Current Events > Had a sexual assault trial today where the verdict came back not guilty

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fuck man, everyone was expecting the verdict to be guilty, we were stunned. I feel so bad for the victim...

Ultimately this was on the jurors, I thought the state did well presenting the case even though there was no DNA evidence. As staff I know for a fact he was guilty though so I'm biased.

Possibly backlash from the more prominent false accusation cases that have been out.

Not having the DNA may have been the deal breaker for the jury.

Shame if, as you say, you knew for a fact its wrong.

Akagami_Shanks posted...

even though there was no DNA evidence.

And that's the end, no jury is going to convict someone of sexual assault without that

ghettoraider81 posted...

Possibly backlash from the more prominent false accusation cases that have been out.

Not having the DNA may have been the deal breaker for the jury.

Shame if, as you say, you knew for a fact its wrong.

Yeah I knew he did it, he has multiple cases against him and I've been here for all his conferences and plea deals and such. Naturally the jury isn't privy to those. Even his public defender assumed he was gonna lose and said "I wasn't his attorney when he decided he wanted to go to trial."

I don't wanna go too into the specifics of the case in case some weirdo tries to search it up but i thought he had incriminated himself and placed himself at the scene of the crime and the text messages showed he knew he had warrants out for his arrest >_>

What was the case about?

tremain07 posted...

And that's the end, no jury is going to convict someone of sexual assault without that

not true, I've seen it happen. Ultimately it's really up to how persuasive the state is in presenting their case. I've had witnesses entire credibility shot to hell, flimsy evidence and contradicting testimony and the jury still convicted them.

Tc is a judge ?

CSI really has poisoned ppls minds when it comes to things like DNA and ENHANCE IMAGE and all this crap

Sounds like op should never be juror. Already decided from the beginning defendant is guilty.

Good.

There shouldn't be a case for this stuff without DNA evidence

KanWan posted...

When I went to jury duty they had a case of this kind and the pre-screening process involved the question: do you think we can prosecute without DNA evidence

I said yes

We deliberated and me and this other guy were pretty sure and leaning on yeah, he did it but everyone else voted no and the decision was to be unanimous

people just wanted to go home and have their lunch

so eventually we both caved

you should not have caved

AceMos posted...

you should not have caved

That would lead to a mistrial or, if the reason a juror was holding out was for tangential reasons, get them thrown off the jury.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Woah nelly

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


lol what

ironman2009 posted...

lol what

It's a joke. Look at the name.

ironman2009 posted...

lol what

I agree with them in that I honestly wouldn't want to trust my future and freedom to a bunch of randos pulled off the street having to have foreign concepts explained to them and ultimately it's just 2 lawyers trying to convince them one way or the other. The prosecution (usually) having facts and evidence, the defense just focusing on whatever it takes to get their client off.

I feel like a fair and true-hearted judge ruling based off all the evidence and not soaking in lawyer bullshit would be the fairest method.

Of course this falls apart when judges can and do become corrupt, such as that asshole who was funneling juveniles to a private prison for juveniles. I get why the founding fathers thought it was a better system given what they had experienced, I just really hate the idea of leaving my fate to a bunch of randos.

And of course you can always forego a jury.

Kradek posted...

I agree with them in that I honestly wouldn't want to trust my future and freedom to a bunch of randos pulled off the street having to have foreign concepts explained to them and ultimately it's just 2 lawyers trying to convince them one way or the other. The prosecution (usually) having facts and evidence, the defense just focusing on whatever it takes to get their client off.

I feel like a fair and true-hearted judge ruling based off all the evidence and not soaking in lawyer bullshit would be the fairest method.

Of course this falls apart when judges can and do become corrupt, such as that asshole who was funneling juveniles to a private prison for juveniles. I get why the founding fathers thought it was a better system given what they had experienced, I just really hate the idea of leaving my fate to a bunch of randos.

And of course you can always forego a jury.

People always say the justice system doesn't work, Jurys are there to protect it. If there was a bench trial 99% of the time the defendant would be found guilty. Trust me, it's better to have a jury.

I'm not sure if this is a simple way to put it, but imo every time the accused walks, it's 100% on the prosecutor.

St0rmFury posted...

I'm not sure if this is a simple way to put it, but imo every time the accused walks, it's 100% on the prosecutor.

sometimes you just get bad cases or the jury feels sympathetic, there are things you can't account for. a prosecutor could have the worlds best case but a jury can still choose to acquit or not reach a verdict.

St0rmFury posted...

I'm not sure if this is a simple way to put it, but imo every time the accused walks, it's 100% on the prosecutor.

Nah. Jurors are subject to groupthink. Put 12 strangers in a room together and who knows what rabbit holes they'll wander down. You can never predict what a jury will do. Great cases get lost. Weak cases end up getting won. It's a weird system we have tbh.

This is just my opinion (or maybe there's a study out there for this idk), but I feel like when someone is told that a stranger did something, they're more likely to believe that the stranger did do it until they're provided evidence (or lack there of) that says otherwise, rather than the other way around.

This topic is creepy. Everyone did their job. You don't always get the verdict you want. Guilty walk, innocent people go to jail. Justice is rarely served. Let's not make anything more of it then it is.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

strawman argument

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Person without evidence goes to prison. Some time later evidence emerges that the person who was sentenced was not at scene of crime or something similar.

Your justice complex put someone innocent in prison.

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

This topic is creepy. Everyone did their job. You don't always get the verdict you want. Guilty walk, innocent people go to jail. Justice is rarely served. Let's not make anything more of it then it is.

I remember watching the Casey Anthony trial live stream =(

You work for the court? Or are you a gallery chaser?

kage_53 posted...

strawman argument

I can already tell this is going to be exhausting.

Cornmuffins posted...

You work for the court? Or are you a gallery chaser?

work