Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Friday, August 20, 2004
The press seemed to make a big deal about Oprah Winfrey serving on a jury. Then they went on and on about how the defendant was found guilty of first degree murder. If I were this guy's lawyer, I'd be ecstatic! Think about it. You have a jury of his peers (yeah, right), who took a whole two hours to convict him. Oprah Winfrey was on the jury. Now would it really be a big stretch of the imagination to think that some of the people on that jury voted to convict just because she did? Celebrity worship is rampant in this nation. He should be able to get an appeal fairly easily. It should take more than two hours to sentence a man to spend the rest of his life in prison. But that's just my opinion.
Comments:
"It should take more than two hours to sentence a man to spend the rest of his life in prison."
Well, doesn't it also depend on how compelling the evidence is? If the evidence is overwhelming, it would be contrary to the sixth amendment (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.) to deliberate for hours upon hours when it is not necessary. Also note that the afore mentioned amendment does not mention a jury of his/her peers.
Now would it really be a big stretch of the imagination to think that some of the people on that jury voted to convict just because she did?I would imagine that the foreperson would have realized that this could happen and may have offset that risk by taking a secret ballot. It wouldn't be impossible to think that some might not want to vote to convict simply because Oprah wanted to convict. Not every soul is sold on Oprah.
But, this is just my opinion.
Well, doesn't it also depend on how compelling the evidence is? If the evidence is overwhelming, it would be contrary to the sixth amendment (In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.) to deliberate for hours upon hours when it is not necessary. Also note that the afore mentioned amendment does not mention a jury of his/her peers.
Now would it really be a big stretch of the imagination to think that some of the people on that jury voted to convict just because she did?I would imagine that the foreperson would have realized that this could happen and may have offset that risk by taking a secret ballot. It wouldn't be impossible to think that some might not want to vote to convict simply because Oprah wanted to convict. Not every soul is sold on Oprah.
But, this is just my opinion.
I see your point. However, a trial lasting several days should have extensive evidence. There should not be a vote until that evidence was first discussed thoroughly. That should take a bit of time all by itself. I'm not saying it's impossible, there could have been a detailed confession involved. But it just seems too short a time to have covered the evidence completely.
Post a Comment
