Re: This is a listed crime?
At 05:50 PM 9/21/98 +0000, attila wrote:
"I dont know nuthin' 'bout it"
Double negatives are your friend :-)
agreed, in theory. but how do you protect yourself when two or more take the stand and swear under oath that you said: "......" or, even:
Yeah. The times I've known the facts in cop-vs-citizen cases, the cops have often been lying; I have to assume that they're often lying in cases when I don't know the facts as well. Of course, getting somebody with that kind of attitude about cops onto a jury is somewhat unlikely, but occasionally you'll find neutrals. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
-- At 12:09 AM 9/23/98 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Yet some of the apolitical numbskulls I know about have served on several juries in the same time. The Poisson, as expected, or something more human?
I have often read allegations of manifest jury rigging, but from highly unreliable sources. If juries are routinely rigged, then we would expect a high number of repeats, particularly in politically sensitive cases such as taxes, drugs, or organized crime. We would expect a drug jury to be composed primarily of people who have been repeatedly called for a drug jury previously. If juries are rigged, it should be easy to check statistically. Simply compare the number of repeats at a jury call with the expected number of repeats. To rig a jury by excluding undesirables such as Tim May would be far too laborious. To rig a jury it would be necessary to include only desirables, thus the pool from which the jury is selected would be vastly smaller than the official pool, and simple statistics would show this up. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 36kfZmqoLcEiOYb2EmT85BRIwhd8rlU2mEbg9tAo 423cg9OMSTWTZb0pVq0EhzhtObK62XbWKkGvWVSHk ----------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
-- At 9:12 PM -0500 9/23/98, James A. Donald wrote:
To rig a jury by excluding undesirables such as Tim May would be far too laborious. To rig a jury it would be necessary to
At 09:52 AM 9/24/98 -0500, Petro wrote:
No, no, On the contrary, far too easy.
There are certain people who are NEVER called to jury duty, people convicted of felonies & etc. simply put the name of an undesirable on this list,
The number of identifiable undesirables is too small to guarantee the desired trial outcome. To ensure a desired outcome it would be necessary to screen out a very large number of potential undesirables. It would be much easier to screen in a small number of desirables.
and simple statistics would show this up.
If anyone were to look.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG M+t9fZl1uB+ChARqSR+DFzmoEJWNgr/rn5RGHaZA 4/GeYPAq0AtkguzZ+40UycomDZMeuRMUpYyjzWHDJ ----------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
participants (2)
-
Bill Stewart -
James A. Donald