Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guilty until proven innocent, and if that there persecutor brought the charges there ain't no way he's innocent!
I'll settle for jurists who don't automatically assume guilt just because a persecutor decided to bring charges...
You are missing the larger point. Somehow, this does not surprise me...Even been on a jury in GA? Unfortunately, many people actually think like him. "If they investigated and brought charges, he MUST be guilty, because innocent people don't get arrested"! FRY THE BASTARD!!!
You would'nt need to "burn any challenges", whatever that means. During jury selection, objections to a particular juror by either side routinely result in the exclusion of that juror.. Especially in murder cases.
Never heard of it. Thanks for the reference. I guess you would need to burn one; just like your friend who allegedly burned that man to death while he slept...No way! Seriously?
I assumed that someone with such an intimate knowledge of the criminal judicial system would likely be familiar with the concept of "peremptory challenges" but then again you know what happens when you assume...
Here's your sign... And a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge
Never heard of it. Thanks for the reference. I guess you would need to burn one; just like your friend who allegedly burned that man to death while he slept...
That's really the point. All kidding aside, if I were on the jury, I would listen to the evidence to determine a verdict. My point is that probability is not on the defendant's side. Stating this fact does not mean he is declared guilty.DA's don't really pursue cases the office can't win. They have to demonstrate a high conviction rate. Most are SO overloaded they don't have time to screw with any cases where there won't be a plea bargain, or the outcome is questionable.
Innocent until proven guilty.
But then again, my expertise IS in thoracic surgery.
Yes. The verdict is in, and it's a unanimous decision. You are hereby guilty of being a clueless dolt...What was that phrase you used? Oh yeah, "you are a clueless dolt..."
That's really the point. All kidding aside, if I were on the jury, I would listen to the evidence to determine a verdict. My point is that probability is not on the defendant's side. Stating this fact does not mean he is declared guilty.
Yes. The verdict is in, and it's a unanimous decision. You are hereby guilty of being a clueless dolt...
Actually, upon further review, I am familiar with the concept of peremptory challenges, because that's precisely what I described. I was just unfamiliar with the legal term. I guess I do have an intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system. Therefore, your assumptions are well founded. Don't beat yourself up. We all make mistakes.No way! Seriously?
I assumed that someone with such an intimate knowledge of the criminal judicial system would likely be familiar with the concept of "peremptory challenges" but then again you know what happens when you assume...
Here's your sign... And a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge
Actually, upon further review, I am familiar with the concept of peremptory challenges, because that's precisely what I described. I was just unfamiliar with the legal term. I guess I do have an intimate knowledge of the criminal justice system. Therefore, your assumptions are well founded. Don't beat yourself up. We all make mistakes.
I'll get right on it. I do need to get up. I think I'll make some tacos.Hey, go and clean out your garage or something! ;-)
A few are innocent, (like OJ).