So When will Murtha Apologize?

[mrt144]

innocent till proven guilty is a farce until someone you believe innocent is prosecuted. im sure youve believed that someone was guilty of a crime without it being voted on by a jury. you just dont publicly speculate about it, which is fine, but some people like speculating about the guilt of others. if you arent a juror you have the right to run your flap about how you believe in the guilt or innocence of someone charged. im sorry that innocent until proven guilty isnt something that supercedes the courtroom but it shouldnt.

personally i dont think these soldiers are guilty of murder. but that has nothing to do with whether they are prosecuted or not. or some hate of the ncis. or jack murtha.

 

[MobBoss]

innocent till proven guilty is a farce

No...its not a farce. Its the law.

until someone you believe innocent is prosecuted. im sure youve believed that someone was guilty of a crime without it being voted on by a jury.

Actually, I am trained to have a neutral opinion until all the facts are in. You even accuse me of it routinely...remember?

you just dont publicly speculate about it, which is fine, but some people like speculating about the guilt of others. if you arent a juror you have the right to run your flap about how you believe in the guilt or innocence of someone charged. im sorry that innocent until proven guilty isnt something that supercedes the courtroom but it shouldnt.

What people discuss or believe privately is all well and good. However, when someone of Murthas political office makes such a comment publically, its another matter entirely. Such elected officials shouldnt speculate on such matters publically until all the facts are in.

personally i dont think these soldiers are guilty of murder

Then what the hell are we discussing.

 

[mrt144]

No...its not a farce. Its the law.



Actually, I am trained to have a neutral opinion until all the facts are in. You even accuse me of it routinely...remember?



What people discuss or believe privately is all well and good. However, when someone of Murthas political office makes such a comment publically, its another matter entirely. Such elected officials shouldnt speculate on such matters publically until all the facts are in.



Then what the hell are we discussing.

you dont have a "neutral opinion" because you only jump in with that "neutral opinon" when it suites you. your selective neutrality is a farce.

We are discussing whether murtha should apologize. I don't think he should if he firmly believes that the marines in question are guilty. I dont think he should apologize to save face because the damage to him is already done. an apology isnt going to change an opinion about him one bit.

 

[Merkinball]

He lost a civil trial which has a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial trial. Technically, he is liable (civil trial), but not guilty (criminal trial). - JR

Very well, so he's been found liable in the murder of people. Is this innocence?

innocent till proven guilty is a farce until someone you believe innocent is prosecuted. - mrt

Wow. Are you for real?

im sure youve believed that someone was guilty of a crime without it being voted on by a jury. you just dont publicly speculate about it, which is fine, but some people like speculating about the guilt of others. - mrt144

And one person that shouldn't speculate about the guilt of Marines in regards to premeditated murder, is a US senator. Especially in public, for political reasons.

 

[Merkinball]

We are discussing whether murtha should apologize. I don't think he should if he firmly believes that the marines in question are guilty. I dont think he should apologize to save face because the damage to him is already done. an apology isnt going to change an opinion about him one bit. - Mrt

What damage is that? The element from the far right that's actually followed this trial? NOBODY KNOWS THAT THE CHARGES ARE BEING DROPPED. Murtha has been given a free pass. When it takes a far right blog to bring this out, doens't the integrity of the mass media come in to question? Once all the charges are dropped, the true colors of the media and Murtha will come out. Will it be in the limelight as much as when Murtha made his comments? Will their innocence be declared as much as the incident? Will Time magazine produce multi-page exposes explaining away their guilt and in depth explanations as to the journalistic errors in their original pile of unethical garbage?

Probably not. Doesn't really fit into the agenda.

 

[mrt144]

Very well, so he's been found liable in the murder of people. Is this innocence?



Wow. Are you for real?



And one person that shouldn't speculate about the guilt of Marines in regards to premeditated murder, is a US senator. Especially in public, for political reasons.

I am for real. I don't believe people on juries actually believe that someone is innocent or guilty based solely on the evidence before them. part of it is pre trial speculation, part of it is inherent biases, part of it is in how they interpert the duty of a jury. It's a hollow maxim. It sounds great but it is seldom ever executed because we are humans after all.

Murtha can do whatever he wants with whatever benefits or costs to him. To think that politicians of all sides, all positions don't speculate for political points is absurd and you're holding a standard to murtha I havent seen you hold to anyone else.

 

[MobBoss]

you dont have a "neutral opinion" because you only jump in with that "neutral opinon" when it suites you. your selective neutrality is a farce.

Nope, and in fact, I pretty much have to exercise it daily due to the nature of my work. However, I will humbly submit that your rush to judgement based upon little, if any, evidence at hand is truly ********.

We are discussing whether murtha should apologize. I don't think he should if he firmly believes that the marines in question are guilty.

Its not his place to publicaly state his private beliefs in such a matter. It prejudices the actual fair trial process of the soldiers and it is ultimately a very stupid thing to do. It makes him the equivalent of an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson who routinely do the same thing are are reviled for it.

I dont think he should apologize to save face because the damage to him is already done. an apology isnt going to change an opinion about him one bit.

Since when are apologys only done to 'save face'? Perhaps it might make Murtha himself feel better about the situation since he wrongfully accused those soldiers and saying that one is sorry is a way of humbling oneself.

My god...what am I saying....a lib dem..humbling themself? /sheesh.

 

[MobBoss]

I am for real. I don't believe people on juries actually believe that someone is innocent or guilty based solely on the evidence before them.

ROFL. Sorry...but this is just beyond ********. What do you think...they determine guilt or innocence via race? Or the highest bidder?

Perhaps one day you will sit on a jury and learn better. Perhaps.

 

[mrt144]

What damage is that? The element from the far right that's actually followed this trial? NOBODY KNOWS THAT THE CHARGES ARE BEING DROPPED. Murtha has been given a free pass. When it takes a far right blog to bring this out, doens't the integrity of the mass media come in to question? Once all the charges are dropped, the true colors of the media and Murtha will come out. Will it be in the limelight as much as when Murtha made his comments? Will their innocence be declared as much as the incident? Will Time magazine produce multi-page exposes explaining away their guilt and in depth explanations as to the journalistic errors in their original pile of unethical garbage?

Probably not. Doesn't really fit into the agenda.

people that dont like murtha wont be swayed, and people that do wont be swayed.

as for the integrity of the media, you're already behind the times. When mass media runs murtha's comments alongside celeb gossip you take it with a grain of salt. would a headline of "MURTHA WRONG, MARINES CLEARED OF CHARGES" really soothe the irate right wing on this matter? i dotn believe it woudl one bit. I also think its quaint how you dont understand how news media works, or how, because you dont know how it works, it is some liberal propaganda machine. Senator being loud and obnoxious is more newsworthy than, Loud and Obnoxious Senator Wrong. If Murtha was wrong it wouldnt be a shock to a lot of us. it wouldnt be news.

 

[mrt144]

ROFL. Sorry...but this is just beyond ********. What do you think...they determine guilt or innocence via race? Or the highest bidder?

Perhaps one day you will sit on a jury and learn better. Perhaps.

i honestly believe that the average person on a jury doesnt make a sole determination of guilt or innocence solely on evidence. Are you that naive?

 

[JollyRoger]

Very well, so he's been found liable in the murder of people. Is this innocence?

It's not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard for our system when using the phrase "innocent until proven guilty."

 

[MobBoss]

i honestly believe that the average person on a jury doesnt make a sole determination of guilt or innocence solely on evidence. Are you that naive?

No. Your're just to cynical. I for one, do think the 'average' person on a jury sure as hell does make their determination of guilt and/or innocence based solely on the evidence presented to them.

But by all means elaborate. If they dont determine guilt or innocence via the evidence...what do they determine it on? And do you have any proof of any type to back up your allegation?

@Jolly. Since you are a trial lawyer - what is your perception of an 'average' person on a jury where you practice? Does presentation of evidence have an impact upon their determination - or is your job meaningless because they have already made their mind up in regards to guilt/innocence via some other factor.

 

[JollyRoger]

No. Your're just to cynical. I for one, do think the 'average' person on a jury sure as hell does make their determination of guilt and/or innocence based solely on the evidence presented to them.

But by all means elaborate. If they dont determine guilt or innocence via the evidence...what do they determine it on? And do you have any proof of any type to back up your allegation?

So if you were representing a client at a trial, would you not strike any potential jurors during the jury selection process?

 

[MobBoss]

So if you were representing a client at a trial, would you not strike any potential jurors during the jury selection process?

You know as well as I do that during that process people who are perceived to not be neutral in their opinion are struck and removed from that process in order to remove any bias in the jury pool.

But what mrt144 alledges goes further than that. Apparently he thinks even that process doesnt work and those selected to serve on jurys are not swayed by evidence at all.

Do you agree? As a legal professional, I know I dont.

Moderator Action: Stop intentionally misrepresenting peoples' opinions. Warned for trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[mrt144]

No. Your're just to cynical. I for one, do think the 'average' person on a jury sure as hell does make their determination of guilt and/or innocence based solely on the evidence presented to them.

But by all means elaborate. If they dont determine guilt or innocence via the evidence...what do they determine it on? And do you have any proof of any type to back up your allegation?

@Jolly. Since you are a trial lawyer - what is your perception of an 'average' person on a jury where you practice? Does presentation of evidence have an impact upon their determination - or is your job meaningless because they have already made their mind up in regards to guilt/innocence via some other factor.

Solely. Keyword here. There are several factors that play a role in the jury's decision. Solely implies that is the only thing they ever consider in their deliberation. In fact in the Jena thread you stated that the prior convictions of a defendent in a case mattered to you. Is this evidence related to the case, or character presentation?

"You do realize that the main kid still being held has a criminal record right? That this isnt exactly his first go around with the law. Right? Does the fact that he has a criminal record impact your thinking on this at all? "

Should this be admissable evidence in the case? or is this something that is presented to show an increased probabilty not the factuality that someone commited the crime they are accused of?

as a matter of fact I do have evidence. search for overturned convictions based on juror misconduct. it happens, it results in bad convictions and it is not based on evidence shown to them.

furhtermore your counter claim that the court just needs to enforce better juror behavior will be idiotic. A juror doesnt need a newspaper or a TV to base their decision on something other than the evidence presented to them. They have their history and their experience to do that well enough.

Your 'blank slate' ideal of jurors isnt based in reality. it is based on ideals and exists in an idealistic world. you base that belief on what you wish most jurors are like. how do you aknowledge that a juror is being impartial without actually being the juror?

and if juries arent partial why do lawyers get to select jurors they think will help them win a case?

 

[mrt144]

You know as well as I do that during that process people who are perceived to not be neutral in their opinion are struck and removed from that process in order to remove any bias in the jury pool.

But what mrt144 alledges goes further than that. Apparently he thinks even that process doesnt work and those selected to serve on jurys are not swayed by evidence at all.

Do you agree? As a legal professional, I know I dont.

Moderator Action: Stop intentionally misrepresenting peoples' opinions. Warned for trolling. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I think that evidence does sway people. but it isnt the only thing that sways people. i don't know how to explain to you that the world isnt black and white. There is no dichotomy of "either all juries decide based on everything beside evidence or all juries go solely by the evidence". You need to stop portraying almost all my opinions as a dichotomy because they don't exist.

Most juries go by a combination of evidence, backround, culture, and more factors that are subtle. I may not be a legal professional but to think it is one or the other is either a flaw in your world outlook, or a staple of your debate style.

 

[JollyRoger]

You know as well as I do that during that process people who are perceived to not be neutral in their opinion are struck and removed from that process in order to remove any bias in the jury pool.

But what mrt144 alledges goes further than that. Apparently he thinks even that process doesnt work and those selected to serve on jurys are not swayed by evidence at all.

Do you agree? As a legal professional, I know I dont.

You cannot eliminate biased jurors during the jury selection process - which I think is the fairer representation of what mrt144 is saying. Hopefully, you can eliminate those that will not listen to you at all, but your typical juror will likely come into a case with certain biases towards one side or the other - whether they realize it or would be willing to admit it to themselves. Race is certainly up there as one of the components of bias whether people want to admit it or not. Some venues give me a bigger concern regarding racial bias than others and if I am representing a black defendant, my concerns regarding potential racial bias generally (but not always) go up as the population of the venue county goes down. These potential biases not only influence jury selection, but also how willing I am to push a matter to trial and consequently, how aggressive I can be with the prosecutor in cutting a deal. They may also influence a prosecutor on how aggressively he may charge a person. Probably relatively easy in some counties to get attempted murder to stick on one class of defendant where it would be a struggle to get criminal assault to stick on another class of defendant even given the same set of facts.

 

[mrt144]

Jolly Roger hits it on the head. I wish there were better statistics for it but jolly, in a case of mistrial what would you guess is the conviction rate after the first mistrial is? does it increase, decrease, or stay about the same?

I just find the belief in juries being right in their decision all the time to be a bit absurd. are there cases where the jury decided the case based on things other than evidence presented or that overrided the evidence?

i get the bad feeling that you would ignore juror misconduct and say the evidence was either strong enough or too weak to convict regardless of these other factors. and this just feeds into the ideal belief that juries always use evidence alone to convict or aquit

 

[JollyRoger]

What people discuss or believe privately is all well and good. However, when someone of Murthas political office makes such a comment publically, its another matter entirely. Such elected officials shouldnt speculate on such matters publically until all the facts are in.

Or the verdict is out.

Rep. Bob Dornan, R-California, was less tempered in his reaction. "O.J. is guilty 15 times ... John Cochran is guilty of murder," he said. "He (Simpson) won't do any movies; any producer that employs him, I'll be sure, is painted with a big 'S' for 'Shame' ... O.J. served 16 months for two murders."

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/verdict/political/index.html

Jolly Roger hits it on the head. I wish there were better statistics for it but jolly, in a case of mistrial what would you guess is the conviction rate after the first mistrial is? does it increase, decrease, or stay about the same?

It really depends on if it is high publicity or not, in my opinion. A few caveats for this whole thread: I am generalizing here, I'm not using any stats to back my claims, plus trial work, especially criminal trial work, is not what I exclusively do - I consider myself as a general practice lawyer who sometimes goes to trial, not a trial lawyer in the "this is all I do for a living" sense of the label.

Something generating high local publicity gets harder for the defense after mistrial because of a bigger chance of jurors biased against the defendant because they think he is wasting court resources for muliple trials. Press coverage usually frames a mistrial as a technicality in favor of the defendant - which is true enough but doesn't necessarily mean the defendant would have been found guilty if the trial had reached a conclusion. If it is a low publicity mistrial, it can be helpful to the defense in cutting a deal or knowing that the prosecution has to play a little more restricted the next time around.

 

[MobBoss]

Solely. Keyword here. There are several factors that play a role in the jury's decision. Solely implies that is the only thing they ever consider in their deliberation. In fact in the Jena thread you stated that the prior convictions of a defendent in a case mattered to you.

No...I asked if they mattered to YOU.

Should this be admissable evidence in the case? or is this something that is presented to show an increased probabilty not the factuality that someone commited the crime they are accused of?

Whether or not someone is a first time offender or a repeat offender is evidence a jury should consider. But it is evidence.

furhtermore your counter claim that the court just needs to enforce better juror behavior will be idiotic. A juror doesnt need a newspaper or a TV to base their decision on something other than the evidence presented to them.

Actually, jurors are supposed to be sequestered as to not be biased from TV or newspaper articles on a particular case. They are not supposed to be able to view such material during trial.

and if juries arent partial why do lawyers get to select jurors they think will help them win a case?

Well, there are two sides to that to balance it out. Surely you know this - it isnt one side picks their partial have and the other side does the same. Juries are picked to be as impartial as possible....not chosen to give one side an advantage over the other.

You cannot eliminate biased jurors during the jury selection process - which I think is the fairer representation of what mrt144 is saying.

I understand that; however, the purpose of jury pool selection is to remove as much bias as possible is it not? I do agree that 100% elimination of all bias is impossible - this was never my point, nor my contention.