Current Events > Man spent 20 years in prison because of juror doing own research

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtu.be/tgnRQGYOxV4?si=XirGhIA93H5E1wWI

Charged with murder. Someone in the jury decided to be an amateur detective,, and test drove the distance where he was supposed to be that day, and the killing site, to prove he could do it in the time claimed by the prosecution

But apparently the juror fucked up and did it wrong. Turns out the claimed timing WAS impossible. But the juror didn't know that, and convinced the rest of the jury to convict

Also apparently jurors doing stuff like this is technically illegal. The part that always makes me so mad about these cases of innocence is how long it takes. Why did he have to wait 20 years before someone would listen to him?

I'm just so fucking tired of people who seek justice in the form of retribution, further so on events that don't even really involve the person. But that's also a global issue with our justice system, and people like this juror are people who are probably more "right" in reference to the system we have.

Zikten posted...

Why did he have to wait 20 years before someone would listen to him?

because our legal system is designed to throw ppl in prison regardless of guilt

Reminder that there are people who would have wanted him executed, or at least beaten up and tortured for the last 20 years.

A trial can include on-site demonstrations and crime scene observation, but a juror cannot do this on their own.

Our system is such a fucking mess

He ought to sue that idiot into oblivion

AceMos posted...

because our legal system is designed to throw ppl in prison regardless of guilt

Exactly, prosecutors openly brag about their "win records" as if their job is supposed to be to put 100% of the people before them in jail and if anyone ever gets off it's because of a failure of the justice system rather than the fact being they might not have actually done it.

AceMos posted...

because our legal system is designed to throw ppl in prison regardless of guilt

As long as you don't have money, that is. With a few exceptions (Danny Masterson, Darren Sharper, etc), of course.

Is that dumbass juror a true grime ghoul?

This is one of the few criticisms of Twelve Angry Men :/

The-Apostle posted...

As long as you don't have money, that is. With a few exceptions (Danny Masterson, Darren Sharper, etc), of course.

speaking of money this man likely will have a hell of a time getting a job

AceMos posted...

because our legal system is designed to throw ppl in prison regardless of guilt

aka "judicial closure" per Clarence Thomas.

AceMos posted...

because our legal system is designed to throw ppl in prison regardless of guilt

Someone explain to this guy who has the burden of proof.

Yeah this is an automatic mistrial.

Starks posted...

A trial can include on-site demonstrations and crime scene observation, but a juror cannot do this on their own.

This is what I figured. Jurors can debate about the evidence presented at the trial, but how can a juror do their own tests and present their own evidence? They are supposed to be impartial and that....clearly makes them not impartial.

Ruvan22 posted...

This is one of the few criticisms of Twelve Angry Men :/

Maybe I'm missing something, but how would this apply to 12 Angry Men? In this case, the juror used their own circumstantial "evidence" to convict, whereas in 12 Angry Men, the experiments they conduct are merely to see if there is any reasonable doubt. That feels like a pretty big difference.

HashtagSEP posted...

Maybe I'm missing something, but how would this apply to 12 Angry Men? In this case, the juror used their own circumstantial "evidence" to convict, whereas in 12 Angry Men, the experiments they conduct are merely to see if there is any reasonable doubt. That feels like a pretty big difference.

EDIT: Well, no, I get it. A lot of what drives their decisions is speculation, but you're going to get that when it comes to reasonable doubt, anyway, which is why I think the actual outcome is what makes a big difference, since they're not deciding guilty based on that speculation, they're deciding "He COULD not be guilty."

Sorry, I should have said "valid criticisms" of 12 Angry Men - specifically the juror "doing his own research" being (technically) legally forbidden, as the jurors are supposed to go only on what lawyers present. My Cousin Vinny showed this really well/appropriately - the lawyer didn't necessarily prove innocence, just showed the evidence was not sound.

argonautweakend posted...

This is what I figured. Jurors can debate about the evidence presented at the trial, but how can a juror do their own tests and present their own evidence? They are supposed to be impartial and that....clearly makes them not impartial.

Yep. When I served as a juror, they specifically told us that we were not allowed to look up anything about the case on our own and that we should only base our decisions on what we learned in the courtroom.

But the jury deliberates away from the judge and the attorney's, so they wouldn't have been aware of this if the juror only brought it up during the deliberations. That definitely would have resulted in a mistrial otherwise.

Starks posted...

A trial can include on-site demonstrations and crime scene observation, but a juror cannot do this on their own.

If this happened during jury deliberations, neither the prosecution or defense would have known to prepare a witness to defend their accusation.

The jury foreperson also fucked up big time.

Ban jurors

WilliamPorygon posted...

Exactly, prosecutors openly brag about their "win records" as if their job is supposed to be to put 100% of the people before them in jail and if anyone ever gets off it's because of a failure of the justice system rather than the fact being they might not have actually done it.

Their concern with their careers is borderline conflict of interest. You shouldnt be concerned with, nor benefit from winning.

Wherethisfeom posted...

The juror should be imprisoned too

Well it's possible they are dead now. This happened 20 years ago. Depending on their age and health, the juror might not even be alive today

Meh. Be more upset with the prosecution for presenting evidence with impossible timing. It still would have been up to the jury to decide whether or not to believe the evidence. If the juror doing his own research screwed up the timing, so did the prosecution.