Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Do you think jurors confuse "reasonable doubt" with "possible doubt"?

Especially when there is only circumstantial evidence in a case, it seems that what is viewed to be reasonable by many a jury seems not so reasonable to those of us watching from the outside.

                                                                shrugging

 

                                       I'm just trying to make some sense of all of this.

 
ss_mom

Asked by ss_mom at 3:14 PM on Jul. 7, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 22 (14,975 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (29)
  • That's just splitting hairs. It's easy to make judgements from the outside that's why juries are made of small groups of people, not the entire public.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 3:17 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • I don't think there was any REASONABLE doubt in this case. The jurors were cowards. It was in their hands to convict that bitch, and they blew it.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 3:23 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • I think what happens is that certain attorneys are really talented in argument and creating confusion, doubt, and a sense of powerlessness/stupidity. That is why some are drawn to becoming an attorney . . ,they already have a gift for that. Some of my closest friends are very talented attorneys in top notch firms, and, trust me, you wouldn't want to be caught dead in an argument with them. they will confuse and outsmart you . . .

    With such a high profile case, we can almost be certain the the jury selection process was very calculated. they probably chose people that they knew would be easy to confuse. There are jury research firms who know how to find those types by what they wear and what they do. The research exists, and it works.

    That is what happened. Psychological reasearch and tactics, powerful attorney strategy got someone who is obviously guilty off.

    Same thing happpened with OJ. It was calculated.
    ImaginationMama

    Answer by ImaginationMama at 3:25 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • You can't convict on a circumstantial case.
    -Eilish-

    Answer by -Eilish- 10 minutes ag

    If that were so then the prisons would be empty.

    And they confuse reasonable doubt with unreasonable doubt.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 3:28 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • It's a shame that uneducated fools, even those who have had prior arrests, can actually be SELECTED to be on a jury. I am sorry, but 10 hours and they had their verdict? 10 hours??? Blago in IL got convicted for selling a Senate seat, but this one walks away for murder.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:13 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • If that were so then the prisons would be empty.

    That's not true either ....

    Most criminal cases are won with circumstantial evidence as most criminals do not commit their crimes with witnesses nor do they tape them.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 4:20 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • You know...it's one thing to not like my argument, it's another to act like a petulant overgrown child about it and be stupid. Grow up!

    Funny you used the same childish argument in another post.lol Pot meet kettle.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:07 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • The circumstantial evidence has to be such that it fits the charges - I'm not saying Casey isn't guilty, I'm saying there wasn't enough to prove murder 1. If the prosecution had gone with a lesser charge, she may have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
    -Eilish-

    Answer by -Eilish- at 3:26 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • ldmr - It is more true than we all realize. I have family in trial consulting, and believe me, there is ALOT that they do. Prosecution, because it is coming from the DA's office, does not have that type of support. They are at a disadvantage. Because this was a high profile case, we can be sure that there was some consulting going on, whether it be actually paid for through money or notoriety.

    It is calculated. Everything about it. Our legal system is supposed to be based on fairness and justice, but it is not, in alot of cases.

    Even the charge itself is manipulated, as both sides have input. Anthony's lawyers probably pushed for the higher sentence on purpose because they knew it would be harder to prosecute.
    ImaginationMama

    Answer by ImaginationMama at 4:19 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • Where's a real Dexter when you need one?
    Imogine

    Answer by Imogine at 4:55 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN