jury

The jury__ still out on your level of intellect. After all, you signed up with Evil Incorporated in the first place.

We don__ yet have a body of scientific knowledge about evil to be called a facet of psychology. Therefore, religious reasoning for actions will always be at the discretion of the psychologist, thus making them the judge and jury over what is delusion and what is a spiritual experience that has to be sedated.

Mr Judge, Jury & Executioner of Micah Xavier Johnson_ needs to go to jail as soon as possible _ he is a danger to civilized society.

Having vision is much more than just being visual.

The book argues that even though many cases have been held up as classic examples of modern American __itch hunts,_ none of them fits that description. McMartin certainly comes close. But a careful examination of the evidence presented at trial demonstrates why, in my view, a reasonable juror could vote for conviction, as many did in this case. Other cases that have been painted as witch-hunts turn out to involve significant, even overwhelming, evidence of guilt. There are a few cases to the contrary, but even those are more complicated than the witch-hunt narrative allows. In short, there was not, by any reasonable measure, an epidemic of __itch hunts_ in the 1980s. There were big mistakes made in how some cases were handled, particularly in the earliest years. But even in those years there were cases such as those of Frank Fuster and Kelly Michaels that, I believe, were based on substantial evidence but later unfairly maligned as having no evidentiary support.

Women are like a living, breathing casinoLike a judge and juryThey sense everythingThey sense what you try to hideThey sense your weaknessesThey sense your power levelsOne must be patientOne must listenWatchAnd waitBefore one strikes

A jury is composed of twelve men of average ignorance.

Are you good men and true?

The jury passing on the prisoner's life May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two Guiltier than him they try.

The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty and a premium upon ignorance stupidity and perjury.

But in the absence of eye-witness there's always a doubt, sometimes only the shadow of a doubt. The law says 'reasonable doubt', but I think a defendant's entitled to the shadow of doubt. There's always the possibility, no matter how improbable, that he's innocent.

There were eleven votes for "guilty." It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.

When in court, the primary role of lawyers is not to prove or disprove innocence; unbeknown to almost all lawyers and their clients, it is to save the court time.

Even though the Judge would charge the jury that they should listen to all the evidence before they made up their minds, the chances were likely that 100% of them will have already decided if William was guilty or not before the trial was over.

It was ridiculous to think that twelve people could __urn off_ all their biases and prejudices and make a logical decision based on the evidence they were allowed to hear in the trial.

The jury system was somewhat of an anomaly, like everything else in the law.

Since most law-abiding citizens had no contact with the parole system, it was not a priority with the state legislatures. And since most of the state's prisoners were either poor or black, and unable to use the system to their advantage, it was easy to hit them with harsh sentences and keep them locked up. But for an inmate with a few connections and some cash, the parole system was a marvelous labyrinth of contradictory laws that allowed the Parole Board to pass out favors.

Emotions are reserved for juries and, in that case, a good lawyer can really lay them on when the time is right, better than the best Academy Award winning actor