IntenseDebate - chris

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 0 replies · +1 points

"If they had shot for an offence a little lower on the scale, they could have easily proven their case."

They did. Look it up.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 0 replies · +2 points

Ok. Now link this to what you've previously claimed about circumstantial evidence.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 2 replies · +1 points

Because I'm not trying to make the constitution discuss a topic it clearly does not discuss? An odd definition of living constitution.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 4 replies · +1 points

I gave you citation as to where I got my ideas.
The constitution does not mention circumstantial evidence.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 6 replies · +1 points

All courts allow circumstantial evidence that has any relevance to the case at hand, and is not unduly prejudicial (FRE's 401 and 403). Conduct of a party may be used circumstantially to draw an adverse inference. Most evidence presented in court is circumstantial.

I have no idea where you are getting these ideas, but it certainly was not law school. Please stop tainting future jury pools, for all our interests.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 0 replies · +1 points

The prosecution included manslaughter in their charge. The jury acquitted on that as well.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 0 replies · +2 points

A homicide is just the determination, based on the totality of the evidence, that someone else caused a person's death.
For example: Say they find the skeletal remains of a person on the bottom of the ocean with their feat tied to a block of cement and their hands cuffed behind their back. Since there are no more lungs test, you wouldn't be able to determine one way or another that the person died of drowning (or stabbing, etc., as any wounds that glanced off the bone would probably be chronologically indeterminate).
But a coroner would call it a safe bet that someone else caused this death -- and hence rule it a homicide.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 3 replies · -2 points

Could you look up the meaning of "ad hominem" before attempting to make that accusation? At what point did I attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it?

Also, you're moving the goal posts. I never questioned the jury system, just these jurors. More specifically, I questioned your understanding of what constitutes reasonable doubt and your ability to serve on a jury based on that understanding. It is your belief that a specific cause of death is necessary to determine if a homicide occurred. It is a "deal breaker."
That isn't the law. Engaging in this legal analysis would mean you were advocating jury nullification, and either the judge or the prosecutor would preclude you from serving on a jury.

You may continue to misstate my contentions if you wish, but that will only make the substance of your attack on this particular issue weaker.
Now THAT's an ad hominem attack.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 0 replies · +1 points

To quibble, the ME just ruled it a homicide. It's the jury's job to decide if it's murder. The jury may disagree with the ME at their leisure, as homicide is an essential element to prove in a murder case. It's just not very reasonable for a jury to supplant their opinion for an ME's in this kind of case. Especially in light of the entirety of the evidence presented.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Casey Anthony: The Bu... · 5 replies · -4 points

Do you know that a coroner isn't a "corner"? Since you used the word "corner" twice now I will assume it isn't just a typo, and you really think that's what they're called. So maybe watch out on the intelligence aspersion next time.

As to the substance... I'm just a guy who happens to know that your beliefs would disqualify you to serve on a jury. Any prosecutor worth their salt your use a preliminary on you, because you refuse to even attempt to understand the law.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with chris_e

People I'm following

chris_e