The one guy on the Lindsey Clancy jury who is right about her being guilty. Among the masses you find ignorance and cowardice.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
12
I'm gonna laugh when it was actually the reverse. The hold out was a female not guilty.
If that true, then the Clancy defense was reading the tea leaves wrong because they were pretty adamant that "remove him" is the solution that they need...
If they were happy with a guilty verdict then they'd be happy with another trial because they could just pled guilty and minimize the time spent.
If they were happy with a guilty verdict then they'd be happy with another trial because they could just pled guilty and minimize the time spent.
The jury's note could be read in either direction. Interestingly, chatgpt hides any response acknowledging that.
It’s still possible in my mind that mistrial by hung jury was the desired outcome for the State. While not super likely, they could’ve put a guy in there whose sole purpose was to hang the jury. Stranger things have happened.
I love how it's generally assumed that "random" jury selection is as random as a mafia run lottery.
Seriously. Jury selection makes the Lottery look fair.
Who has control over the process though? Is it the judges?
@cjd @Humpleupagus @KingOfWhiteAmerica
Voir dire is a process where the attorneys from each side ask a few questions of each randomly picked potential juror. Each attorney can have removed a specific number of potential jurors he believes will not be impartial. The process varies by jurisdiction.
Sure, but somebody is deciding who the candidates are, and that process is not transparent at all so I'm pretty sure they're biasing the outcome.
For example, this jury has 9 women and 3 men. A random selection of people from a population of 50/50 men and women has a 5.4% chance of being 9 women and 3 men. MAYBE men had a much higher chance of answering questions in such a way that would get them excluded, but if they didn't, then this sex balance is already suspicious...
For example, this jury has 9 women and 3 men. A random selection of people from a population of 50/50 men and women has a 5.4% chance of being 9 women and 3 men. MAYBE men had a much higher chance of answering questions in such a way that would get them excluded, but if they didn't, then this sex balance is already suspicious...
@cjd @Humpleupagus @KingOfWhiteAmerica
I don't know any details of how it was done, but the initial pool of potential jurors might have been 50/50. After voir dire, it could have become 9-3. I am sure you can imagine many scenarios how this happened. How impartial can women even be given how they are wired by hormones and emotion?
Indeed, it's definitely possible. But I want to know who is doing the initial candidate selection and how.
If it was all people with the same birthday, and they just go through the year one day at a time, I'll accept that this is fair. But when 3 judges go behind a curtain and they come back with a list of names that are gonna be the jury, I have no inclination to trust them whatsoever.
If it was all people with the same birthday, and they just go through the year one day at a time, I'll accept that this is fair. But when 3 judges go behind a curtain and they come back with a list of names that are gonna be the jury, I have no inclination to trust them whatsoever.
@cjd @Humpleupagus @KingOfWhiteAmerica
TMK the initial pool of potential jurors is supposed to be random. Periodically any of us citizens eligible for jury duty are called to the court to go through this process of jury selection.
Some attorneys work to get their clients tried in particular precincts that have a known demographic and judges that would be more favorable to their client, but I don't know of any improprieties that can be conducted in the determination of initial jurors.
Replies
1
> supposed to be random
Right but they don't really make any effort to prove that it's random, and if you're organized crime - jury selection is a more valuable corruption target than even the lottery, so I'm not at all inclined to take it on faith that the people doing this are all on the up-and-up...
Right but they don't really make any effort to prove that it's random, and if you're organized crime - jury selection is a more valuable corruption target than even the lottery, so I'm not at all inclined to take it on faith that the people doing this are all on the up-and-up...