Just to give fair warning, if you are squemish about the evil in some people you might want to skip this post.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=405302

Btw I am pro death penalty and this is an example why, unfortunately this took place in a state that does not have it.

Sunny

A few years ago in Britain there was a doctor who killed many of elderly patients and signed their death off as natural causes. I think he did it about 170 times, making him one of the most prolific serial killers ever. When he committed suicide in jail there was some talk about how we were good to be rid of him. Many of the victims family's though were distraught, as they had wanted him to suffer in jail for the rest of his life.

There are two sides to the death penalty.

Did it ever occur to you that, perhaps, Mr. Avery wouldn't have been turned into a violent criminal (if, indeed he is), if he hadn't been imprisoned for 18 years for a crime he didn't commit?

This case proves the fallibility of the system...which just goes to show why we cannot have the death penalty.

Seems he was freed because a hair on the 1985 victim didn't match his DNA. Current day, he invites his nephew to use the victim. Seems to me that he might have shared the victim as well back in 1985 and might not be so innocent after all. All that single hair from 1985 is is a single piece of potentially exculpatory evidence that might have changed the jury's verdict, or might not have depending on the other evidence. I'd bet he was freed because of that potential, not because he was determined to be innnocent. In other words, given the similarities in the two crimes as presented in the article, I'm not convinced the man was wrongfully convicted or innocent.

Seems he was freed because a hair on the 1985 victim didn't match his DNA. Current day, he invites his nephew to use the victim. Seems to me that he might have shared the victim as well back in 1985 and might not be so innocent after all. All that single hair from 1985 is is a single piece of potentially exculpatory evidence that might have changed the jury's verdict, or might not have depending on the other evidence. I'd bet he was freed because of that potential, not because he was determined to be innnocent. In other words, given the similarities in the two crimes as presented in the article, I'm not convinced the man was wrongfully convicted or innocent.

Definitionally, in the United States, if his conviction was erroneous, he is innocent.

Regardless of what you are convinced of.

The man was put in jail for 18 years for a crime he didn't commit...that it was later proven he didn't commit. We ****ed up. Oh, if he raped and killed this girl, he should be punished...but we're to blame. We took a man and put him in hell for eighteen years.

Oh! I thought of Aidon when I watched this. I saw a special on CNN about Crime Labratories and how unregulated and schlocky they are. Apparently even the FBI has had some scandals regarding its lab when they had a woman working for them who didn't do the testing properly and falsified her reports. There is no oversight or regulation in MOST of the states (I think only 3 had any ).

They said basically anyone with a white lab coat can open up a crime lab.

Definitionally, in the United States, if his conviction was erroneous, he is innocent.

Regardless of what you are convinced of.

The man was put in jail for 18 years for a crime he didn't commit...that it was later proven he didn't commit. We ****ed up. Oh, if he raped and killed this girl, he should be punished...but we're to blame. We took a man and put him in hell for eighteen years.

It does not mean he did not do it.

Oh! I thought of Aidon when I watched this. I saw a special on CNN about Crime Labratories and how unregulated and schlocky they are. Apparently even the FBI has had some scandals regarding its lab when they had a woman working for them who didn't do the testing properly and falsified her reports. There is no oversight or regulation in MOST of the states (I think only 3 had any ).

They said basically anyone with a white lab coat can open up a crime lab.

You mean they make mistakes on CSI?

I liked the episode where some guy gets a bruise on his shoulder from the 'recoil' from a 'powerful' spear gun.

I stopped watching it after that show, the show is based on interest in technicals, if they can not get the most fundamental basics of physics down, a spear gun, crossbow, bow, even a slingshot does not have recoil. Dennis the Menace would even know that.

It does not mean he did not do it.True. It means simply that although a jury convicted him of the crime, the second run 18 years later believed that the new DNA test created some doubt. It's also possible that if they had this info for the first trial, the prosecution might have looked for, and found, enough evidence to overshadow the hair DNA.

It's hard to believe that an innocent man could be jailed for 18 years and upon regaining his freedom, commit the type of crime he had been wrongfully convicted of. Maybe... MAYBE if he knew he was going to go to jail anyway, but AFTER the fact? Nah.

It couldn't possibly be that erroneously spending nearly two decades in state mandated hell where he himself was probably sexually assaulted at some point, broke something inside the man?

Or maybe, having been cleared of the crime, facing the rampant assumption of those around him that he still was guilty, he decided he may as well become guilty?

It couldn't possibly be that erroneously spending nearly two decades in state mandated hell where he himself was probably sexually assaulted at some point, broke something inside the man?

Or maybe, having been cleared of the crime, facing the rampant assumption of those around him that he still was guilty, he decided he may as well become guilty?

That spurious flight of fancy conjecture does not mean that he did not do it.

Even statistically invalid.
He is 1 of 2 out of 163 freed. If your scenario had any bearing in reality, more of those 163 would do the same thing.

My scenario has as much bearing, in this nation, as any assumption of guilt despite an overturned conviction.

Your assupmtion of his guilt is just as much a conjecture as my assumptions.

My scenario has as much bearing, in this nation, as any assumption of guilt despite an overturned conviction.

Your assupmtion of his guilt is just as much a conjecture as my assumptions.


Even if true, most of them did not commit crimes outside. Even after suffering the abuse that you believe this turd did, they should have. They did not.

He was not exonerated. His lawyer had a piece of evidence thrown out, is all. There was no new criminal trial. His lawyer got him off.

I suppose you still believe that OJ did not kill Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, too. /smile.

He was exonerated. Unless, of course, you don't believe in the ideal of innocence until guilt has been proven by the state.

In which case, may I suggest France.

Actually, I don't believe OJ killed anyone. I think its possible, but the State didn't provide a scintella of evidence to the fact, other than motive, when it boils right down to it.

I stopped watching it after that show, the show is based on interest in technicals, if they can not get the most fundamental basics of physics down, a spear gun, crossbow, bow, even a slingshot does not have recoil. Dennis the Menace would even know that.

How do you suggest this call fits with Newton's Third Law of Motion? Of course a speargun will have recoil. It's not going to be anywhere near as significant of that as, say, a shotgun. But it's there no less.

It's funny to note that in this thread I defend CSI before I defend the criminal. Cases like this are a perfect example of a lawyer finding a shred of doubt and stretching it to it's utmost. You have to wonder how the lawyer in question lives with himself, knowing that he effectively engineered the freedom of the guy. Whether or not the guy was guilty of the first crime (which, IMO, is pretty damn plausible given his post-freedom behavior), his subsequent actions aren't exactly a glowing character reference.

He was exonerated. Unless, of course, you don't believe in the ideal of innocence until guilt has been proven by the state.

In which case, may I suggest France.

Actually, I don't believe OJ killed anyone. I think its possible, but the State didn't provide a scintella of evidence to the fact, other than motive, when it boils right down to it.See... just as you believe OJ didn't kill anyone, others believe that he did. Yes, the state freed him with a "not guilty" verdict. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees with the "state". That's the beauty of this country. No matter WHAT the "state" tells you to believe... we each get to make up our own minds :)

See... just as you believe OJ didn't kill anyone, others believe that he did. Yes, the state freed him with a "not guilty" verdict. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees with the "state". That's the beauty of this country. No matter WHAT the "state" tells you to believe... we each get to make up our own minds :)

Unless you're on jury duty, or - heaven forbid - a judge. Then you have to go with the evidence and the pesky little "beyond reasonable doubt"-thing. :)

So if hitler had been found not guilty in a trial due to a technicality--say innappriate gathering of evidence---then he would have been innocent? So who would have been responsible for the holocaust then?

Court evidence is made public so that people can make up their own minds. In most cases it's sensible to respect a court judgement as the jury sees the whole evidence and legal argument. Nobody is forced to agree with the verdict though or the sentence (except the accused ;) )

So if hitler had been found not guilty in a trial due to a technicality--say innappriate gathering of evidence---then he would have been innocent? So who would have been responsible for the holocaust then?

From Hacker's Dictionary ( http://www.outpost9.com/reference/jargon/jargon_22.html )

Godwin's Law /prov./

[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

How do you suggest this call fits with Newton's Third Law of Motion? Of course a speargun will have recoil. It's not going to be anywhere near as significant of that as, say, a shotgun. But it's there no less.

There is no explosive force to the rear with a spring weapon. All of the energy is expelled away from the shooter due to the mechanics involved in launching the projectile, as opposed to a firearm which is an explosion. Explosions attempt to expand in every direction, hence recoil.

You are more apt to have the crossbow fly out of your hands to the front of you rather than 'kick' to the rear.

It's funny to note that in this thread I defend CSI before I defend the criminal. Cases like this are a perfect example of a lawyer finding a shred of doubt and stretching it to it's utmost.

A shred of doubt stretched to its utmost?? The DNA evidence used to put the man in jail was found to belong to another man...that isn't a shred of doubt stretched to utmost.


You have to wonder how the lawyer in question lives with himself, knowing that he effectively engineered the freedom of the guy. Whether or not the guy was guilty of the first crime (which, IMO, is pretty damn plausible given his post-freedom behavior), his subsequent actions aren't exactly a glowing character reference.

Because the quest to release people unjust convicted of a crime they didn't commit far outweighs the potential that one of them may end up a killer anyways.

So if hitler had been found not guilty in a trial due to a technicality--say innappriate gathering of evidence---then he would have been innocent? So who would have been responsible for the holocaust then?

Hitler wasn't a US citizen.

Hello Godwin.

Besides Hitler had far more then one thing connecting him to the holocaust heh

Funnily enough, the convicted holocaust denier David Irving now says that the holocaust did take place but Hitler didn't know about it. Truth, as always, is stranger than fiction.

There is no explosive force to the rear with a spring weapon. All of the energy is expelled away from the shooter due to the mechanics involved in launching the projectile, as opposed to a firearm which is an explosion. Explosions attempt to expand in every direction, hence recoil.

You are more apt to have the crossbow fly out of your hands to the front of you rather than 'kick' to the rear.

Spearguns, by people who use them:

As the you increase both the mass of the shaft and the power to it (via power bands), you increase the momentum coming out of the front of the gun when you pull the trigger. That forward momentum of the shaft causes an equal momentum of the gun rearwards towards the diver. The Mass of the Spear X Forward Velocity of the Spear must equal the Mass of the Gun X the Recoil Velocity of the Gun rearwards.

MS X VS = MG X VG

VG is the recoil of the gun. You can reduce the VG only by increasing MG -- the mass of the gun. You can do this in a variety of ways, but one that works well is to add lead to the speargun. The gun may become too negative unless you have enough bouyancy (via wood or other floatation) to support that mass.


A shred of doubt stretched to its utmost?? The DNA evidence used to put the man in jail was found to belong to another man...that isn't a shred of doubt stretched to utmost.

There's no suggestion that the hair was instrumental in convicting Avery. That it later transpired there was DNA belonging to another man on the victim's body is no great surprise - it's not a big stretch of the imagination that she may have come into contact with some random guy.

I'm all for freeing innocent people, and this kind of case is a good example why prosecution are prevented (at least here in NZ) from bringing up past convictions/character testimony, but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

As to the death penalty - I'll leave that to the other thread :)

Ok, my bad for not mentioning that the speargun, in the episode, was used in air(aboard a yacht), and not under water.

From what I understand Mr. Avery was a criminal & sexual deviant before his "false" conviction.

And apparantly he spent most of his 18 years in jail telling his cell mates how he fanatasized about abducting and raping a women just like he eventually did. If anything I am sure he was a predator in prison and not a victim.

I know this will not change the f'd up lens that Aidon see's thru at all, but just so the rest of you know.

From what I understand Mr. Avery was a criminal & sexual deviant before his "false" conviction.

And apparantly he spent most of his 18 years in jail telling his cell mates how he fanatasized about abducting and raping a women just like he eventually did. If anything I am sure he was a predator in prison and not a victim.

I know this will not change the f'd up lens that Aidon see's thru at all, but just so the rest of you know.

Ah yes, the ****ed up lens of justice...as opposed to prejudicial decisions based on what you feel instead of what you know.

Actually, I don't believe OJ killed anyone. I think its possible, but the State didn't provide a scintella of evidence to the fact, other than motive, when it boils right down to it.

I know this is a hijack for this thread, but I was very intrigued by this statement. Do you really think the state didnt prove a scintella of evidence? What about the blood in the Bronco? the blood on her back gate? the drops of blood in his house? All matching his rare blood type mixed with hers? What about the shoe prints of the very expensive shoes that OJ owned?

I will agree that the state did some very f'd up things, did they plant evidence? I don't know. But I am pretty sure that it would be very difficult to find OJ's blood type and then put it on her back fence.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I know this is a hijack for this thread, but I was very intrigued by this statement. Do you really think the state didnt prove a scintella of evidence? What about the blood in the Bronco? the blood on her back gate? the drops of blood in his house? All matching his rare blood type mixed with hers? What about the shoe prints of the very expensive shoes that OJ owned?

I will agree that the state did some very f'd up things, did they plant evidence? I don't know. But I am pretty sure that it would be very difficult to find OJ's blood type and then put it on her back fence.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

The jury took less than four hours to determine his innocence...that's an unbelievably quick time to come to a consensus. They saw the evidence provided. They rejected it, in quick order.

The jury took less than four hours to determine his innocence...that's an unbelievably quick time to come to a consensus. They saw the evidence provided. They rejected it, in quick order.

I thought he was already innocent.



Cochran and Scheck just did a better selling job than Clarke, that is all.

Does not mean that he did not kill them. He did, of course.


What is the saying about juries "Juries are made up of people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty". After listening to those jurors, they should have kept their jobs at WalMart. Morons.

From what I understand Mr. Avery was a criminal & sexual deviant before his "false" conviction.

And apparantly he spent most of his 18 years in jail telling his cell mates how he fanatasized about abducting and raping a women just like he eventually did. If anything I am sure he was a predator in prison and not a victim.

I know this will not change the f'd up lens that Aidon see's thru at all, but just so the rest of you know.


The idea behind the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' is that it is better to let a guilty man walk free than it is to punish an innocent one.

Which is morally applaudable, but kind of hard to feel good about when the presumed innocent turns around and does something exceptionally gruesome. And the family of the victims also have a hard time believing the moral correctness of 'presumed innocence'.


Eri

The jury took less than four hours to determine his innocence...that's an unbelievably quick time to come to a consensus. They saw the evidence provided. They rejected it, in quick order.

If you heard some of the comments made by a number of the jurors after the verdict, they had made up thier minds about OJ's "innocence" before they were even selected to be jurors.

It just took them 4 hours to beat down the jurors who knew he was guilty but realize they were never going to prevail - so why bother fighting the enevitable? The trial had dragged on to a ridiculious length of time as it was.

It just took them 4 hours to beat down the jurors who knew he was guilty but realize they were never going to prevail - so why bother fighting the enevitable?

Because it could have lead to a hung jury and retrial with different jurors? The jury members would still have been off the jury, whether they stuck to their guns or not.

If you heard some of the comments made by a number of the jurors after the verdict, they had made up thier minds about OJ's "innocence" before they were even selected to be jurors.

It just took them 4 hours to beat down the jurors who knew he was guilty but realize they were never going to prevail - so why bother fighting the enevitable? The trial had dragged on to a ridiculious length of time as it was.

Oh please. All you have to to do is say 'I think he's guilty' if you believe so...even if you can't convince anyone else, even a single person, you at least have a deadlocked jury and a mistrial.

Bull**** argument.

Every person here (and indeed every person in America) should go watch the old movie 12 Angry Men.

It really should be shown in every High School civics class.

As long as they are warned beforehand that it is Fonda'esque liberal fictional nonsense, sure.

As long as they are warned beforehand that it is Fonda'esque liberal fictional nonsense, sure.

Apart from it being entirely correct in concept and execution, you could say that. Is it your libertarian streak that opposes free thought and scrutiny of evidence by jurors?

Apart from it being entirely correct in concept and execution, you could say that. Is it your libertarian streak that opposes free thought and scrutiny of evidence by jurors?

Absolutely the opposite, in fact.
Any juror should be allowed to examine any and all evidence, they are not.
Attorneys have no obligation to show the jury all of the evidence, they should be.
Attorneys have no obligation to tell the truth in court, they should, and so should judges(they are not obligated to tell the truth either). When they don't lie outright, they lie by omission.
Jurors should be allowed to ask, within reason, questions of witnesses and receive sworn answers, they do not.

And while the need for these remedies for justice were implied in that 1957 fictional film, we still need them today. We still do not have them.

Some could argue that a minimum IQ should be required for jury duty as well. Others think that it is Awwright to let unemployed retards decide people's fate and justice.

What we do have is a fictional account of a clearly innocent man being railroaded by lawyers,,,and if the jurors did what they did back then in 1957, they would have been kicked off the trial.

What was reasonable back in 1957 is NO longer reasonable. Each of those 12 angry men would be angry all over again today, if they saw OJ go play golf after killing those two people, if they were jurors.

Some could argue that a minimum IQ should be required for jury duty as well. Others think that it is Awwright to let unemployed retards decide people's fate and justice.

Of course it is. Is the jury not supposed to be made up of the accused's equals? That means you need 12 unemployed retards to be the jury for one.


Eri

Is the jury not supposed to be made up of the accused's equals

Actually, it's not. Otherwise we'd have drug dealers sitting on juries for drug dealers...and that certainly wouldn't be a good idea.

That being said, generally speaking, during jury selection, lawyers like to pick people who are easily swayed by emotion and not so much people who are more fact oriented. I kinda doubt the OJ jurors were engineers of any sort.

I'm not sure how jury selection got to be such a lawyer's playground. The court should just have a list of people to be called up for jury duty and get the next 12 on the list, skipping those with clear partiality. You might get an odd bunch of random people, but surely that's what you want?

What we do have is a fictional account of a clearly innocent man being railroaded by lawyers,,,and if the jurors did what they did back then in 1957, they would have been kicked off the trial.

You mean like the Judge did to poor Scott Peterson?

"Oh you might stand in the way of my re-election verdict, by thinking the Prosecution didn't provide anything like, say, evidence. So we'll just remove you from the jury".

I'm not sure how jury selection got to be such a lawyer's playground. The court should just have a list of people to be called up for jury duty and get the next 12 on the list, skipping those with clear partiality. You might get an odd bunch of random people, but surely that's what you want?

Lawyer's don't get so much as people think.

Generally they get three pre-emptives, which can be used to remove a juror for whatever reason (or none) the Attorney wants, so long as it isn't based on race, religion, sex, age, etc. (No removing a black juror because he's black and so is your defendant, for example). Its a fair system which lets attorneys remove jurors they just have a bad feeling about.

Its a fair system which lets attorneys remove jurors they just have a bad feeling about.

I'd be interesting in knowing just how much the public trusted the fair use of that system by attourneys, and whether they had any bad feelings about it.

You mean like the Judge did to poor Scott Peterson?

"Oh you might stand in the way of my re-election verdict, by thinking the Prosecution didn't provide anything like, say, evidence. So we'll just remove you from the jury".

Judges are just lawyers in robes.

I hold them in no more esteem than the rest of them.

No, what I was saying is that it is against the law for jurors to get data relavant to the case on their own. If evidence is not provided by the lawyers in court, the jury must not consider it. If that were the case for out 12 angry men, they would have all been found in contempt, mistrial called, and new trial and set of jurors would have been picked. What the jurors did in the movie, is illegal today for them to do.

And it is doubtful that either you or I would ever be allowed to sit on a jury, ourselves. So really, this is all just fun, right? Then again, I have been in sales, and have a mean poker face.

Alan Dershowitz on the OJ Jury


… Did we see the same trial that the jury saw?

If you watch a trial on television, you know more than the jury in some respects, and less than the jury in other respects. First of all, you know about inadmissible evidence, evidence which is kept out that probably gives you more information than the jury has. On the other hand, you only have what television lets you watch, whereas the jurors can watch the defendant when the camera is not. The jurors can watch the way lawyers relate to each other. The jurors can see a lot of things in the courtroom that gives them a sense of nuance about the case that the person watching on television does not get.

Who has a better sense of "the truth" then?

Probably, in certain terms of the ultimate truth, the outsider, the person watching it on TV and having access to the inadmissible evidence is more like the scientist. And the juror is more like the legal system is supposed to be. You know just what the film editors are giving you, what the judge is giving you, so probably the outsider has more ultimate truth available to him or her.

Isn't that frustrating to the jurors and to the public?

Let me put it in a more general way: In many cases, jurors, after they render a verdict, and they learn things they didn't know before, they say: "Oh my God, that was unfair to us, to the jurors. If we had known that, we would have come out differently." But there is a good reason why jurors don't know that, and that good reason has to do with "truth" not being the only goal of the system. It's a process, and sometimes evidence is admitted for reasons unrelated to ultimate truth. ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/jury.html

It is for a good reason.

Its so that the State doesn't put forth prejudicial information which isn't relevant to the actual question of fact and guilt.

Conversely, far more often, in my opinion, an overreaching judge will suppress possibly exculpating evidence or mitigating circumstances proffered by the defendant.

I have been called for jury duty 3 times, all 3 times I was excused. Of course they don't tell you why you werent selected, but I am fairly sure of at least one reason. When I was 21 I was arrested and convicted of "Deceptive Practices." I had written a bad check, got kicked out of my house and never recieved the notice from the store I had written the $68.00 check to. /shrug learned alot.

I think the other 2 cases (of course cannot be positive) had to do with the fact that I am a nurse. So, I cannot say with any first hand experience, that the jurors are not given all the necessary information to make an informed decision. However, I still contend, that as hard as both sides worked to confuse the jury in OJ's trial, I would not be able to overlook the evidence of the blood.

I think his entire trial was a travesty, the jurors were tired of being sequestered, and I think they did what they thought they had to, so they could get the hell away from that trial.

I will fully admit that I was one of the pathetic people in those days, that lived to watch that ridiculous trial. I will never forget finally hearing the verdict being read. I was on a lunch break from a management seminar, I had the radio on and rushed to a local bar/restaraunt to get to the T.V. to actually see it. I walked in, to a totally crowded room, standing room only, and it was dead silent except for Judge Ito. When the verdict was read, not a sound could be heard in the whole joint.

I had to walk back to my car to absorb the whole thing. It was just inconcieveable to me that the decision was so erroneous. I felt better months later when in the Civil trail he was found guilty. How could two different juries find two different verdicts? That is the question to me.

I had to walk back to my car to absorb the whole thing. It was just inconcieveable to me that the decision was so erroneous. I felt better months later when in the Civil trail he was found guilty. How could two different juries find two different verdicts? That is the question to me.
That's easy, the jurors in the criminal case knew that if they ended up deadlocked without a clear verdict, they couldn't sell their "I was pushing for guilty the whole time!" sob stories to the highest bidder after the trial.

I have been called for jury duty 3 times, all 3 times I was excused. Of course they don't tell you why you werent selected, but I am fairly sure of at least one reason. When I was 21 I was arrested and convicted of "Deceptive Practices." I had written a bad check, got kicked out of my house and never recieved the notice from the store I had written the $68.00 check to. /shrug learned alot.

I think the other 2 cases (of course cannot be positive) had to do with the fact that I am a nurse. So, I cannot say with any first hand experience, that the jurors are not given all the necessary information to make an informed decision. However, I still contend, that as hard as both sides worked to confuse the jury in OJ's trial, I would not be able to overlook the evidence of the blood.

If your a nurse called to sit as a juror for a case involving medical testimony, you will most likely be excused. The juror's are supposed to consider the medical testimony given at the trial, from both sides, uninfluenced by outside opinion, for a myriad of reasons, one of which being in many instances a personals general knowledge of medicine isn't specific enough for the question before the jury.

Then there's the tendancy towards bias against any plaintiff by those people in the medical world.


I had to walk back to my car to absorb the whole thing. It was just inconcieveable to me that the decision was so erroneous. I felt better months later when in the Civil trail he was found guilty. How could two different juries find two different verdicts? That is the question to me.

Because there is a different standard of proof for a civil trial and a criminal trial. Where the State may not have proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (and I personally feel there was plenty of reasonable doubt by the time that case was done). In a civil trial the Plaintiff must only show that a preponderance of the evidence weighs in his favor (i.e. it is more likely than not).

Jurors shouldn't be able to sell their stories. They're performing a public service, not performing in public entertainment. The evidence and testimony is open to the public already and that is sufficent public access.

People shouldn't be tried in both civil and criminal courts for the same offense. If there are mixed verdicts, as in the OJ case, it brings the whole justice system into disrepute. One of the courts will inevitably have got the wrong verdict and the punishment will most likely be inappropriate for the crime.

Legal system.

Not justice system.

Two different things there, Anka.


You have one of the most influential Lawyers and Law Professors(Harvard) up there saying that truth is not important in the legal system. He teaches new and up and coming Harvard lawstudents. The truth does not matter.

In a justice system, the truth would be utmost important. It is not. We do not have a justice system here in the US.

If truth is not important to lawyers, the whole thing is one big fat lie. You have one of the most important and influential Law Professors rationalizing lying, and teaching new lawyers how to lie.

Legal system.

Not justice system.

Two different things there, Anka.


You have one of the most influential Lawyers and Law Professors(Harvard) up there saying that truth is not important in the legal system. He teaches new and up and coming Harvard lawstudents. The truth does not matter.

In a justice system, the truth would be utmost important. It is not. We do not have a justice system here in the US.

If truth is not important to lawyers, the whole thing is one big fat lie. You have one of the most important and influential Law Professors rationalizing lying, and teaching new lawyers how to lie.

You're a fool.

Its not lying. There are rules of evidence to be followed. There is information that has no bearing on the actual case other than an attempt to sway a jury through emotion.

There are facts that may have bearing on sentencing but during determination of guilt.

You're desire to see everyone convicted has no place in a justice system.

You overshadow the importance of impartiality of a jury making judgement over non-prejudicial evidence with your 'knowledge' that such and such 'obviously did it', and seem to have no concern with making the state follow actual rules.

If the system is not required to be truthful, then it is built on lies. It is definitional and fairly intuitive.

If you believe otherwise because some lawyer told you so, then it is you who is the fool, my friend.

Until lawyers are required to tell the truth in court(including judges), it will never be a justice system. Only a legal system.

If the rules are set up such that truth is avoided and omitted, the whole system is a joke. The laws are a joke, and the rules are a sham. Alan Dershowitz can roll up the rules and shove them up his, and F. Lee Bailey's while he's at it, ass. Pull Johnny Cochran's rotting fetid carcass out of the dirt, and shove them up his too.

You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he'd like to do it again! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Frank, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to beat the **** out of women! Whaddya wanna gimme Frank, 3 weeks probation?

Actually lawyers do have an obligation to *not* put anyone on the witness stand that they know will not tell the truth. And the way our system works is the "adversary" system which requires two sides, each putting on their own case. The prosecutor puts on the evidence that, in their judgment, will best lead to conviction. The defense attorney puts on the evidence that, in their judgment, will best lead to acquittal. The rules of evidence are set up so that only reliable evidence lawfully obtained can be used. If something is omitted, it usually is either unsupported speculation (usually from the defense) or unlawfully obtained or tainted (usually by the prosecution), or just simply not available (e.g. missing witness). Lawyers can only make arguments based on the evidence admitted. Yes, those arguments are slanted/biased, but they are supposed to be. That's not lying. Integrity issues are the #1 reason for disbarment. You can be a bad lawyer and not get disbarred, but if an attorney gets caught doing anything that reflects upon integrity (e.g. fraud), a state Bar will be on them like white on rice.

If something is omitted, it's because both the prosecution/plaintiff and defense decided to not use it, or the rules of evidence prohibit it from being introduced.

Generally, we only hear about the aberrations, when the system fails (e.g. OJ Simpson case). But if you consider the hundreds of thousands of cases that are heard every year across the nation, the system does actually work remarkably well. Usually when it doesn't work, the cause is frequently a disparity between the attorneys' abilities.

I'd say that the Truth isnt the utmost goal of our Legal system, but its a fundamental part of it, but its not ultimately what the legal system holds in highest reguards.

You gotta be kidding me.

The American Bar Association has as much integrity as the WWF does.

Believe as you will. Noone will convince you otherwise.

Enjoy your cabin in the woods in Montana.

If something is omitted, it usually is either unsupported speculation (usually from the defense) or unlawfully obtained or tainted (usually by the prosecution), or just simply not available (e.g. missing witness).

The above quote is why I have to, to an extent, agree with Fyyr.

The number of cases that (would) turn on evidence that is not admissable might astound you. I don't have statistics, but in my younger day I was involved in a lot of headnoting and judgement reading, and it certainly astounded me.

Speaking as a lawyer who declined to become involved in criminal law, my reason was simple. It is absolutely a game. As a defendant, it's usually about obscuring as much of the truth as possible. As a prosecutor, it's usually about trying to get your hands on the right to expose as much of the truth as possible.

This assumes that the majority of criminal trials have genuinely guilty defendants. In an ideal world, this would be the case. It's made less likely because you have a (very potentially corrupt, or inept, and very definately human and fallible) police force bringing the prosecutions.

There is information that has no bearing on the actual case other than an attempt to sway a jury through emotion.

I hear what you're saying, but that's usually limited to character/past convictions evidence. More often the rules of evidence obscure evidence that is very pertinent to the case but in respect which procedure was not correctly followed - ie "oh, you found some of the victim's DNA on the clothing of the criminal? but you didn't ask him if you could search his trunk? sorry, inadmissable". Or "sorry ma'am, we have only one witness to the brutal murder - the accused's wife, and she can't be compelled to give evidence - the killer of your daughter is going to walk free".

For better or for worse, this is our system. It's designed to be fair, but like any set of rules, over time, people will develop ways to exploit them. And to them, it becomes a game. Which is why you get crap like defence lawyers taking glee at inadmissable-but-key evidence.