Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Linda :)
I think the jury is paying attention, and that is going to be a problem
for the defense, to me it's unreasonable to think a women who was
smaller than Yolanda and shorter was able to overpower her and kill her
and the four kids, yet it is something I can easily see Rico being able
to do. IMHO Rico has confessed, every thing he did after that crime
reeked of a man who killed. I think if this jury uses common sense they
will see it also, especially having his own mother testify against him.
I know that was most likely the hardest thing in the world for her to
do, and I feel sorry for her, but she told the truth. Yet after
yesterdays testimony and all involved I had a real hard time with this
case thinking of these children and what they went through along with
the mother before they died.
The question of reasonable doubt, it's one I ponder quite a bit when
looking at these cases and watching them. What do I consider reasonable
compared to another? It's a very hard thing to explain to another. Yet
this is the way I look at the cases I watch.
When the DA is finished with their case I should feel like the accused
is guilty, if I don't feel that I have reasonable doubt before the
defense has even said one word. And I would not convict, I felt that
with the Budzyn case, I was not convinced of anything with him, Now they
completely convinced me Nevers was guilty.
When the defense comes up and shows me their case I will expect them to
raise the possibility that I am wrong, and to put on good enough case
that I will question myself and what I felt. Thus they raise reasonable
doubt. Now the question comes into mind, what if they only raise
reasonable doubt in one area? Do I then say the person isn't guilty and
not vote guilty? No, what I then look at is the whole pictures not just
one little piece of it, could I live with convicting this person? If I
feel I could I would but if I had a doubt about that no I would not
convict.
Hung Jury. Well I don't believe in those, my feelings are if you have a
hung jury you have lawyers on both sides that failed to do their job.
The DA didn't have enough evidence or was not good enough to convince a
jury of his guilt, and the defense also dropped the ball and was not
good enough to convince the jury his client was innocent. A hung jury is
something both sides should be ashamed about IMO.
Now I probably told you more than you ever wanted to know LOL
dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.] wrote:
>
> "dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> :) Echo your feelings, Kathy -- which is why I posted the 'OTOH'. It's
> such a strong if melodramatic move to accuse someone else, not a missing
> person suspect, but an actual located and presented person (ha, indeed,
> the allegedly jealous other woman!). I wonder what the probabilities are
> here. Do you think the jury might say, it's a game, but yet it
> introduces reasonable doubt? Hope to hear your view;
> cheers, :) LDMF.
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
