What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The States : red states in a race to the bottom

Swansong said:
Yessir, that's the one. It's completely bonkers.

Today, the accident reconstruction "expert" testified that KR struck JO on the arm/side body via sideswipe. Which spun JO and knocked him back about 30 feet, but left no injuries other than some minor lacerations on his arm and a gash on his head (which may or may not have been the cause of death, but we don't know that since the ME hasn't testified yet and the report is... sketchy). It broke her taillight, somehow without causing damage to him. The glass he'd been holding and his cell phone flew with him and landed under and next to him.

And that KR had to do a u-turn (which they then clarified as a 3-point turn) in order to be pointing in the correct direction to back into JO.
Click to expand...
That trial has to be the sweetest gig as a juror, especially if your job pays you for jury duty like mine. Sit around listening to BS, get a few months off work, probably get sequestered all so you just vote not guilty?
 
Jimjamesak said:
That trial has to be the sweetest gig as a juror, especially if your job pays you for jury duty like mine. Sit around listening to BS, get a few months off work, probably get sequestered all so you just vote not guilty?
Click to expand...

I dunno man. I'd be so mad if I was on that jury. 6 weeks and counting and the prosecution hasn't even rested yet. I'd be begging the judge to dismiss after they do rest.
 
Swansong said:
Yessir, that's the one. It's completely bonkers.

Today, the accident reconstruction "expert" testified that KR struck JO on the arm/side body via sideswipe. Which spun JO and knocked him back about 30 feet, but left no injuries other than some minor lacerations on his arm and a gash on his head (which may or may not have been the cause of death, but we don't know that since the ME hasn't testified yet and the report is... sketchy). It broke her taillight, somehow without causing damage to him. The glass he'd been holding and his cell phone flew with him and landed under and next to him.

And that KR had to do a u-turn (which they then clarified as a 3-point turn) in order to be pointing in the correct direction to back into JO.
Click to expand...

"I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou."
 
Jimjamesak said:
That trial has to be the sweetest gig as a juror, especially if your job pays you for jury duty like mine. Sit around listening to BS, get a few months off work, probably get sequestered all so you just vote not guilty?
Click to expand...

Juries are very, very rarely sequestered. 99.9% of the time they're just admonished to not watch or read the news. Otherwise they return home and go about their normal lives when they aren't in court. Also why most trials only go 4 days per week.
 
unofan said:
Juries are very, very rarely sequestered. 99.9% of the time they're just admonished to not watch or read the news. Otherwise they return home and go about their normal lives when they aren't in court. Also why most trials only go 4 days per week.
Click to expand...
Still worth it.
 
Having to put your life entirely on hold and sit in the courtroom for hours per day, multiple days per week, while your job (whatever it is) just... waits. Over something so poorly investigated and so grossly overcharged.

Look, I have no idea if the woman killed the dude. Maybe she did. Maybe she did exactly like the state is saying. But they've done an abysmal job proving that. It really makes you frustrated when you wonder "what if the defendant was poor, or didn't get her story picked up by some noisy hateful blogger, who drew attention to it by being a noisy hateful blogger".
 
Swansong said:
Having to put your life entirely on hold and sit in the courtroom for hours per day, multiple days per week, while your job (whatever it is) just... waits. Over something so poorly investigated and so grossly overcharged.

Look, I have no idea if the woman killed the dude. Maybe she did. Maybe she did exactly like the state is saying. But they've done an abysmal job proving that. It really makes you frustrated when you wonder "what if the defendant was poor, or didn't get her story picked up by some noisy hateful blogger, who drew attention to it by being a noisy hateful blogger".
Click to expand...

I served as jury foreperson once. Felony drunk driving (which meant the person had to also have a fairly recent drunk driving conviction on their record because I knew the law in the state). Guy was clearly guilty as charged, zero doubt of any kind in my mind, reasonable or otherwise. But the prosecuting attorneys did such a poor job presenting a case that had been equally poorly investigated by the Sheriff's office there was no way I was going to vote "guilty." Witnesses contradicted each other on key elements, they tried to paint the guy as having an affair on his wife (as if that had ANYTHING to do with what he was on trial for) and it was clear that at least one of the police officers testified untruthfully. No one was hurt in the accident the defendent had (well, no people, he hit and killed a doe), he just totaled his vehicle. And the kicker, one of the other jurors had lost a brother in a drunk driving accident and clearly that should have disqualified her from serving on that particular jury.

We were either 9-3 or 10-2 to convict on the first ballot before we started to discuss all the ridiculousness of this trial. The trial itself was brief, less than a full day. We deliberated for the rest of that day, maybe 90 minutes, and then all day the next day. Little by little we convinced people that in our system it isn't really just guilt that needs to drive a verdict, but did the state PROVE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Eventually my side won out and we acquitted the guy.

Afterwards as some of us were waiting to get out jury pay (like $12 a day) the defendent comes over and tries to thank us for "seeing the truth." We told him to get bent, and that he was clearly guilty and needed help before he killed himself, or worse yet, someone else. We said you are basically getting a mostly undeserved second chance, and the only thing you should be doing right now is finding an AA meeting and finally admitting to yourself you were probably a hopeless drunk and its time to take responsibilty for it. I don't know if I would have felt the same way if the guy was on trial for being a mass murderer, or if he had run over kids in a crosswalk while drunk, but at the time it sure seemed like the right thing to do.
 
Kristin gillibrand suggests alternative to congestion prices in nyc- park your car at train stations and take a train into town.

revelatory, Kristin. Haven’t heard your worthless name in a while, she should find a different way to get her name in the news
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Kristin gillibrand suggests alternative to congestion prices in nyc- park your car at train stations and take a train into town.

revelatory, Kristin. Haven’t heard your worthless name in a while, she should find a different way to get her name in the news
Click to expand...

That's cute, she thinks there's ample parking and/or adequate trains service for commuters.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
I served as jury foreperson once. Felony drunk driving (which meant the person had to also have a fairly recent drunk driving conviction on their record because I knew the law in the state). Guy was clearly guilty as charged, zero doubt of any kind in my mind, reasonable or otherwise. But the prosecuting attorneys did such a poor job presenting a case that had been equally poorly investigated by the Sheriff's office there was no way I was going to vote "guilty." Witnesses contradicted each other on key elements, they tried to paint the guy as having an affair on his wife (as if that had ANYTHING to do with what he was on trial for) and it was clear that at least one of the police officers testified untruthfully. No one was hurt in the accident the defendent had (well, no people, he hit and killed a doe), he just totaled his vehicle. And the kicker, one of the other jurors had lost a brother in a drunk driving accident and clearly that should have disqualified her from serving on that particular jury.

We were either 9-3 or 10-2 to convict on the first ballot before we started to discuss all the ridiculousness of this trial. The trial itself was brief, less than a full day. We deliberated for the rest of that day, maybe 90 minutes, and then all day the next day. Little by little we convinced people that in our system it isn't really just guilt that needs to drive a verdict, but did the state PROVE GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Eventually my side won out and we acquitted the guy.

Afterwards as some of us were waiting to get out jury pay (like $12 a day) the defendent comes over and tries to thank us for "seeing the truth." We told him to get bent, and that he was clearly guilty and needed help before he killed himself, or worse yet, someone else. We said you are basically getting a mostly undeserved second chance, and the only thing you should be doing right now is finding an AA meeting and finally admitting to yourself you were probably a hopeless drunk and its time to take responsibilty for it. I don't know if I would have felt the same way if the guy was on trial for being a mass murderer, or if he had run over kids in a crosswalk while drunk, but at the time it sure seemed like the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

My father was on a jury once. He said no doubt the guy committed a crime. The problem was the prosecutor was charging him with a "higher level" crime, which he clearly did not commit. After most voted guilty, my father slowly convinced everyone that they can only judge the case based on what the prosecutor is charging, and nothing else.

They eventually acquitted him. My father said, the prosecutor screwed up. They had a slam dunk case but got greedy. This is also why lawyers hate having engineers (my father was an aeronautical engineer) on a jury. They think too logical, and not emotional.
 
Russell Jaslow said:
They eventually acquitted him. My father said, the prosecutor screwed up. They had a slam dunk case but got greedy. This is also why lawyers hate having engineers (my father was an aeronautical engineer) on a jury. They think too logical, and not emotional.
Click to expand...

Correction, that's why prosecutors hate engineers. Defense attorneys love educated people on juries.
 
Michigan, per Jeff timmer:

“ MIGOP legislator (and the son of an actual honest to god Nazi) arrested in Lansing chasing a stripper while brandishing a gun”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top