrest. Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. Early on the judge mentioned that the defendant had insisted on a jury trial, over the advice of his lawyer (and to some extent the judge, who was broadly hinting that sentencing from a guilty verdict by a jury was going to be a lot harsher than one he could reach with a deal of some kind). I have to say that his lawyer (a public defender appointed to him, since he could not afford his own) was pretty bad, at least by my unpracticed eye.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Believe it or not, despite the police constantly exploiting people's (legal) stupidity, it should not be a crime. > Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. If the video of his confession, which you know has been edited by the police and prosecutor's office, I would have voted to let him go. You don't know the pressure that was on the guy during that video, you don't know what else the police left out (e.g. one thing is they do is refusing to help someone, or claiming to refuse, until a confession is extracted and signed, then edit out the part where they refused to help, or lied) What if the person lied and confessed because the police threatened not to call an ambulance for someone ? Ironically, this may very well be the reason the "goober" wanted a jury trial in the first place, as people do that thinking it will provide more opportunities for the truth to come out.