Really engrossing material. While not a lawyer you certainly gathered enough first hand insights to convict Lady Justice of identity theft. Juror #217 sounds like a great episodic social justice series to me! 🍿⚖️🎬
I too enjoyed both, Paper Chase with John Houseman and Perry Mason. Learned enough to be dangerous 😳
Rewrote this twice, so here goes.
1. Unless the prosecutor had a trained psychologist of any stripe on th their team and the dependent had a written psychological evaluation, that public comment should have been the defendant's legal team ammunition to request a mistrial.
The judge could have denied the request but it would have been in the transcript for an appeal at a later date.
2. Where/when and why weren't police statements admitted into the court transcript?
If there had been previous calls to 911 for domestic violence or child abuse, the jurors had an obligation to ask and receive this information as the officers testimony on record would have given credence to the defendants assertion of attempting to call for help which she was prevented from doing.
3. Do I agree with the verdict? Yes, with reservation.
Based on evidence submitted in court, there had been unreported (remember no police officers were required or asked to testify) previous instances the child had been abused prior to death.
Her legal team's motives are questionable at best. Either their inexperience and lack of competence are glaring.
Her "team" didn't go for the sympathy vote, they pandered to the prosecution by doing the least to get paid.
The prosecution side weren't looking for sheep, their motives was to do the the minimum with an eye towards political clout.
How could this have ended any other way. The outcome was decided before the trial with a coin toss and should have come with no surprise.
Why? Because in the South, Dixie "justice " is the order of the day. The defendant was convicted based on her lifestyle.
I enjoyed jury duty once many years ago. A slip and fall case and drunk driving ticket. Your insights are quite thorough. Much needs to be done to make this a more representative system. I would like to think one case about jury selection not meeting the requirement of peers to make it to the SCOTUS would do it. I too grew up watching lawyer tv shows but in my case Perry Mason. Showing my age I know.
Really engrossing material. While not a lawyer you certainly gathered enough first hand insights to convict Lady Justice of identity theft. Juror #217 sounds like a great episodic social justice series to me! 🍿⚖️🎬
I too enjoyed both, Paper Chase with John Houseman and Perry Mason. Learned enough to be dangerous 😳
Rewrote this twice, so here goes.
1. Unless the prosecutor had a trained psychologist of any stripe on th their team and the dependent had a written psychological evaluation, that public comment should have been the defendant's legal team ammunition to request a mistrial.
The judge could have denied the request but it would have been in the transcript for an appeal at a later date.
2. Where/when and why weren't police statements admitted into the court transcript?
If there had been previous calls to 911 for domestic violence or child abuse, the jurors had an obligation to ask and receive this information as the officers testimony on record would have given credence to the defendants assertion of attempting to call for help which she was prevented from doing.
3. Do I agree with the verdict? Yes, with reservation.
Based on evidence submitted in court, there had been unreported (remember no police officers were required or asked to testify) previous instances the child had been abused prior to death.
Her legal team's motives are questionable at best. Either their inexperience and lack of competence are glaring.
Her "team" didn't go for the sympathy vote, they pandered to the prosecution by doing the least to get paid.
The prosecution side weren't looking for sheep, their motives was to do the the minimum with an eye towards political clout.
How could this have ended any other way. The outcome was decided before the trial with a coin toss and should have come with no surprise.
Why? Because in the South, Dixie "justice " is the order of the day. The defendant was convicted based on her lifestyle.
I enjoyed jury duty once many years ago. A slip and fall case and drunk driving ticket. Your insights are quite thorough. Much needs to be done to make this a more representative system. I would like to think one case about jury selection not meeting the requirement of peers to make it to the SCOTUS would do it. I too grew up watching lawyer tv shows but in my case Perry Mason. Showing my age I know.
I've rewatched all the Perry Mason episodes in the last few years. They don't get old.