Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,029

    Judge Removes Juror in Scott Peterson Case

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../laci_peterson

    We do not know what all went on, but..

    It was not immediately clear what the woman did to get kicked off the jury. A source with close knowledge of the case told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity she had apparently disobeyed the judge's orders to consider only the evidence presented at the trial.


    "You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received in this trial and not from any other resource," the judge said.


    Wouldnt you want to see all the evidence not just part of it? Am I missing something?
    I am back....


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    7,954
    This means that she based her decision of information gained from outside of the court such as news reports or interviews. The jurors are to base thier decision on the information provided in the trial.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,649
    doesnt make him any less guilty

    another oj here
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    7,954
    That is one of the problems with this case, the lack of physical evidence.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    551

    Re: Judge Removes Juror in Scott Peterson Case

    Originally posted by Torith
    Wouldnt you want to see all the evidence not just part of it? Am I missing something?
    Even if the evidence was biased and obtained illegally (ie torture)? While it might seem silly to ignore other sources of evidence the point of a judge is to make sure everything follows procedures to limit the questions about the outcome of the case.

    It is not perfect, but that is our system.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    chica go go
    Posts
    11,876
    Originally posted by LaurenStephens
    doesnt make him any less guilty

    another oj here
    The difference here is that in the OJ trial, there was actual evidence that he did it.

    Here, the only evidence we have is that he is a total player.


    The last iem i checked, being a player wasn't against the law.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,567
    Wouldn't you want to see all the evidence not just part of it? Am I missing something?
    Whether you like it or not, it's how the system works - You can only take into account what information/evidence you hear in the courtroom. You shouldn't take into account your personal feelings, and you shouldn't take into account what information you heard elsewhere.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    36,941
    Right Anjay

    I am not sure who Scott Peterson is, but if you are a juror, you only base your verdict on what is presented in court.
    I am not sure of the US system, but when I was on a case a couple of years ago, I had the excuse to not serve:

    I. If I personally knew the accused, any witnesses, family members or friends of the accused.
    2.If the evidence presented might make me feel uncomfortable and cause a wrong verdict. For example, if I was rape victim and the case was for rape.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •