dagblog - Comments for "Death Watch"

I think you're right on this.

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:55:13 +0000

I think you're right on this. I had initially taken rmrd to be making a broader point about why the criminal justice system, as opposed to just the initial jury, has to lock in an irreversible death penalty course of action, with no possible reconsideration if relevant evidence is brought forward suggesting a need to consider a pardon or clemency.

rmrd0000 - Why should a

NCD — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:29:10 +0000

In reply to A person who practiced 20

rmrd0000 - Why should a verdict be locked in time?

Nice thought but I imagine if you think real hard you might be able to come up with some reasons why "there be a time-lock on a juror's opinion".

If there is no time-lock there is no timely verdict.

The jury is sequestered in capital cases until a verdict is reached. A juror is supposed to be non-prejudiced, which means they are not supposed to consider any evidence but the evidence legally presented in the courtroom, and they are supposed to discuss the case only with fellow jurors until they reach a verdict. They are not supposed to be influenced by newspapers, radio, friends or anyone else. This is a fundamental basis of the jury trial, of which you appear to be unaware.

If you really think that equating CDE in medicine, with jurors purportedly changing their minds 20 years later, you are comparing apples and moon rocks. What if 3 of the jurors are dead 20 years later, and another 4 don't want to hear about it anymore? What if a juror says he wants to wait 20 years to give his decision, what does the state do with the alleged murderer in the meantime? Just a few of the complications!

But then you wouldn't have

Red Planet — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:29:38 +0000

In reply to Sorry, rp--if you and I were

But then you wouldn't have been moved to write what you wrote, which was good stuff.

I couldn't agree more with your focus on jobs and financial reform, including jail time for the Wall Street Crew. Those things seem so remote from anything that's likely to happen now, though, that laughter is the only recourse that preserves my sanity.

Sorry, rp--if you and I were

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:29:50 +0000

In reply to I know, AD. It was the

Sorry, rp--if you and I were talking FTF I'd know right away from your body language when to stop on account of preaching to choir...

A person who practiced 20

rmrd0000 — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:34:53 +0000

In reply to If any of them had reasonable

A person who practiced 20 year old medicine using the excuse that it's too late to change would lose their license. Why should a verdict be locked in time? There is no mechanism that easily allows a juror to repeatedly revisit a case of a verdict has been rendered or respond to new facts in a given case. Why should there be a time-lock on a juror's opinion especially when a life is in the balance and new facts are found?

You are correct everyone

rmrd0000 — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:24:41 +0000

In reply to Good points. But we also

You are correct everyone should have read "everyone". However there were 7 African-Americans on the Davis jury. All juries tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution. It is only when the behavior of the prosecutors or police is called into question when African-American juries go against the incarceration flow.

I know, AD. It was the

Red Planet — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:22:39 +0000

In reply to That would be one of the key

I know, AD.

It was the notion that public officials might be moved to care about public perception that had me rolling on the floor.

And by the way, the public has known for decades that there is a significant gap between what is just, and what the justice system dispenses.

Thanks, VA. In re the

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:17:09 +0000

In reply to Articleman would no doubt

Thanks, VA. In re the obligatory IANAL--have you ever seen anyone use IANALAIDPOOTV?

Articleman would no doubt

Verified Atheist — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:38:34 +0000

In reply to Could a bright lawyer have a

Articleman would no doubt know more, but a quick Google search turns up the following facts:

(1) Prosecutors have prosecutorial immunity.

(2) That immunity is not absolute.

Edit to add: that first link is the more informative one. From that I gather that the hypothetical suit would only have validity if the prosecutor was acting illegally, since he was clearly "performing 'advocative' conduct". The key question then, is whether he was "act[ing] within the scope of his duties", which for an illegal act would not be true (I think). Of course, IANAL.

Could a bright lawyer have a

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:22:08 +0000

In reply to Your last sentence describes

Could a bright lawyer have a chance of successfully pressing a lawsuit against a prosecutor brought by a juror who suffered severe emotional stress after finding out they had deliberately been made an instrument in the unjust death of an innocent man?

That's a great question. I don't know the answer. You'd think in this lawsuit-happy culture someone has at least tried it, or explored it.