- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,773
- Reaction score
- 4,960
- Location
- Green Country
- Website
- www.bobmuellerwriter.com
They're sounding deadlocked right now. They've told the judge as much, and he sent them back to deliberations.
Bill Cosby: America's Favorite Dad...and Rapist?
- Thread starter nighttimer
- Start date
I cannot believe they are deadlocked, the man admitted to drugging multiple women, which is part of the allegations against him. He drugged them, just because?!
I sure they're trying to decide how much of it is the women's fault. (I wish I could say I'm being sarcastic here.)
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 23,129
- Reaction score
- 12,525
- Location
- Where the Moon can see me.
- Website
- www.etsy.com
ABC Phila. affiliate reported the jury came in and asked the judge to define "Reasonable Doubt".
Brace for impact, folks.
Brace for impact, folks.
I have relatives who have been on juries where one or more member already had their mind made up before the trial, often based on ideas about the justice system as a whole rather than the case itself.
I suspect that may be at play here, in addition to the cultural habit of victim-shaming.
Yeah, IIRC lawyers try to weed out those folks during jury selection, but sometimes they slip through.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
Mistrial.
It pisses me off his ridiculous lawyers, who have been asking for a mistrial every damn time the jury asks for anything, and making ludicrous claims about the length of deliberations and such, actually got their damn wish (also pisses me off there were jury members who couldn't figure out guilt there, following the depo tapes, but I've grown somewhat inured to jury inanity I think -- at least it didn't go not guilty).
ETA: the DA says they're going again. Trial didn't take that long, and it certainly looked like they had him, so... maybe.
It pisses me off his ridiculous lawyers, who have been asking for a mistrial every damn time the jury asks for anything, and making ludicrous claims about the length of deliberations and such, actually got their damn wish (also pisses me off there were jury members who couldn't figure out guilt there, following the depo tapes, but I've grown somewhat inured to jury inanity I think -- at least it didn't go not guilty).
ETA: the DA says they're going again. Trial didn't take that long, and it certainly looked like they had him, so... maybe.
Last edited:
I was fully expecting a not guilty verdict, because it seems like there's hardly any justice left in the system.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 23,129
- Reaction score
- 12,525
- Location
- Where the Moon can see me.
- Website
- www.etsy.com
Follow through. Ms. Constand's got rocks.
Not sure there's any way to make a tighter case, though.
The police might need to figure something out about crowd control going forward - the Cosby supporters were getting pretty rowdy.
Not sure there's any way to make a tighter case, though.
The police might need to figure something out about crowd control going forward - the Cosby supporters were getting pretty rowdy.
As a comedian noted with sarcasm dripping in his voice, "There was no way a jury was going to convict Bill Cosby, America's Dad, on the day before Father's Day."
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
Prosecutors just need to spend more on jury consultants. That's what won OJ, Casey Anthony... spending the money on a really good jury consultant.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 23,129
- Reaction score
- 12,525
- Location
- Where the Moon can see me.
- Website
- www.etsy.com
Totes.
To me, it seemed selection went too quickly. (And then the actual trial went too quickly.)
Jury trials always remind me of Lucky Luke comics.
It's pretty clear that normal citizens have a weird understanding of what makes a person guilty. They seem to decide according to a distorted version of mos maiorum more than any actual laws.
It's pretty clear that normal citizens have a weird understanding of what makes a person guilty. They seem to decide according to a distorted version of mos maiorum more than any actual laws.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
Which would be...why? I have no idea what the term I've highlighted means so I (and probably several others here) would appreciate an explanation, please.
I don't know it's meaning in law, but when I took Roman History, 'mos maiorum' (Latin) was more or less 'the way of the people', the usual customs and ways. Social norms. Which does seem to get us to 'she was asking for it', and 'he's a great guy, she must be lying'.
Juries do have their disadvantages, but also certain advantages. For one thing, judges are not immune to the cognitive biases that the rest of us have. But when there are several people in a jury, their biases can cancel each other out. It's also easier to remove a biased juror than a biased judge.
Also, in a jury trial, the jury decides matters of fact (is this person guilty?) and the judge decides matters of law (is this evidence admissible?). In a judge trial, the judge decides matters of law and matters of fact. The judge decides what evidence is admissible, but he or she is first made aware that such evidence exists. Judges know that inadmissible evidence is not supposed to effect their decision, but since they have the same cognitive biases we have, it can still influence them. In a jury trial, the jury never sees the inadmissible evidence, so we don't have to worry about their decision being effected by it.
Also, in a jury trial, the jury decides matters of fact (is this person guilty?) and the judge decides matters of law (is this evidence admissible?). In a judge trial, the judge decides matters of law and matters of fact. The judge decides what evidence is admissible, but he or she is first made aware that such evidence exists. Judges know that inadmissible evidence is not supposed to effect their decision, but since they have the same cognitive biases we have, it can still influence them. In a jury trial, the jury never sees the inadmissible evidence, so we don't have to worry about their decision being effected by it.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
Their biases can cancel each other out... and end in a hung jury too.
Also, juries see and hear inadmissible stuff all the time, and are just then told to disregard it. The goal is to prevent something inadmissible from getting to a jury, but in life, stuff is presented, discussed, said, then objected to, then tossed.
It's not so much bias though, in my view, as ignorance and basic dopiness. There were jurors on the Anthony trial who voted to acquit because they did not understand the law. To wit:
Jurors don't seem to understand relevant standards of proof.
Judges understand the basics of a trial and standards of proof. A good jury consultant can find you people who don't, and influence them further while choosing. It's sadly not hard.
Also, juries see and hear inadmissible stuff all the time, and are just then told to disregard it. The goal is to prevent something inadmissible from getting to a jury, but in life, stuff is presented, discussed, said, then objected to, then tossed.
It's not so much bias though, in my view, as ignorance and basic dopiness. There were jurors on the Anthony trial who voted to acquit because they did not understand the law. To wit:
Jurors don't seem to understand relevant standards of proof.
Judges understand the basics of a trial and standards of proof. A good jury consultant can find you people who don't, and influence them further while choosing. It's sadly not hard.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
Sure.
I have a hell of a lot more faith in people who I believe at least understand the basic concepts involved in a trial, guilt, understand very basic things. Even if there are asinine judges and ones who disregard the law, in a general sense, I think they're so far above juries in terms of just rudimentary levels of comprehension and sense...
Yeah, that's fine. We don't really have anything more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that either one is better or worse, though.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
Sure we do. There's tons of empirical evidence showing jurors are... not great at understanding instructions. This details some research.
My position is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both. I'm well aware that jurors have difficulty understanding instructions. That's not empirical evidence that all problems would be solved by only having judges make decisions.
I know you have more faith in judges. That's fine. Not everyone does. There have been many, many shitty decisions made by judges, and unlike juries, those exact same judges will go on to make more decisions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
Oh, sorry, wasn't suggesting they would. As I said above, there are bananas judges, and issues and etc. I do though, believe the ignorance of juries is a major problem. If you're guilty and have the $ for a good team, your best bet is a jury most of the time. That's a problem. You don't run the same odds with a bench because a judge should at least be able to follow the basic arguments and understand things like reasonable doubt.
Agreed, although I think the problem lies with the instructions being written with more than one objective in mind, to help jurors make decisions, and to protect against appeals. In some cases, this can make them very long and difficult to follow, and heavy with legal language. The American Bar Association has recommended simplifying language. Research has shown that lay people can understand instructions when it is presented in language they understand.