3 ms·
Jurors are told to only take into consideration what evidence is presented at trial. If he admits to crimes during a podcast it's guaranteed jurors will hear i
by anotherman554 4y ago
Jurors are told to only take into consideration what evidence is presented at trial.
If he admits to crimes during a podcast it's guaranteed jurors will hear it at trial. If he says he a "werry sorry little boy" during the podcast there's zero guarantee the juror will hear it and zero guarantee they'll take it into account at trial.
I'm having a hard time seeing how it's a good approach.
- kipchak 4y agoAn extreme example going in the opposite direction would be Martin Shkreli. Finding a completely impartial jury was very difficult[1], as even if someone hadn't followed the particulars of the case, they had probably seen headlines or heard opinions from friends and family during small talk, creating a negative overall sentiment that reaches jurors. Finding jurors who can have their perspective not colored at all when many other jurors are dismissed for hating the guy is a tall order. [1]https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/ https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/