----- Original Message -----
From: "Wuensch, Karl L" <[email protected]>
This sort of reasoning is distressingly common. I served on a jury where
the evidence against the defendant was far from convincing. One juror,
college educated, could not be persuaded that the defendant was not guilty.
I asked him what his subjective probability was that the defendant was
guilty -- he responded "50-50, either he did it or he did not do it." Then
I asked him if he understood what the judge was saying about "beyond a
reasonable doubt." His angry response was "if he were not guilty he would
not be on trial." Think twice before asking for a jury trial in North
Carolina.
Cheers,
Karl W.
If my monastic memory serves me correctly,wasn't there a Jewish group named
the Sanhedrin who thought that if there was a unanimous verdict something
must be wrong with that verdict?
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
