• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jury deliberations.[W:113]

Re: Jury deliberations.

ttwtt78640 said:
I will help you (with back-up) for a 40:1 (or higher) felony plea to trial ratio.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/u...sh-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
GUEST COLUMN: High rate of Colorado pleas undermines right to trial by jury
PLEA BARGAINING’S TRIUMPH: A HISTORY OF PLEA BARGAINING IN AMERICA
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I found what I previously posted.


(formatting in this quote's codebox changed to match that of the second quote below.)
Excon said:
Code: 
[COLOR="#000000"][FONT=Times New Roman][B]Plea and Charge Bargaining[/B]
[INDENT][INDENT]Research Summary
[INDENT][...] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), in 2003 there were 75,573 cases disposed of in federal district court
by trial or plea. Of these, about 95 percent were disposed of by a guilty plea (Pastore and Maguire, 2003).
While there are no exact estimates of the proportion of cases that are resolved through plea bargaining,
scholars estimate that about 90 to 95 percent of both federal and state court cases are resolved through this process
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005; Flanagan and Maguire, 1990). [...][/INDENT][/INDENT]
[SIZE=1][url=https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf]Plea and Charge Bargaining; Research Summary[/url][/SIZE][/INDENT]


[B]To Plead or Not to Plead?[/B]
[INDENT][INDENT]Reviewing a Decade of Criminal Antitrust Trials F. Joseph Warin, David P. Burns, and John W.F. Chesley
[INDENT]Over the last ten years, the success rate achieved by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in convicting criminal
defendants at trial is [U]staggeringly high[/U]—[COLOR="#332299"][B]over 77 percent of those who elect to go to trial are found guilty.[/B][/COLOR]¹ In fraud trials,
that number is even higher—nearly 80 percent. [...][/INDENT][/INDENT]
[SIZE=1][url=http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Warin-Burns-Chesley-ToPleadorNottoPlead.pdf]To Plead or Not to Plead?[/url][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT]


"... in 2003 there were 75,573 cases disposed of in federal district court by trial or plea.
Of these, about 95 percent were disposed of by a guilty plea (Pastore and Maguire, 2003)."


That leaves just 5% going to trial. (with the exception of any not-guilty pleas, not going to trial)


"... over 77 percent of those who elect to go to trial are found guilty."


Which means of the 5% that elect to go to trial, over 77% of those are convicted.
Click to expand...




Excon said:
Code: 
[COLOR="#000000"][FONT=Times New Roman][B]Plea and Charge Bargaining[/B]
[INDENT][INDENT]Research Summary
[INDENT][...] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), in 2003 there were 75,573 cases disposed of in federal district court
by trial or plea. Of these, about 95 percent were disposed of by a guilty plea (Pastore and Maguire, 2003).
While there are no exact estimates of the proportion of cases that are resolved through plea bargaining,
scholars estimate that about 90 to 95 percent of both federal and state court cases are resolved through this process
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005; Flanagan and Maguire, 1990). [...][/INDENT][/INDENT]
[SIZE=1][url=https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf]Plea and Charge Bargaining; Research Summary[/url][/SIZE][/INDENT]


[B]To Plead or Not to Plead?[/B]
[INDENT][INDENT]Reviewing a Decade of Criminal Antitrust Trials F. Joseph Warin, David P. Burns, and John W.F. Chesley
[INDENT]Over the last ten years, the success rate achieved by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in convicting criminal
defendants at trial is [U]staggeringly high[/U]—[COLOR="#332299"][B]over 77 percent of those who elect to go to trial are found guilty.[/B][/COLOR]¹ In fraud trials,
that number is even higher—nearly 80 percent. [...][/INDENT][/INDENT]
[SIZE=1][url=http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Warin-Burns-Chesley-ToPleadorNottoPlead.pdf]To Plead or Not to Plead?[/url][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT]

Did you get that?
Staggeringly high!
There is no distinction made between a bench trial and that before a jury, but I doubt there would be any significant deviation.
Seems to me, based on that stat alone, that juries do like convicting.



And in Death Penalty cases a jury is more likely to convict.

Empirical evidence adduced in Lockhart also has shown that death-qualified juries are more likely than other jurors to convict a defendant. ³
3. Samuel Gross (1996), The Risks of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common in Capital Cases, 44 Buffalo L. Rev. 469, 494.​
Death-qualified jury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Jury deliberations.

niff said:
I just heard someone quit in AC's office. Is this correct? Talk of someone being a 'whistleblower in her office. Talk of AC facing charges? Anyone heard anything?
Click to expand...

Dude -- Angela Corey?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
No they were not.

Which is why I stated the following.

The Government needs to a better job at informing/educating the public that the verdicts are just, and not letting the prosecutors get before the camera and saying they still believe the person who was found not guilty, is still guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. They should be required to acquiesce to the Juries verdict.​
Click to expand...

Baloney. Millions of people watched the Simpson trial every day and saw plenty of evidence to convict beyond any reasonable doubt. That case was lost on the day the prosecutors agreed to move jurisdiction from Santa Monica - where the case rightfully belonged - to downtown LA where they had more minorities in the potential jury pool. They lost the case on that day.

Lots of folks followed the Casey Anthony case as well and came to the same conclusion of a travesty.

How many millions of Americans watched the tape of the police beating King over and over and over and over and over again as he lay defenseless only to see them walk in court?

Not a travesty? :shock::roll: gimme a freakin break already. :doh
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
Jury deliberations.

Since we did not have an immediate verdict.
Do you think a stealth juror got in?
More than one?

If there is, I am sure a note will be going out to the judge about a non cooperative juror.
But how long would that take? Or, if there is a stealth juror, how long would it take for them to cave to the evidence being shoved down their throat?
Click to expand...

What is a "stealth juror"?

Nevermind. Question answered in thread.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

niff said:
I just heard someone quit in AC's office. Is this correct? Talk of someone being a 'whistleblower in her office. Talk of AC facing charges? Anyone heard anything?
Click to expand...
AC is not facing any charges by the government. At least not yet.

As for the report, it is from April.

Executive director of 4th Circuit State Attorney's Office resigns
Posted: April 5, 2013 - 6:39pm

The executive director of the State Attorney’s Office is leaving the employment of Angela Corey.

Richard Komando resigned his position Thursday. In his three-sentence resignation letter, Komando said his last day in the office would be that day, but he will be taking leave through April 19 when he will officially depart.

Komondo declined to comment on his departure Friday.

This is the fourth high-profile employee to depart the State Attorney’s Office in the last year. Chief Assistant State Attorney Dan McCarthy, former executive director Mike Weinstein and Nassau County chief Wes White also resigned.​

Executive director of 4th Circuit State Attorney's Office resigns | jacksonville.com​
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Josie said:
State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case | jacksonville.com
Click to expand...

His attorney Wesley White — who resigned from the State Attorney’s Office in December and is a critic of Corey — said the firing was aimed at sending a message to office employees “that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.
“If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”
Click to expand...

Wow....
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
Baloney. Millions of people watched the Simpson trial every day and saw plenty of evidence to convict beyond any reasonable doubt. That case was lost on the day the prosecutors agreed to move jurisdiction from Santa Monica - where the case rightfully belonged - to downtown LA where they had more minorities in the potential jury pool. They lost the case on that day.
Click to expand...
They lost period.
And no there was not plenty of evidence.

The Government needs to a better job at informing/educating the public that the verdicts are just, and not letting the prosecutors get before the camera and saying they still believe the person who was found not guilty, is still guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. They should be required to acquiesce to the Juries verdict.​



haymarket said:
Lots of folks followed the Casey Anthony case as well and came to the same conclusion of a travesty.
Click to expand...
There was no evidence that she killed her own child.
It was a just verdict.
Just because the populace has blood lust, is vindictive and/or doesn't understand the evidence doesn't mean it was a travesty.

The Government needs to a better job at informing/educating the public that the verdicts are just, and not letting the prosecutors get before the camera and saying they still believe the person who was found not guilty, is still guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. They should be required to acquiesce to the Juries verdict.​
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Tony Pipitone @TonyPipitone

Interesting rearranged jury seating assignments put Juror 6, E40, in front left spot, I am told. Is she forewoman? Don't know.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Josie said:
State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case | jacksonville.com
Click to expand...

Exhaus006.jpg


Exhaus005.jpg
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Josie said:
State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case | jacksonville.com
Click to expand...

From the link:

"Before Kruidbos’ name surfaced in the Martin trial proceedings, he received a pay raise for 'meritorious performance,'” according to a document dated May 16 in his personnel file.

But the dismissal letter written by Peek [ managing director of the State Attorney’s Office]contends he did his job poorly as information technology director and said he should have asked someone in the office about his concerns regarding the Martin case.

'Your egregious lack of regard for the sensitive nature of the information handled by this office is completely abhorrent,' Peek wrote. 'You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.'”

I can't believe this woman put some of those words in writing. What was she thinking?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

nota bene said:
From the link:

"Before Kruidbos’ name surfaced in the Martin trial proceedings, he received a pay raise for 'meritorious performance,'” according to a document dated May 16 in his personnel file.

But the dismissal letter written by Peek [ managing director of the State Attorney’s Office]contends he did his job poorly as information technology director and said he should have asked someone in the office about his concerns regarding the Martin case.

'Your egregious lack of regard for the sensitive nature of the information handled by this office is completely abhorrent,' Peek wrote. 'You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.'”

I can't believe this woman put some of those words in writing. What was she thinking?
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing. That letter is going to come back to bite them in the ass.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
They lost period.
And no there was not plenty of evidence.
The Government needs to a better job at informing/educating the public that the verdicts are just, and not letting the prosecutors get before the camera and saying they still believe the person who was found not guilty, is still guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. They should be required to acquiesce to the Juries verdict.​




There was no evidence that she killed her own child.
It was a just verdict.
Just because the populace has blood lust, is vindictive and/or doesn't understand the evidence doesn't mean it was a travesty.
The Government needs to a better job at informing/educating the public that the verdicts are just, and not letting the prosecutors get before the camera and saying they still believe the person who was found not guilty, is still guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. They should be required to acquiesce to the Juries verdict.​
Click to expand...

Did you read the Toobin book on the Simpson case? It is a scathing indictment of what was done there to subvert justice and produce a result that was the opposite of what justice is all about. You need to read it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Run-His-Life-Simpson/dp/0684842785

All this nonsense seems to only lead up to your big pronouncement that you make in post after post that you seem to think people are going to get all up in arms about but which nobody really seems to care about....... the nonsense about "they should be required to acquiesce to the juries verdict"........ silly stuff indeed.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
All this nonsense seems to only lead up to your big pronouncement that you make in post after post that you seem to think people are going to get all up in arms about but which nobody really seems to care about....... the nonsense about "they should be required to acquiesce to the juries verdict"........ silly stuff indeed.
Click to expand...
You are absurdly fooling yourself. Which is the usual for you, is it not?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
You are absurdly fooling yourself. Which is the usual for you, is it not?
Click to expand...

You really hate it when you are nailed to the wall and your faux arguments are exposed for what they are don't you? You go on the attack and get personal. Its a sure sign that you have nothing except your own beliefs.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
You really hate it when you are nailed to the wall and your faux arguments are exposed for what they are don't you? You go on the attack and get personal. Its a sure sign that you have nothing except your own beliefs.
Click to expand...
:doh
iLOL
The problem with your assertion is that it isn't true.

And as you were the one to deflect, you know you lost.

And that wasn't really getting personal, but an accurate description of what you do when you are losing an argument.
 
Last edited:
Re: Jury deliberations.

MaggieD said:
No, absolutely not. They have no idea what ranges of punishment are. Manslaughter, in this case, can carry as much as thirty years if he's found guilty.
Click to expand...

One of my friends in Fla. just said he was foreman for a sequ. jury and they did get info about charges, as to min. and max penalty times...........is it a law to do that, or is it only done in certain cases??
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
:doh
iLOL
The problem with your assertion is that it isn't true.
Click to expand...

you did it in your own post 90 on the previous page

You are absurdly fooling yourself. Which is the usual for you, is it not?
Click to expand...

You cannot change the product of the moving hand.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

MaggieD said:
I thought the same thing. That letter is going to come back to bite them in the ass.
Click to expand...

I think it will too. I'm hoping that the full text will be put out there by somebody.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
you did it in your own post 90 on the previous page
Click to expand...
:naughty
Your following assertion is what wasn't true.
You really hate it when you are nailed to the wall and your faux arguments are exposed for what they are don't you?
Click to expand...


haymarket said:
You cannot change the product of the moving hand.
Click to expand...
Then stop trying.
You were absurdly fooling yourself. Which is the usual for you, is it not?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Back to the jury and its deliberations, somebody (Excon?) posted a link to profiles of the six jurors, and it's worth a read: Six women to decide Zimmerman's fate - U.S. News

Their profiles suggest to me that they are going to do a thoughtful and good job.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Josie said:
Um....something just came into my mind....

What if the jury had come to a verdict when they had that weird question, but the judge asked them to wait until tomorrow so she can inform law enforcement to be ready?
Click to expand...

I would think the immediate impact would be less if they went ahead and released a verdict.

The longer you wait, the more time people have to get involved outside the court house.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
There is no agreement until we get this sorted out.
Click to expand...

If he is found guilty.... I will change my name to CreepyAssCracker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom