Current Events > Juror fined $11k for mistrial after Googling ICE agent's supremacist patch

(+) Yeah! (+)

crazy.

---

ThePieReborn posted...

Yeah, you don't look at outside information here.

so what to do when no court official tells what the patch Is?

Whoever state the patch is a union symbol should be charged with Perjury.

well there should at least be an investigation into the statement and if found false result in perjury.

the fact thats not even in discussion is more concerning imo.

---

1337toothbrush posted...

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Yeah, that's an independent investigation. You can't do that.

Why not?

Because it creates bias on the part of the juror, it prejudices the jury as a whole, it doesn't give the defense a chance to respond to that piece of evidence, and it can't be verified whether the information is even true in the first place
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Because it creates bias on the part of the juror, it prejudices the jury as a whole, it doesn't give the defense a chance to respond to that piece of evidence, and it can't be verified whether the information is even true in the first place

Instead the juror being biased by the prosecutor's crafted reality is better?

---

I'm wasting my time
---

Yeah, because your explanations aren't worth shit.

---

How does this create a bias? It literally eliminated the bias that was already present.

---

monkmith posted...

stupid. shouldn't have told anyone they looked it up.

This. He should have just said that he knew it already and should have gone through the proper channels to have it confirmed by the court for the sake of the other jurors instead of admitting to have gone rogue.
---

You can't just assume that the information he got from the internet is true, which is what the people in this topic seem to be doing. The information that jurors are basing their decisions on needs to have come from the trial evidence, and the juror taking matters into his own hands and introducing this unverified information to the rest of the jury out of court makes that impossible.

He should have made a request to the judge for clarification on the meaning of the patch. Instead, he didn't follow the rules and fucked up the trial.
---

Yeah thats bullshit and this is not justice

UnholyMudcrab posted...

You can't just assume that the information he got from the internet is true, which is what the people in this topic seem to be doing. The information that jurors are basing their decisions on needs to have come from the trial evidence, and the juror taking matters into his own hands and introducing this unverified information to the rest of the jury out of court makes that impossible.

He should have made a request to the judge for clarification on the meaning of the patch. Instead, he didn't follow the rules and fucked up the trial.

"There was a suggestion that the patch was a trade union logo." So the other jurors who simply accepted the suggestion would be better informed? This is strict adherence to a non-sensical ideal. Everyone has their biases and everyone has their own way of interpreting events and evidence. The courtroom is not in isolation and to pretend that it is would be foolish.

---

1337toothbrush posted...

"There was a suggestion that the patch was a trade union logo." So the other jurors who simply accepted the suggestion would be better informed? This is strict adherence to a non-sensical ideal. Everyone has their biases and everyone has their own way of interpreting events and evidence. The courtroom is not in isolation and to pretend that it is would be foolish.

So are you just pretending to not understand? It's been explained pretty well by him and others.

---

Which is why he should have brought it up with the judge if he had doubts. There's a process for this, and he didn't follow the process.

If the jurors are allowed to just look up information on their own without verifying it, then the ultimate arbiters of the truth become the people posting this information to the websites. Surely you can see how dangerous that is.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

So are you just pretending to not understand? It's been explained pretty well by him and others.

No, you're not understanding.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Which is why he should have brought it up with the judge if he had doubts. There's a process for this, and he didn't follow the process.

If the jurors are allowed to just look up information on their own without verifying it, then the ultimate arbiters of the truth become the people posting this information to the websites. Surely you can see how dangerous that is.

Again, how is that worse than someone who doesn't understand something AND doesn't look it up AND doesn't ask the judge about it? The ultimate arbiter of truth is however they got their preconceived notions before they even entered the courtroom.

---

I understand the spirit of the law, but in this particular instance whats the difference between finding out what the patch is on google, and already knowing what it was before the trial?

1337toothbrush posted...

No, you're not understanding.

It's you. This is cut and dry.

---

Why didn't the defense bring it up?

Did the person on trial actually assault the officer though or is it an exaggeration?


---

dave_is_slick posted...

It's you. This is cut and dry.

"Actually it would be better if the jury was lied to with no way to fact check and then made a decision based on that."

---

Stalolin posted...

with no way to fact check

How many times am I going to have to say that the way to fact check this if you're suspicious is to request clarification to the judge

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

How many times am I going to have to say that the way to fact check this if you're suspicious is to request clarification to the judge

"What's this thing?"

"It's a union patch"

"Oh okay... I dunno that sounds kinda off. Can I ask for clarification? What's this thing really?"

"It's a union patch bro."

"Oh okay cool."

---

Zikten posted...

That is a rule I have always opposed. There have many cases where someone was found guilty and later the jurors said they would have found them innocent if they had seen evidence that was hidden from them

It's in place for a reason. Jurors are not picked because of what they already know or for their ability to research the case on their own but only to listen to the facts presented by both the prosecution and defense teams and reach a verdict based on that information alone. If a bad verdict is reached because one side was incompetent at presenting their case, then that is on the attorney, not the jury.

The appeals process is in place precisely for reasons like if the prosecution purposely withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense team during the discovery process and was only found out after the trial that such evidence existed (such as unknown DNA being found at the crime scene that was not tested by forensics after getting a match for the defendant, or that the DNA was tested but the matching individual could not be found).

---

Kangaroo court in a banana republic.

"Nah, we don't care that a white supremacist is arresting and testifying against Latino immigrats. But you fucked up for sure for pointing it out."

dave_is_slick posted...

It's you. This is cut and dry.

Only if you're incapable of thinking. Sure though, let a process that doesn't make sense do all the thinking for you.

---

Jurors can't bring their own information into the jury room. I understand why people might think that it's "unfair" or whatever to let false information stand, but I don't get why people can't understand that the system is that way for a reason. And there are other avenues to take than jurors becoming investigators.

---

Picture of Juror 7



---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Jurors can't bring their own information into the jury room. I understand why people might think that it's "unfair" or whatever to let false information stand, but I don't get why people can't understand that the system is that way for a reason. And there are other avenues to take than jurors becoming investigators.

The judicial system often defends blatant white supremacists, routinely imprisons people of color, and is set up to maintain the status quo. I'm not sure why so many itt are willing to just let this slide based off of "well it's that way for a reason"

---

Gwynevere posted...

The judicial system often defends blatant white supremacists, routinely imprisons people of color, and is set up to maintain the status quo. I'm not sure why so many itt are willing to just let this slide based off of "well it's that way for a reason"

Because jurors are supposed to be basing their decision on what evidence is presented in court by the defense and prosecution, not their own beliefs.

---

I can understand fining them, but 11k is ridiculously high.

I can agree that the fine seems excessive
---

scorpion41 posted...

Because jurors are supposed to be basing their decision on what evidence is presented in court by the defense and prosecution, not their own beliefs.

Spoilers: jurors will be basing their decisions on their own beliefs regardless of internet access.

---

1337toothbrush posted...

Spoilers: jurors will be basing their decisions on their own beliefs regardless of internet access.

Based on what is presented in court

---

scorpion41 posted...

Based on what is presented in court

Which doesn't work when the judge, the jury, and the prosecution collude to manipulate what is presented in court to railroad innocent defendants. As was done here

Judge protecting a pig.

Must be another day ending in "y".
---

bad sheep! stay in your pen! we're trying to sentence a man guilty, how fucking DARE you actually pursue the truth! BAD SHEEP!

That fine is just a way to keep other people from sticking their nose too far out when they smell a fash.

---

Ruvan22 posted...

Conversely, one of my other favorite films is My Cousin Vinny (which also covers the topic of proving guilt) and it's now used in some law schools as an example of how to present a solid defense

Big time agree! That was one of the greatest movie in this genre. And I love it!

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I can agree that the fine seems excessive

Yeah, me too.

1337toothbrush posted...

Only if you're incapable of thinking.

Which would be people like you who are refusing to see why letting outside info in is a horrendous idea but please, keep on rambling.

---

Cocytus posted...

Big time agree! That was one of the greatest movie in this genre. And I love it!

Awesome taste! I still find myself repeating his "a judge that hates me, two kids lives on the line, a man who wants to fight me for a hundred dollars and NOW I have to deal with yours biological clock?" monologue frequently on crazy busy days.

Also loved how they foreshadowed Mona Lisa's expert knowledge throughout the movie, only caught it on the second viewing

dave_is_slick posted...

Which would be people like you who are refusing to see why letting outside info in is a horrendous idea but please, keep on rambling.

The juror is bringing in outside info by their mere existence. Don't let reality get in the way of your fantasy of pure blind justice, though.

---

scorpion41 posted...

Because jurors are supposed to be basing their decision on what evidence is presented in court by the defense and prosecution, not their own beliefs.

If that patch really was white supremacist and not union, then the jury was fed false info. We cant make an argument that justice is best left solely to the cases made by the defense and prosecution if that info is bad to begin with.

---

No picture of the patch?

---

Daily Remember: Prosecutors want the guilty verdict no matter what. They hide and not disclose crucial information.

Gwynevere posted...

If that patch really was white supremacist and not union, then the jury was fed false info. We cant make an argument that justice is best left solely to the cases made by the defense and prosecution if that info is bad to begin with.

When new evidence comes up it has to be presented to the court and deemed admissible for both sides to see it and argue for/against it. Jurors possibly basing their decision on evidence they see outside the courtroom that no one else sees isnt justice. If one side presents false info and the other side cant prove otherwise, then tough shit. It works both ways.

---

scorpion41 posted...

When new evidence comes up it has to be presented to the court and deemed admissible for both sides to see it and argue for/against it. Jurors possibly basing their decision on evidence they see outside the courtroom that no one else sees isnt justice. If one side presents false info and the other side cant prove otherwise, then tough shit. It works both ways.

I would ask how you feel about wrongful conviction cases and all that entails but I get a strong feeling you dont give a fuck about them.

---

kage_53 posted...

Daily Remember: Prosecutors want the guilty verdict no matter what. They hide and not disclose crucial information.

Concealing potentially exculpatory evidence is a crime.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Concealing potentially exculpatory evidence is a crime.

That's great, under the assumption that those concealing that evidence/presenting false info are held accountable

---