Comments on: Juror #4 http://loteriachicana.net/2008/05/16/juror-4 e-aztlan Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:32:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: nebur http://loteriachicana.net/2008/05/16/juror-4/comment-page-1#comment-35721 nebur Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:50:22 +0000 http://loteriachicana.net/2008/05/16/juror-4/#comment-35721 c: welcome to my world. it's nice to hear of jurors that follow their oath. -r c:
welcome to my world. it’s nice to hear of jurors that follow their oath.
-r

]]> By: Sarita http://loteriachicana.net/2008/05/16/juror-4/comment-page-1#comment-35183 Sarita Sun, 18 May 2008 01:08:41 +0000 http://loteriachicana.net/2008/05/16/juror-4/#comment-35183 I was just a juror in a fascinating trial where the defendant represented himself against a bank robbery charge. The process was riveting from selection to deliberation because there were some race and class issues. Also, when you represent yourself you have to refer to yourself in the third person so that the jury will realize that your statements of those of a lawyer and not of fact. However, it's super confusing to refer to yourself in the third person. Which gave us the most dramatic moment of the trial during the defendant, Mr Williams' cross examination of one of the tellers: Mr. Williams: And, and, and how did you get the bank robber the money? Teller: You know how I gave it to you. You were there. Mr. Williams: Are you saying I, I mean, Mr. Williams is the bank robber? Teller: You know you are. Mr. Williams: How do you know it was me, I..I...I mean, Mr. Williams? I, I mean, the bank robber was wearing a disguise! We found him guilty. Not because of that, that couldn't count as evidence, but because of all the DNA and photographic evidence. Then after the trial was over we found out that he had only been out of prison for a few months after having served 15 years for...wait for it...bank robbery. I was just a juror in a fascinating trial where the defendant represented himself against a bank robbery charge. The process was riveting from selection to deliberation because there were some race and class issues. Also, when you represent yourself you have to refer to yourself in the third person so that the jury will realize that your statements of those of a lawyer and not of fact. However, it’s super confusing to refer to yourself in the third person. Which gave us the most dramatic moment of the trial during the defendant, Mr Williams’ cross examination of one of the tellers:
Mr. Williams: And, and, and how did you get the bank robber the money?
Teller: You know how I gave it to you. You were there.
Mr. Williams: Are you saying I, I mean, Mr. Williams is the bank robber?
Teller: You know you are.
Mr. Williams: How do you know it was me, I..I…I mean, Mr. Williams? I, I mean, the bank robber was wearing a disguise!
We found him guilty. Not because of that, that couldn’t count as evidence, but because of all the DNA and photographic evidence. Then after the trial was over we found out that he had only been out of prison for a few months after having served 15 years for…wait for it…bank robbery.

]]> By: HispanicPundit http://loteriachicana.net/2008/05/16/juror-4/comment-page-1#comment-35143 HispanicPundit Fri, 16 May 2008 22:26:54 +0000 http://loteriachicana.net/2008/05/16/juror-4/#comment-35143 If I was the prosecutor, Id'a told them boys, "Inglewood rules the streets bitch, fuc Kleenex"...<i>if</i> they were truly from the gang "near LAX", they would have definitely responded passionately, proving that they were in fact members of the gang. It's the whole Solomon "Cut the baby in half" trick. They absolutely hate Inglewood, and Inglewood hates them. I met a guy from Inglewood once that told me that that is how his gang defines its enemies, "if you get along with them, we don't get along...its that simple". I was like damn, now thats real hate. I wonder if it would have been admissible in court though? If I was the prosecutor, Id’a told them boys, “Inglewood rules the streets bitch, fuc Kleenex”…if they were truly from the gang “near LAX”, they would have definitely responded passionately, proving that they were in fact members of the gang. It’s the whole Solomon “Cut the baby in half” trick.

They absolutely hate Inglewood, and Inglewood hates them. I met a guy from Inglewood once that told me that that is how his gang defines its enemies, “if you get along with them, we don’t get along…its that simple”. I was like damn, now thats real hate. I wonder if it would have been admissible in court though?

]]>