"USA"  wrote in message
news:fd3c1153962bef21efalqirntu3rdkg6eg{at}4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:05:51 +1100, "suckmysav"

> wrote:
>
> >Lets take a stab at the scenario here. The trial has finished and the
jury is out
> >deliberating on their verdict. At least one of the
"impartial" jurors is
some sort
> >of manhating feminist, and it would appear that she was having trouble
convincing
> >the other jurors to come up with the guilty verdict that she required of
them.
> >Clearly she needed to do something, and that something was to broaden the
> >definition of rape, just like all good feminists do. So, this castrating
bitch
> >jumps onto her most favourite internet source of anti-man propaganda and
downloads
> >"The Feminist Position on Rape" and proceeds to beat the
other jurors on
the head
> >with it until they tired of fighting and came up with the giulty verdict
that this
> >bitch required.
>
> I don't know the law in Australia (I think this was Australia) but in
> the US jurors cannot deliberate on anything other than what was
> introduced in court in the course of the trial.
>
> IIRC one juror in the Scott Peterson trial was dismissed during
> deliberations because she told other jurors she'd been conducting her
> own internet searches to verify information that was presented during
> the trial.  Also, in the US the judge gives jury instructions that are
> usually very specific as to how the jury is to consider the evidence
> presented.

And a juror may disregard a Judge's jury instructions and vote any way he
chooses. In fact, he does not have to deliberate at all and can just sit
there and vote. I have never voted to convict any man, it's ALWAYS not
guilty. I emphasize the exculpatory evidence and point out the weakness of
the prosecutor's case. When a female is on trial I emphasize the
prosecutor's strong case  haha And I'm not stupid enough to do things to get
thrown off the jury:o) You can't be thrown off simply because you see things
 differently than the other 11 jurors.



>
> I'm surprised the law isn't the same or similar in Australia as I
> believe (I'm not a lawyer) that both US and Australia's legal systems
> are based on English Common Law.  In the US I believe this would have
> ended as a mistrial.
>
> Personally I think the feminist juror should have been charged with
> juror misconduct but being that she is a poor little woman, that would
> never happen in the US either.
> >
> >And so another man ends up in prison.

Men won't end up in prison if people accepted jury duty and not leave it up
to bored housewives and stupid people with no lives who couldn't get out of
jury duty. When you called don't try to get out of it and remember that you
have more power as a juror than as a voter.

> >
> >How fucking beautiful. He's just lucky the stupid cow left the paperwork
behind
> >when she left the scene of the crime.
> >
> >
> >http://www.theregister.com/2005/02/17/retrial_net_documents/
> >
> >Net downloads prompt retrial in rape case
> >A rape conviction has been overturned by appeal judges and a retrial
ordered,
> >after a juror apparently downloaded related documents from the web.
> >
> >According to reports, the judges ruled that the conviction was unsafe,
after the
> >documents were found in the jury room. Jury members could have been
influenced by
> >the documents, the judges said
> >
> >The downloaded material was found by a bailiff after the conviction in
November
> >2003. One documents was called The Feminist Position on Rape and the
other,
> >downloaded from the Colchester Rape Crisis line, was entitled Rape and
the
> >Criminal Justice System.
> >
> >In a written statement, Lord Justice Judge said that the internet has
many
> >benefits, and this ruling should not diminish its value. However, "Just
as a juror
> >should not speak about a case to anyone other than another juror, and for
> >precisely the same reason of principle, he or she should not conduct
private
> >research for information which may have a bearing on the trial."
> >
> >Jurors considering extraneous information from the internet contravenes
two well
> >established legal principles, he continued, and if the material had
influenced
> >thier thinking, the verdict returned could not be considered a true
verdict.
> >
> >"The first is open justice, that the defendant in particular, but the
public too,
> >is entitled to know of the evidential material considered by the
decision-making
> >body. This leads to the second principle, the entitlement of both the
prosecution
> >and the defence to a fair opportunity to address all the material
considered by
> >the jury when reaching its verdict."
> >
> >"Of course, not every site is always right. Some sites seek
to persuade.
The
> >contents of some are inconsistent with the assertions made in another.
The
> >internet cannot discuss the case. It can, however, provide material which
may
> >influence a juror's views. If used for research purposes during the trial
it can
> >just as easily influence the juror's mind as a discussion with a friend
or
> >neighbour."
> >
> >No date has been set for the retrial. ®
> >
> >.
> >
> >
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/19/05 5:24:44 AM ---