• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thermal said:
I think there are one or two who think maaaaybe she should walk. With a pool of hundreds of potential jurors, the juror vetting will need to be good by the prosecution. Not insurmountable
Click to expand...

The vetting is done, jurors are picked, trial starts Monday.
 
Thermal said:
Wrong tense conjugation on my part. I meant something like 'will need to have been done and presumably was given the size of the pool'
Click to expand...

To me it's shocking that anyone thinks she should walk completely. I understand that there might be a few people who think she will walk, but I can't understand supporting the idea that she isn't guilty of anything. Best case scenario is that she's guilty of some form of crime.
 
plague311 said:
To me it's shocking that anyone thinks she should walk completely. I understand that there might be a few people who think she will walk, but I can't understand supporting the idea that she isn't guilty of anything. Best case scenario is that she's guilty of some form of crime.
Click to expand...

I think there is a chance she walks. That's more of a Texas thing, though, and their laws and precedents.

Best case scenario for me is she spends the rest of her life in jail for murder, and Texans demand revisiting of their lethal force laws.

Another good one might be to dump her in the general population with the other murderers. I'm sure they would get along famously, backslapping about how they are some rootin tootin gunslingers.

I'm sure she would still be alive by breakfast on the first day.
 
Kind of weird things to point out in this article:

State law allows Texans to use deadly force to defend themselves. And at nighttime, they can use deadly force to defend their property. There is no duty to retreat, said Wilson, who once headed the conviction integrity unit at the Dallas County district attorney’s office.

There's been no indication that Jean confronted or otherwise threatened Guyger when she entered his home and shot him from across the room. Rather she says she fired twice believing that Jean was an intruder and that she was acting in self-defense after she "gave verbal commands that were ignored."
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that 1) Time of day matters or 2) that it was confirmed he was across the room. I've heard a few different claims: That he was on his couch, and that he had answered the door. I wonder if there's anything confirmed.

I think this trial, in my unprofessional opinion, will boil down to what the lock reader says. If the door was closed, then it was locked. If it was locked then she couldn't have "mistake of fact" walked her way into his place. That article does mention what I've been saying too. That there was a lit up sign next to the door, she passed multiple identifiers as to what floor she was on, and that the red floor mat should have been a dead giveaway that she was at the wrong spot. The article seems to focus on the defense's job of proving her mistake of fact was reasonable, which I don't believe it was at all. "Sleep deprivation" aside, which hasn't been proven either, she reasonably should have been able to figure it out.
 
plague311 said:
.....
This part blows my mind. How can you be so bias as to not be able to convict someone of murder? Damn we have some complete morons in this nation. Being a cop doesn't put you above the law.
Click to expand...

I just note here that for someone who doesn't want to serve on a jury, the quickest, easiest way to get excused is to announce during the voir dire you've already made up your mind. I've done it myself, and I've watched other people do it. And it wouldn't surprise me that some people don't want any part of a controversial, high-profile (and probably lengthy) trial.
 
Bob001 said:
I just note here that for someone who doesn't want to serve on a jury, the quickest, easiest way to get excused is to announce during the voir dire you've already made up your mind. I've done it myself, and I've watched other people do it. And it wouldn't surprise me that some people don't want any part of a controversial, high-profile (and probably lengthy) trial.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's the narcissist in me, but that's EXACTLY the case I would want to be on. I feel I'm intelligent and subjective enough to weigh evidence and give a solid decision for the outcome of the case. Even with everything I've said here, and reading all of the information I've read I know I haven't seen even a fraction of the total evidence. I could be convinced one way or the other.
 
Bob001 said:
I just note here that for someone who doesn't want to serve on a jury, the quickest, easiest way to get excused is to announce during the voir dire you've already made up your mind. I've done it myself, and I've watched other people do it. And it wouldn't surprise me that some people don't want any part of a controversial, high-profile (and probably lengthy) trial.
Click to expand...

In NJ, trying that that can actually get you in a heap of trouble. But for practical purposes, they might pass on you.

Trying to duck jury duty, I have shown up looking like...a colorful character. I've even had dried blood on my hands. My last time I was picked because I was asked where I got my news. I answered whatever the computer told me. Thought that was a slam dunk. Turned out that, like here, they were looking for people who had not read about the locally high profile case. In short, the socially oblivious. Thought for sure neither side would want me anywhere near a deliberation.
 
I've been called 3 times (twice local, once Federal) and every time I was part of the last first group dismissed.

I've been told it was because I'm former military, apparently neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys like us on juries but I have no idea how true that is.
 
Thermal said:
In NJ, trying that that can actually get you in a heap of trouble. But for practical purposes, they might pass on you.
.....
Click to expand...

But the point of the voir dire is to identify jurors who won't be impartial. How could they punish someone for saying he can't be impartial? I was on jury duty (meaning part of the large pool from which jurors were selected) once where at every voir dire, a woman said "I would never believe a cop!" Excused, and she went back to studying for her college exams. I was at a voir dire where the prosecutor introduced a large number of witnesses against the defendant ("Do you know any of these people?") and I said "With all those witnesses, he should just make a deal." Excused. What would be the basis for "a heap of trouble?"
 
plague311 said:
Maybe it's the narcissist in me, but that's EXACTLY the case I would want to be on. I feel I'm intelligent and subjective enough to weigh evidence and give a solid decision for the outcome of the case. Even with everything I've said here, and reading all of the information I've read I know I haven't seen even a fraction of the total evidence. I could be convinced one way or the other.
Click to expand...


From the link:
Jurors may be sequestered during the entire trial and will not be able to use their phones or access the internet. The trial could last two weeks, Kemp said, but may be shorter or longer.
Click to expand...

I'd fake a heart attack to get out of that.
 
Bob001 said:
But the point of the voir dire is to identify jurors who won't be impartial. How could they punish someone for saying he can't be impartial? I was on jury duty (meaning part of the large pool from which jurors were selected) once where at every voir dire, a woman said "I would never believe a cop!" Excused, and she went back to studying for her college exams. I was at a voir dire where the prosecutor introduced a large number of witnesses against the defendant ("Do you know any of these people?") and I said "With all those witnesses, he should just make a deal." Excused. What would be the basis for "a heap of trouble?"
Click to expand...

The trick is (and I say this with no qualifications other than spawn that is a third year law student, and working with attorneys as a low rent construction expert) that you would basically saying that you refuse to follow court instruction to be impartial, as any adult should be able. Basically contempt. Jury selection is (in theory) to weed out people you think will be problematic. Outright claiming you intend to be is contempt of court.
 
Thermal said:
The trick is (and I say this with no qualifications other than spawn that is a third year law student, and working with attorneys as a low rent construction expert) that you would basically saying that you refuse to follow court instruction to be impartial, as any adult should be able. Basically contempt. Jury selection is (in theory) to weed out people you think will be problematic. Outright claiming you intend to be is contempt of court.
Click to expand...

I suspect that if potential jurors were punished for revealing their prejudices, the defense would have major grounds for appeal after conviction: "We weren't permitted to identify the jurors who were already against us!" And the voir dire is part of jury selection before the trial; it's intended to identify any basis for impartiality. You will be excused if you know the defendant, the witnesses or any of the attorneys, and you will almost certainly be excused if you have been a party to a similar case or a victim of a similar crime, or if you are a lawyer or a police officer or public official (any of whom might possibly sway other jurors). Somebody who says "I can't be impartial" would be more trouble than they're worth for all sides.
 
Last edited:
This is why having the prosecutor and defense have a hand in picking jurors is insane. Neither of them have any motivation to pick unbiased jurors, but jurors that are already biases for them.

This idea that two opposing biases/ulterior motives is going to ever, to say nothing of consistently, balance out to fairness is insane.
 
Bob001 said:
I suspect that if potential jurors were punished for revealing their prejudices, the defense would have major grounds for appeal after conviction: "We weren't permitted to identify the jurors who were already against us!" And the voir dire is part of jury selection before the trial; it's intended to identify any basis for impartiality. You will be excused if you know the defendant, the witnesses or any of the attorneys, and you will almost certainly be excused if you have been a party to a similar case or a victim of a similar crime, or if you are a lawyer or a police officer or public official (any of whom might possibly sway other jurors). Somebody who says "I can't be impartial" would be more trouble than they're worth for all sides.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you can allude to being impartial, or give that impression. You will likely be passed for selection. But I doubt you could simply say 'no, I refuse to show the level of impartiality of the average child'. Big difference between appearing biased and declaring contempt.
 
Basically there's damn near never a scenario where wasting the court's time by putting on a "I'm too good to be here" act is a good idea.
 
Bob001 said:
From the link:


I'd fake a heart attack to get out of that.
Click to expand...

Meh, I'd be fine with it. A vacation from the kids, the internet, and I get to hear an extremely interesting court case? Checks all my boxes.

ETA: I have to add at the end, this was mostly a joke. I love my family, but I'd still try to be on this jury.
 
Thermal said:
In NJ, trying that that can actually get you in a heap of trouble. But for practical purposes, they might pass on you.
Click to expand...

Hell last time I was called it was for grand jury and unless you made a case to the judge that it would be a serious hardship like you had to pick your kids up at school at a certain time or you didn't speak english well your name went into a hat and if it was pulled you were on the jury.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Hell last time I was called it was for grand jury and unless you made a case to the judge that it would be a serious hardship like you had to pick your kids up at school at a certain time or you didn't speak english well your name went into a hat and if it was pulled you were on the jury.
Click to expand...

I told the judge quite honestly, that I was self employed and it would create a hardship on myself and others significant enough that might affect my impartiality to the proceedings. I was warned in no uncertain terms to abandon that line of thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom