Will you accept the verdict in the Chauven trial?

[canadyjd]

We must be able to trust our justice system, even if a trial result is different from what I believe it should be.

I remember the OJ verdict and I was stunned. On reflection, the police made so many errors in the collection and storage of evidence, reasonable doubt was certain.

The jury hears all the evidence and must follow the judges instructions. We have to trust they will get it right or our institution of Justice in America could suffer great harm.

peace to you

 

[rlvaughn]

I think I generally agree with the point that I think you are making, but would say it differently. To help clarify, first, what do you mean by "accept the verdict"? Do you mean I absolutely must agree that the jury has made the right decision? Or that I should not start a riot just because I disagree with the verdict? Or just that the verdict is final (except for the appeals process) and we should move on from there?

What I think I would say is that sometimes juries get verdicts wrong, but I trust that our system works well, usually gets it right, and is the best trial system with which I am familiar this side of heaven. It allows legally for a participant who thinks that the jury got it wrong to appeal to a higher court, in some cases up to the Supreme Court. When we riot and kill because we disagree with a jury verdict, our institution of Justice in the U.S. will suffer great harm. Therefore, we should let the system work without trying to circumvent it.

 

[Aaron]

Will I accept the guilty verdict of a jury whose members know they will be doxed by the press and marked for death by BLM if they deliver any other verdict in a highly politicized trial?

Let me think about that for minute...

Go stack marbles.

 

[canadyjd]

I think I generally agree with the point that I think you are making, but would say it differently. To help clarify, first, what do you mean by "accept the verdict"? Do you mean I absolutely must agree that the jury has made the right decision? Or that I should not start a riot just because I disagree with the verdict? Or just that the verdict is final (except for the appeals process) and we should move on from there?

What I think I would say is that sometimes juries get verdicts wrong, but I trust that our system works well, usually gets it right, and is the best trial system with which I am familiar this side of heaven. It allows legally for a participant who thinks that the jury got it wrong to appeal to a higher court, in some cases up to the Supreme Court. When we riot and kill because we disagree with a jury verdict, our institution of Justice in the U.S. will suffer great harm. Therefore, we should let the system work without trying to circumvent it.

Just to clarify, we don’t “accept” a verdict when we assume we know the jurors motives and we assign to them our own prejudices.

No problem disagreeing. Maybe it will change on appeal or be retried if a hung jury.

Thanks a posting a thoughtful response.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

Just to clarify, we don’t “accept” a verdict when we assume we know the jurors motives and we assign to them our own prejudices.

No problem disagreeing. Maybe it will change on appeal or be retried if a hung jury.

Thanks a posting a thoughtful response.

peace to you

Yeah, I don't get it. Apparently a jury of 12 peers can't administer justice, but a poster on the BB is infallible in his judgment.

 

[Aaron]

Just to clarify, we don’t “accept” a verdict when we assume we know the jurors motives and we assign to them our own prejudices.

Your eyes are just closed to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.

 

[canadyjd]

Your eyes are just closed to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.

You do not know what the jurors are thinking. You are projecting your own feeling upon them.

Whatever the verdict, I will believe they followed the evidence and the judges instructions unless they say otherwise.

peace to you

 

[Reformed1689]

We must be able to trust our justice system, even if a trial result is different from what I believe it should be.

I remember the OJ verdict and I was stunned. On reflection, the police made so many errors in the collection and storage of evidence, reasonable doubt was certain.

The jury hears all the evidence and must follow the judges instructions. We have to trust they will get it right or our institution of Justice in America could suffer great harm.

peace to you

It honestly would depend on what they convict of if they convict. I also do not think it is possible for it to be a fair trial at its current location.

 

[canadyjd]

It honestly would depend on what they convict of if they convict. I also do not think it is possible for it to be a fair trial at its current location.

The judge made the decision there could be a fair trial at that location. We have to accept it.

The defense can appeal whatever verdict (if guilty) is given based on that decision by the judge.

Thanks for sharing.

peace to you

 

[Reformed1689]

The judge made the decision there could be a fair trial at that location. We have to accept it.

The defense can appeal whatever verdict (if guilty) is given based on that decision by the judge.

Thanks for sharing.

peace to you

I think over the last year it has been proven judges aren't exactly impartial and unbiased.

 

[rlvaughn]

Just to clarify, we don’t “accept” a verdict when we assume we know the jurors motives and we assign to them our own prejudices.

No problem disagreeing. Maybe it will change on appeal or be retried if a hung jury.

I think this is a bit tricky to discuss in terms of "accepting the verdict." Probably has too many possible connotations.

I have served on several jury trials in my lifetime, most of which required an unanimous verdict, and a few that did not. One that did not was a lawsuit (Texas District Civil Court) that required 10 of 12 jurors to agree on the verdict. In the end we decided in favor of the plaintiff, 11-1. I was the one dissenting vote. Some of the jurors thought the plaintiff made the case, a few (in my opinion) were not sure but preferred to err on the side of the individual rather than on the side of the insurance company, and I thought the plaintiff did not prove he was injured on the job. I accepted the verdict. It was according to law; we did what we were supposed to do, and afterward we all moved on with our lives. However, in accepting the verdict, I did not doubt, neither have I since doubted, that I voted correctly -- that the plaintiff did prove their case. So, in my opinion, we can accept without agreeing.

(I am using this to make a point about accepting a verdict. In the Derek Chauvin case, it will require an unanimous verdict.)

 

[canadyjd]

I think this is a bit tricky to discuss in terms of "accepting the verdict." Probably has too many possible connotations.

I have served on several jury trials in my lifetime, most of which required an unanimous verdict, and a few that did not. One that did not was a lawsuit (Texas District Civil Court) that required 10 of 12 jurors to agree on the verdict. In the end we decided in favor of the plaintiff, 11-1. I was the one dissenting vote. Some of the jurors thought the plaintiff made the case, a few (in my opinion) were not sure but preferred to err on the side of the individual rather than on the side of the insurance company, and I thought the plaintiff did not prove he was injured on the job. I accepted the verdict. It was according to law; we did what we were supposed to do, and afterward we all moved on with our lives. However, in accepting the verdict, I did not doubt, neither have I since doubted, that I voted correctly -- that the plaintiff did prove their case. So, in my opinion, we can accept without agreeing.

(I am using this to make a point about accepting a verdict. In the Derek Chauvin case, it will require an unanimous verdict.)

The point I’m making is what if someone on the outside looking in stated the only reason you voted “no” was because you were in the pocket of the insurance company.

We have to accept the jury will consider all the evidence and vote their conscious.

We can’t assume to know their motives, which is what I mean.

Thanks for the comments

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

I think over the last year it has been proven judges aren't exactly impartial and unbiased.

Maybe you can give a few examples of judges that aren’t acting impartially or unbiased manner.

peace to you

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Intriguing poll. If the jury is hung? No option. What of an appeal? No option. And the options provided carry major baggage. Trust the system? No. Hold the system accountable? Yes, that would be the American way.

But about those riots. We already know what the fear is. Riots won’t come from the right. There may be riots even with a Guilty verdict. Just proclaim the finding and sentence are too light.

There are elements that want to destroy the current system entirely. Antifa and BLM come to mind, as does the Dem Progressive Left. They’ve already done a great deal of damage. Enemies within.

 

[Reformed1689]

The point I’m making is what if someone on the outside looking in stated the only reason you voted “no” was because you were in the pocket of the insurance company.

We have to accept the jury will consider all the evidence and vote their conscious.

We can’t assume to know their motives, which is what I mean.

Thanks for the comments

peace to you

I don't trust any jury. I served on a jury once and I was the lone holdout on a hung jury. Why? Because there was reasonable doubt based on the evidence. However, the other jurors did not care. They ignored the reasonable doubt and "went with their gut." So no, I do not trust a jury blindly.

 

[Yeshua1]

We must be able to trust our justice system, even if a trial result is different from what I believe it should be.

I remember the OJ verdict and I was stunned. On reflection, the police made so many errors in the collection and storage of evidence, reasonable doubt was certain.

The jury hears all the evidence and must follow the judges instructions. We have to trust they will get it right or our institution of Justice in America could suffer great harm.

peace to you

The main problem with many of these cases is that we ONLY hear form the medial and thee defense atty, and their slant is always that the cops again killed off a Black person, like the police throughout the nation are taught to hunt down and exterminate Black americans!

 

[canadyjd]

I don't trust any jury. I served on a jury once and I was the lone holdout on a hung jury. Why? Because there was reasonable doubt based on the evidence. However, the other jurors did not care. They ignored the reasonable doubt and "went with their gut." So no, I do not trust a jury blindly.

So you voted your conscious. No one other than those present know why they voted the way they did. We shouldn’t speculate.

Your experience should not be a template for all juries.

You still have given examples of biased judges and their decisions.

peace to you

 

[Reformed1689]

So you voted your conscious. No one other than those present know why they voted the way they did. We shouldn’t speculate.

Your experience should not be a template for all juries.

You still have given examples of biased judges and their decisions.

peace to you

I know why they voted the way they did because they said it.

 

[Reformed1689]

Maybe you can give a few examples of judges that aren’t acting impartially or unbiased manner.

peace to you

Election 2020

 

[canadyjd]

Election 2020

Not exactly a specific example.

Name of Judge?
Exactly what was being decided?
Exactly how the Judge demonstrated bias?

peace to you