Conrad Black found guily- Is jury the right person to decide
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Next >
Posted on: 15-07-07 00:37:41
Quote:
Originally posted by puttoo
In most cases people have opinion without knowing the facts ...... do you ... nightmare & TK understand how the american justice system works ...... here take a look about how it works (jury) and what it is meant to be
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/jury.htm</font>
Oh Mr. Puttoo, thanks for your understanding how Jury system works and our NOT understanding Jury system.
Following para are from the article which I read from "Link" provided by you. After reading the article , my respect for your understanding has immensely increased.
"Jury duty is an education, in which people are asked to apply the law, and so they must learn to understand what the law is, and how it affects the case in front of them.
Even when a case goes to trial, are juries actually the best means of determining truth? In former times, part of the rationale for a jury was that the panel members would know the neighborhood, know both the victim and the defendant, know the facts, and thus be able to reach a fair and just decision. Today, juror panels are taken from voting lists of jurisdictions that cover hundreds of square miles and contain hundreds of thousands of people. Jurors rarely know the accused, and if they do may be excused because of it, under the assumption personal acquaintance might unduly influence their judgment. In antitrust cases and in charges of stock manipulation and fraud, can the average citizen really understand the economic and accounting issues involved?
As for so-called renegade juries that ignore the law to vote their emotions, this is an occasional weakness of a system that relies heavily on the decisions of ordinary citizens"
Nightmare ... there you go again ... taking bits of the article to for your argument .....
Read the article in full & then understand
" But to eliminate trial by jury because of perceived defects in the system would be to strike a blow against democratic government itself. For those who believe they will do better by bench trial or (in civil matters) through arbitration, that option is there. But for many, their only hope of establishing their innocence is to go before a jury of their peers, where the state must establish the issue of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
" A free and fair trial by a jury of one's peers remains a critical right of the people, both of those who may be accused of a crime, as well as those called upon to establish that fact"
Quote:
Originally posted by puttoo
Nightmare ... there you go again ... taking bits of the article to for your argument .....
Read the article in full & then understand
" But to eliminate trial by jury because of perceived defects in the system would be to strike a blow against democratic government itself. For those who believe they will do better by bench trial or (in civil matters) through arbitration, that option is there. But for many, their only hope of establishing their innocence is to go before a jury of their peers, where the state must establish the issue of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
" A free and fair trial by a jury of one's peers remains a critical right of the people, both of those who may be accused of a crime, as well as those called upon to establish that fact"
Oh Puttoo there you go again trying to make me undrstand !
Below is the link to article posted in Tor Star. Makes interesting reading. Some excerpts are also pasted by me which are out of context and hence I am sure you will make me understand the same as you have better understanding and IQ.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/236080
Thanks for help Puttoo
FROM TORONTO STAR ARTICLE:
WATCH AGM PROCEEDINGS FROM 4 YEARS BACK AND JAIL THE MD
For Prince, 58, Black's fate was sealed in a 2002 shareholders' meeting.
As prosecutors played the recording, and she heard angry investors lambasting Black about why he and other high-ranking Hollinger executives were receiving millions in non-compete payments, Prince decided she would do everything she could to convict him of fraud.
MY CONVICTION IS MORE THAN EVIDENCE!
Prince is convinced money was stolen. "There just wasn't enough evidence," she said early yesterday morning from her South Chicago home. "For me, I didn't need a piece of paper for (fraud, Count 5). I could see it. How they were withholding information, not showing information on their tax records. That was enough for me.
SURPRISE! SURPRISE! THE BLACK FRIDAY!
By the end of Thursday, all but one had conceded that without hard evidence, Black should be let off. That remaining juror said he'd sleep on it. Less than an hour after arriving at court the next day – Friday the 13th – the jury announced they had a unanimous verdict.
WELL WHEN CLERKS CAN DECIDE WHERE IS NEED FOR ATTORNEYS! ALL SOPHISTICATED TAX PLANNING AND MILLIONS PAID IN FEES ARE NOT WORTH A CLERK’S INTUITION!
The trial was exhausting, Prince said. "Sometimes, some of us didn't get it right after we came out of court. We really didn't know. It was too much information. But when we went through the evidence and started deliberating, it made logical sense, when we were putting it together as opposed to four different lawyers telling their side," said Prince, who is a clerk with Canadian National Railway.
DEFENCE LAWYERS, DO NOT BE AGGRESSIVE. JURY DOES NOT LIKE IT!
By contrast, Prince said the jurors never warmed to Black's lawyer, Edward Greenspan.
"He came out going for the throat when they had the witnesses on the stand. He needs some bedside manners," she said. "We'd laugh at him. We didn't like him . . . he comes out fighting, then he'd go back to sleep until his turn came back."
HOW DARE MEDIA CRITICIZE US? LET US AGREE UNANIMOUSLY. TO HELL WITH FACTS AND LAW!
Despite efforts to avoid media during the trial, jurors overheard in an elevator one day that some Canadian media had called them a "blue collar" jury and critiqued their appearance. "When we were deadlocked, one of the jurors, she's a teacher, gave us a pep talk," said Prince. "She said, 'They're calling us country bumpkins. They think we're too stupid to figure out this case.' And it brought us all together. We were going back in there with a unanimous verdict," she said.
Well what do these stupid Americans know .... how can some " unprofessional " understand this complicated cases .... how they will understand the complexity of saving taxes ....
He paid for his lifestyle and all these people in the jury were jealous of him ... after all somebody said something in the lift ....
WATCH AGM PROCEEDINGS FROM 4 YEARS BACK AND JAIL THE MD
MY CONVICTION IS MORE THAN EVIDENCE!
DEFENCE LAWYERS, DO NOT BE AGGRESSIVE. JURY DOES NOT LIKE IT!
HOW DARE MEDIA CRITICIZE US? LET US AGREE UNANIMOUSLY. TO HELL WITH FACTS AND LAW
If that is your understanding of the facts then i would not dare even try to make you understand ..... have a nice evening
