Conference back40::soapbox

    i've been there, in a murder trial, as the defense's red herring
    witness to create some reasonable doubt - which smacks awfully of the
    position in which bailey is placing fuhrman, although at least the
    prosecution got to call him.
    
    it really sucks.  it is nerve-racking.  it is frustrating.  it is as
    intensely antagonistic an encounter as i've ever had in my life.  i
    probably sweated off a couple of pounds while i was on the stand, and i
    was only there for less than half an hour.

  I had the experience once of sitting in the jury box for a drunk driving
trial trying to decide who was lying, who was telling the truth, and filtering
through the smoke being tossed up by both sides. 

  It's weird. In the back of your mind something is telling you "you're the
jury, you should be able to figure this out" but of course you don't know any
more sitting in that box than you would anywhere else. 

  Because of where I was sitting, I was the foreman. At one point during the
deliberation one of the jurors said she thought the witness was lying because
he was nervous. I said I wouldn't rely too heavily on that because I was
nervous about the fact I had to stand up and recite the verdict. 

  George

	George, did that mean because you were nervous you were lying in this
womans eyes????? :-)

	And were you a dictator foreman or a democracy laced one???? 

	If the latter, did you have Steve Leech as one of your FF's??? :-)

    
    
>I can see the strategy is to just wear the guy down to hamburger! 
    
    	HEY! Leave Amos out of this!
    
    

RE               <<< Note 340.3 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	And were you a dictator foreman or a democracy laced one???? 

  Forced Democracy. I made each juror say something about each witness whether
they wanted to or not. Also I wouldn't allow a straw vote or any comments about
guilt or innocence until after all the evidence had been discussed. 

  Finally after about 1.5 hrs we voted and it was 5-1 to convict. Rather than
having the lone person identify themselves I had everyone take a 5 minute break
and we voted again with the understanding that if we were not unanimous we'd
have to argue it out. 

  We voted a 2nd time and it was 6-0 to convict. 

  George

    
    	what happens if someone won't listen to the foreman? Seriously?
    
    jim (who's served on a jury, but always had cool foreman)
    
    

  The foreman has no real authority. They suggest that the foreman preside over
the deliberation but if someone really wants to do things a different way and
the rest of the jury goes along then that's just the way it goes.

  George

    George's reaction is not uncommon according to a judge sitting in
    on Giraldo's CNBC show.  She said polls indicate that most jurors
    think all will be made crystal clear to them and they shouldn't
    have any problems reaching a decision.  Apparently the poll in-
    dicated that many people think it would be like taking a test or
    filling out a form; you answer, total everything up and you have
    a solution.  Most are very surprised when it isn't this simple or
    clear cut.
    
    I agree with something else George said today; for those of us
    interested and follow the proceedings, we have the advantage of
    some of the best legal minds in the country (assuming you avoid
    the tabloid shows).  Whether or not I agree with some of the
    attorneys, many have some fairly unique methods of assessing the
    situation.
    
    I still question Bailey's style for this scenario.  Sure his cross
    could be mind numbing for Fuhrman, but IMHO Bailey is also running
    the risk of numbing the juror's minds.
    

    What if you don't have cool foreman?  You should have seen the
    emotional condition of some of the jurors who sat on Curtis Rower's
    jury (guy who taped a confession, but verdict not rendered).
    
    The day before a jury declared themselves hopelessly deadlocked, one
    woman was take from the courthouse to the hospital and another juror
    was taken to the hospital later that evening.  Reports indicated that
    both juror's illnesses were chalked up to stress. Emotions apparently
    ran so high that people in the area outside the jury room could hear
    yelling and shouting many times.  One female juror was in tears after
    the judge declared the mistrial, probably not an uncommon reaction.
                                                                      

    Interesting comments so far, as for Baily's style, I agree by the time
    he is "finished" with Furman, I don't doubt even Furman will really 
    be convinced he did something totally different than he previously
    testified. Baily is one cagey SOB. 
    
    Wonder just when Furman will "crack"? 
    
    But as previously mentioned, his line of questioning may be too intense 
    for the jury to really get a handle on what information is really 
    relevant to the case.
    
    I feel the worst is yet to come for Furman. Especially when the ladies
    from the Marine recruiting station testify. That ought to be fun! Hard
    to believe he can't remember meeting that lady!
    
      

    Friend of mine had to testify in court yesterday in a financial
    malfeasance/embezzlement type case...
    
    Upon asking him how it went yesterday, he replied with a very
    expressive grunt.  I told him "It could be worse.  Just be thankful
    your name isn't Mark Furman!"  It took him a second, but he got the
    joke, and felt better.
    
    Court is *always* a less than fun experience, if you ask me.  Too much
    stress.
    
    M.
    

    Some of us have experience in the 'Box courtroom.
    
    ME

    
    Everyone seems to feel that Furman will "crack". I don't see any of
    those signs. Furman is probably better equipped than most ordinary
    citizens to withstand Bailey's attack. As a police officer he has
    probably been in court many times and has undergone this kind of assault
    by sleazy defense attorneys trying to get their slime ball clients off the
    hook. The prosecution knew what was coming and based on Furman's performance
    so far they have done a good job preparing him to handle it. I think Bailey
    has over-estimated his ability to get Furman to admit to something he did 
    not do. Bailey and his fellow blood suckers haven't even been able to get 
    their own defense witnesses to be consistent or believeable. Will Furman 
    sweat? Sure he will. Will he crack? Probably not. Furman seems too well
    armed with the truth of the evidence to give the defense that
    satisfaction.   
    
    So far none of the defense witnesses have turned out to be
    credible. Bailey himself appears to be caught in a lie regarding his alleged
    conversation with a marine who supposedly was racially victimized by
    Furman. A TV interview with that marine discloses that he has never even
    spoken with Bailey. None of the supposed defense witnesses seem anxious
    to testify; obviously it's easier lying to the tabloids for money than to 
    commit purjury in court. The "eye-witness" maid Rosa was caught in a
    lie on the stand and turned out to be a very poor witness when she
    couldn't even remember the time she observed the Bronco. 
    
    One would think that for all the money OJ is laying out for his defense
    that his lawyers could afford to buy more credible witnesses than what
    they have produced so far. 
    
    I have never had to testify but have served on a fair number of juries,
    listened to testimony, and observed the heat put on witnesses by
    attorneys. Bailey's tactics remind me of a defense attorney's
    questioning a rape victim. They try to destroy the character of the victim 
    and make their client appear to be a innocent choir boy.
	

Oh goody.  Another OJ topic.

>Oh goody.  Another OJ topic.

How about that Florida Citrus Commission?  Are they wacky or what?

| <<< Note 340.5 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

| Forced Democracy. 

	Using scare tactics sound more like it didn't have much to do with
democracy..... :-)

    
    As with George, I too served as a jury foreman on a rape, armed robbery
    trial, and it wasn't a fun time. We did convict the defendant after
    deliberating for 40 minutes.
    
    Mark

RE    <<< Note 340.9 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    What if you don't have cool foreman?  You should have seen the
>    emotional condition of some of the jurors who sat on Curtis Rower's
>    jury (guy who taped a confession, but verdict not rendered).

  This is not really that big a deal. First of all, it rarely happens. Second,
those juries are often deadlocked and odds are the next jury won't have that
problem.

  No one saying the system is perfect. But try to identify a system anywhere
in the world that is clearly better.
    
  George

    
      Gee, George.  I'm speechless.  I'd have trouble thinking of one
     that works worse, by my lights.
    
      Everything possible is wrong with our system.  There is little or
     no justice in small matters.  We are horrendously inefficient, unfair,
     inconsistent.  We spend a greater % of GDP than any country in
     history.  Both the people and politicians, who clamor to overhaul
     this nightmare mess we call a justice system, are blocked by a secret
     legal lobbying cartel, the Trial Lawyers' Association, with the
     largest lobbying budget in the country.  The majority of our
     politicians are lawyers, a condition uniquely American.
    
      It would be hard to design a worse system if you tried.
    
      bb

    George,
    
    When a juror holds out after watching a videotape of the defendant
    CONFESSING to the murder; then something is wrong with our system
    of justice!!!
    
    

RE                      <<< Note 340.19 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>      Everything possible is wrong with our system.  There is little or
>     no justice in small matters.  We are horrendously inefficient, unfair,
>     inconsistent.  We spend a greater % of GDP than any country in
>     history.  

  Was it Mark Twain or Will Rogers who said something to the effect that
Democracy (and he was using it in the general sense) was a terrible form
of government but no one has ever found anything that works better.

  Sure, problems happen all the time. So show me a better system.

>Both the people and politicians, who clamor to overhaul
>     this nightmare mess we call a justice system, are blocked by a secret
>     legal lobbying cartel, the Trial Lawyers' Association, with the
>     largest lobbying budget in the country.  The majority of our
>     politicians are lawyers, a condition uniquely American.

  Secret cartel? Let me guess, they are the ones looking out through that
eye on everyone's one dollar bill. Well since I live with a trial lawyer no
doubt I'll soon be looking out through that dollar bill as well. In fact,
maybe I all ready am. Yes, that's the ticket, I'm already part of this giant
conspiracy.

  Big problem we are having now looking out through all those eyes on the backs
of dollar bills is that most people keep their wallet in their back pocket
which means we get the 1st look at all the krap as it gets generated such
as evil conspiracy theories.

>      It would be hard to design a worse system if you tried.
    
  How about Nazi Germany where an entire race of people were rounded up and
gassed? How about the Stalin purges in which some 20 million people were
murdered? How about Chili, Cuba, or Iraq? Would you really rather see those
types of systems than the one we've got? If what you are saying is true and
ours is the worst, those must be better.

  George

RE    <<< Note 340.20 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    When a juror holds out after watching a videotape of the defendant
>    CONFESSING to the murder; then something is wrong with our system
>    of justice!!!
    
  During the Vietnam war American Pilots were video taped "confessing" to have
committed crimes against the people of North Vietnam. So where they guilty?
They confessed and it's on tape.

  Does Vietnam have a better system of justice that the United States?

  George

>                      <<< Note 340.0 by TRACTR::WINANS >>>

>    While watching the cross-examm of Detective Furman in the Orange Juice
>    trial, I couldn't help but feel the heat being applied by attorney 
>    Baily. I can see the strategy is to just wear the guy down to hamburger! 
                                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
I wasn't there, I don't own a white bronco, I don't have any bloody gloves

nor did I ever rent a hertz car.

A. Hamburger


:-} ;-} :-} :-}

    Yes, I have had to testify in court (being the victim of a violent
    crime) and yes, I had some dirt bag lawyer try to get me to admit that
    I was lying which I was not.  Anyway, it was a long afternoon and the
    lawyer tried to find the inconsistancies in my testimony.  Yes, he did
    trip me up some times (confusing to say the least) I was 23 at the 
    time but I just told the truth and in the end I won my case.  The defense
    lawyer was b*llh*t to say the least, and his dirt bag client ended up
    doing his time.  Too bad (NOT!) 
    
    
    
    

Courtroom experience in two roles: as a witness in a friend's divorce
proceedings, and as a juror.

The divorce proceeding was not pleasant. The wife (who was suing for
divorce) was involved with her shrink. The shrink was originally engaged
for marriage counseling, ended up blaming everything on the husband (my
friend). The shrink is married to a judge. The judge sitting on the case
would not let me or anyone else mention the "involvement" with the
shrink, although there was (and is) clear evidence of what was going on.
She got the elevator, he got the shaft.

Sat on three criminal trials as juror:

        B & E (guilty)
        ADW during robbery (guilty)
        Felonious sexual assault on female under 12 (not guilty)
        
In the sexual assault case, all the evidence pointed to guilt. There had
been earlier related convictions  (multiple family members assaulted the
little girl). The girl remembered details of multiple incidents, times
(she tied them to when certain cartoons were on TV), days ("mommy takes me
to dance lessons on Tuesday, so it was the next day"...), what the
accused did (gruesome).

But - the defense lawyer successfully planted the seed of doubt, and the
law says you can only find guilty if there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT. How
did he do it? He skillfully caused confusion, then built his case around
the girl confusing the family members, and the next step was "maybe it
wasn't him at all."

Almost:

        Carjacking, possession of automatic weapon, possession
        of crack cocaine, kidnapping (excused on peremptory challenge)
        
Art

    George,  re; USAF pilots confessing... ummm duress, maybe?

RE                    <<< Note 340.26 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    George,  re; USAF pilots confessing... ummm duress, maybe?

  Well that's what I would say but there are people here claiming that once
someone has confessed, there should be no question as to their guilt.

  Better chat with them,
  George

    My father talks about a lot courts.  He is regularly called as an
    expert witness.  As a neurosurgeon they usually relate to head wounds. 
    His "job" in courst is to repeat his report out loud around four times
    and then go home.  This is very boring, the judge is bored, the jury is
    bored and the jealous ex-boyfriend found outside by half a dozen
    carrier uniforn cops with a blood soaked baseball bat in his hand
    really did do it.
    
    RE:  .18, another system.  The French one has some advantage.  I
    believe it is called inquisitorial as opposed to advacerial (sp?)
    The examining magistrate (a carrier law giver not a Tory/shire farmer
    as in the UK) has to work out what happened, seach for the truth even. 
    In the English courts (Scotland gets seriously wierd) its simply nobody
    has this task.  One buch said "they did it" and another bunch say "oh
    no they didn't"
    
    Alas, people do confess to crimes they didn't commit.  Leaving a police
    dog in the suspect cell overnight was a trick employed for a while.
    
    R. michael.
    

    re:          <<< Note 340.22 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
    
>   During the Vietnam war American Pilots were video taped "confessing"
>   to have committed crimes against the people of North Vietnam. So where 
>   they guilty?
    
    FWIW - Prior to going to Vietnam, I took a training course in 
    Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) where we were exposed to 
    a mock prisoner of war camp.  (Felt pretty real at the time)
    
    One of the strongest messages given, was get yourself on TV or
    interviewed by a member of the press, no matter what the method.
    The logic behind this was to establish your existance to the 
    outside world, so you just didn't disappear as was know to happen.
    
    So some of those videotaped "confessions" were in fact what we were
    trained to do.  (I might add, watch those tapes very carefully. Several
    instances of prisoners taping out morse code mesages, or exhibiting
    shall we say - profane body language)
    

RE                       <<< Note 340.29 by PATE::CLAPP >>>
    
>    So some of those videotaped "confessions" were in fact what we were
>    trained to do.  (I might add, watch those tapes very carefully. Several
>    instances of prisoners taping out morse code mesages, or exhibiting
>    shall we say - profane body language)
    
  Here again you are talking to the wrong guy.

  The reason I used the example of pilot confessions was to make the point that
just because someone confesses, that doesn't mean they are guilty.

  In a little but I'm sure you will hear from the group who over and over makes
the claim that once you have confessed, there is no longer any question of your
guilt.

  George

>  In a little but I'm sure you will hear from the group who over and over makes
>the claim that once you have confessed, there is no longer any question of your
>guilt.

No, George. Your point in bringing up the Viet Nam POW's was that they confessed
under duress. There is no evidence or suspicion that Susan Smith's confession
was rendered under such circumstances. Likewise there is usually little reason
to suspect this in most cases brought before American courts these days, other
than in your own mind.

RE         <<< Note 340.31 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>No, George. Your point in bringing up the Viet Nam POW's was that they confessed
>under duress. There is no evidence or suspicion that Susan Smith's confession
>was rendered under such circumstances. Likewise there is usually little reason
>to suspect this in most cases brought before American courts these days, other
>than in your own mind.

  How do you know under what conditions a confession was extracted? Were you
there?

  George

>  How do you know under what conditions a confession was extracted? Were you
>there?
>
>  George

When the person confesses, identifies the location of the car, and describes
the manner in which the children died (trying to get out of the locked car)
the is no doubt.

Doug.

RE    <<< Note 340.33 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>

>When the person confesses, identifies the location of the car, and describes
>the manner in which the children died (trying to get out of the locked car)
>the is no doubt.

  How do you know someone didn't find the car, tell her the facts, then coerce
a confession?

  Were you there?

  Do you know these people?

>                             -< Wasted energy ... >-

  That's for sure,
  George