5 ms·

Yes, and it’s not an uncommon defence in child pornography cases. Similarly, you can always claim that the police framed you by lying about the device being fou

by sjy 5y ago

Yes, and it’s not an uncommon defence in child pornography cases. Similarly, you can always claim that the police framed you by lying about the device being found in your possession, or not being tampered with between seizure and forensic analysis. It is up to the jury to decide whether the defence gives rise to a reasonable doubt. The standard is not as high as most technically-minded people think. Juries can convict defendants on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness: https://newrepublic.com/article/152305/who-to-believe-sexual-assault https://newrepublic.com/article/152305/who-to-believe-sexual...

giantg2 5y ago
Yep, and society tends to view defendants as guilty from start.
- gogopuppygogo 5y ago
  Especially in Japan.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    True. I was mostly talking about the "innocent until proven guilty" saying effectively being BS in the US.
  - bena 5y ago
    There's a game, Judgment, which opened my eyes to this. Because a core part of the backstory of the game is that the main character won a case as the defense which is seen as a huge deal. He's like one of the few defense attorneys to have ever gotten to not guilty. The game takes place in a slightly fictionalized version of Japan and is made by a Japanese game developer noted for making games steeped in contemporary Japanese culture. I guess that's important to note.
- mc32 5y ago
  It’s even worse now with social media handing verdicts before juries are even assembled. Infamous cases were difficult in the age of newspapers when they got hold of a story, but now everyone can begin their own agendum.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Social media is way less influential than the local news media in this regard. That’s a long running problem – think about how many cases have been covered based on police statements which turned out to be completely fictitious — and social media tends to amplify those stories more than it contributes original coverage.
zionic 5y ago
Exactly, you are "guilty" if a prosecutor can convince 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty to convict you.
- acdha 5y ago
  Which is exactly why nobody should encourage trying to get out of jury duty: the legal system depends on everyone doing their civic duty so juries represent the community. If you jokingly imply that jury duty is for suckers, you’re undercutting the system and supporting bad outcomes. For example, one of the few checks on the drug war or bad policing has been juries refusing to accept bad police work.
  - tryonenow 5y ago
    I think technically minded HN types normally get filtered out during jury selection anyway, as lawyers seek witnesses who are less logical and more malleable. Not sure if it's an urban legend but I've heard it quite a few times from people who were summoned but not selected.
  - bena 5y ago
    Thank you. People who treat jury duty as a burden and a job for suckers are playing the game that they will never be in a trial where a jury will decide their fate. And while that's likely a game you win, I also wear my seatbelt despite not betting on crashing my car.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    It’s a bit moot though. Even if you’re ra-ra wild about jury duty, the chance that you actually get selected isn’t especially high. I think most people know this and figure they’re just going to have to waste a few hours only to be sent home (or worse, get selected and then sent home after settlement).
  - 5y ago
thaumasiotes 5y ago
From the link: > “Those who say there’s no corroborating evidence are thinking very narrowly,” Victor Vieth, the founder of the Gundersen center, told me. “They’re thinking of hair, DNA, the things you see on television dramas. I’ve never worked on a case of child abuse where, if you look hard enough, you won’t find corroborating evidence.” Vieth invited me to imagine a child who describes that his or her assault occurred in a room painted blue. Police should obtain a warrant and visit the room. Were its walls blue? If so, that was corroborating evidence. This is of course not corroborating evidence that a sexual assault was committed. But sure, it corroborates that the room exists, and why would a child know what color the walls inside a room were unless they had been the victim of a sexual assault there?

by sjy 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

Yep, and society tends to view defendants as guilty from start.

gogopuppygogo 5y ago
Especially in Japan.
- giantg2 5y ago
  True. I was mostly talking about the "innocent until proven guilty" saying effectively being BS in the US.
- bena 5y ago
  There's a game, Judgment, which opened my eyes to this. Because a core part of the backstory of the game is that the main character won a case as the defense which is seen as a huge deal. He's like one of the few defense attorneys to have ever gotten to not guilty. The game takes place in a slightly fictionalized version of Japan and is made by a Japanese game developer noted for making games steeped in contemporary Japanese culture. I guess that's important to note.
mc32 5y ago
It’s even worse now with social media handing verdicts before juries are even assembled. Infamous cases were difficult in the age of newspapers when they got hold of a story, but now everyone can begin their own agendum.
- acdha 5y ago
  Social media is way less influential than the local news media in this regard. That’s a long running problem – think about how many cases have been covered based on police statements which turned out to be completely fictitious — and social media tends to amplify those stories more than it contributes original coverage.

zionic 5y ago

Exactly, you are "guilty" if a prosecutor can convince 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty to convict you.

acdha 5y ago
Which is exactly why nobody should encourage trying to get out of jury duty: the legal system depends on everyone doing their civic duty so juries represent the community. If you jokingly imply that jury duty is for suckers, you’re undercutting the system and supporting bad outcomes. For example, one of the few checks on the drug war or bad policing has been juries refusing to accept bad police work.
- tryonenow 5y ago
  I think technically minded HN types normally get filtered out during jury selection anyway, as lawyers seek witnesses who are less logical and more malleable. Not sure if it's an urban legend but I've heard it quite a few times from people who were summoned but not selected.
- bena 5y ago
  Thank you. People who treat jury duty as a burden and a job for suckers are playing the game that they will never be in a trial where a jury will decide their fate. And while that's likely a game you win, I also wear my seatbelt despite not betting on crashing my car.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jimbob45 5y ago
  It’s a bit moot though. Even if you’re ra-ra wild about jury duty, the chance that you actually get selected isn’t especially high. I think most people know this and figure they’re just going to have to waste a few hours only to be sent home (or worse, get selected and then sent home after settlement).
- 5y ago

thaumasiotes 5y ago

From the link: > “Those who say there’s no corroborating evidence are thinking very narrowly,” Victor Vieth, the founder of the Gundersen center, told me. “They’re thinking of hair, DNA, the things you see on television dramas. I’ve never worked on a case of child abuse where, if you look hard enough, you won’t find corroborating evidence.” Vieth invited me to imagine a child who describes that his or her assault occurred in a room painted blue. Police should obtain a warrant and visit the room. Were its walls blue? If so, that was corroborating evidence. This is of course not corroborating evidence that a sexual assault was committed. But sure, it corroborates that the room exists, and why would a child know what color the walls inside a room were unless they had been the victim of a sexual assault there?