National Socialist Democrat Jurors Hang Jury in Edwards Case

Because of the… We got nuthin’.

OK, them’s the rules of the justice system. If a juror or jurors decide that party fanaticism goes before justice, then they can hang the process to get their preferred result, facts and evidence be damned.

It’s just the way it is.

Something to keep in mind for future conservative jurors, though.

Sauce for the goose and all that…

No, we don’t really give a fuck. They picked the rulebook they want to play by, we’ll be happy to comply.

Thatisall.

20 comments

  1. 1
    Travis growls and barks:

    In the near future, trials will be unnecessary.

  2. 2
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    They can try him again on the counts they hung on. I would recommend that Edwards be “accidentally” exposed to a dose of radiation sufficient to cause his hair to fall out.

    Blotches on the skin would be a nice addition.

    Just to help the next jury focus on the evidence, don’t you know. :em05: :em01:
    angrywebmaster recently posted..His Royal Highness, Emperor Michael Bloomberg Hereby Decrees…My Profile

  3. 3
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    Two things ruined me for jury duty. First was hypothesis testing methods in my sadistics class. Yes, I know we are supposed to find “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but what is reasonalbe? If your answer comes out to guilty on a 95% confidence interval, that means that you could be wrong 1 time in 20. when I am fucking around with someone’s life, I need to be more certain than that. Second was Comrade Bubba Clinton. I believe the rule of law applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. Apparently, the US Senate believes that it does not apply to liberal Commucrats, as they did not bother to listen to the evidence of abuse of power in the case of Billy Jeff. The House had him dead to rights, and the Senate let him skate. It was only after he left office, the state of Arkansas disbarred him for his perjury and suborning of perjury. The Senate should have removed him from office.

  4. 4
    DJ Allyn growls and barks:

    LC Ogrrre @ #3:

    I don’t mean to pick you out personally here, but of the three comments so far, yours was the most lucid…

    Juries are made up of individuals, each thinking individually. They hear an argument and are asked to use their individual minds to come to a personal conclusion and decide that argument. Many times the argument is pretty straight forward and reaching a conclusion is a fairly easy task — acquit or convict. It might take a few hours or days for everyone to come around to the same way of thinking, or it might never happen and they cannot reconcile.

    I think I would rather have a jury that cannot come to a decision than have one who takes the easy way out. So what, they might need to have another trial in front of another jury. The truth shouldn’t take a back seat to expedience — even if it was only one or two jurors holding out on what people assume was an obvious choice.

    I haven’t heard if either side has asked for a poll of the jury to find out what the numbers were on the other five counts. Was it a majority leaning towards conviction or a majority leaning towards acquittal? What were the margins?

    I know that what Edwards did to his wife was despicable. There is no disputing any of that. He is a scoundrel of the first order. Whether any of it rose to the point of being illegal? We might like to think it is — or should be — but until a jury unanimously reaches that conclusion and convicts him, then he is still legally innocent.

    Kinda like Oliver North.

  5. 5
    LC HJ Caveman82952 growls and barks:

    I served on a jury once, a civil suit…lasted a month.
    Yes, I was driven crazy by boring testimony, even more so fighting not to fall asleep.
    But there came a time…looking at the defendants, a young couple….
    Make damn sure buddy, this will screw up their entire life….
    And in the end, I said one thing, discovering later it swayed one juror, her vote the same as mine.
    In this country tie goes to the defender…..
    Not guilty………
    Three votes no, eight yes……….
    If appropriate there are other ways of dealing with miscarriages of justice…..
    This was not one of them….
    And I would have to answer to God if I let emotion or belief cast my ballot…for better or for worse.

  6. 6
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn @ #:
    Lots of stuff snipped

    About 13 years ago I was called for Jury Duty. I didn’t try to get out of it and arrived at appointed time. For three Monday’s I sat around for a few hours until I was sent home. The 4th Monday they decided to seat a jury.

    Guess who was one of the first peremptory challenges?

    I didn’t know it at the time, but Lawyers will usually get rid of IT people if they can. We have a bad habit of both being logical and thinking for ourselves. We also tens to be rather independent as well. Not what a lawyer wants for a juror.

    The biggest problem with the judicial system is lawyers. :em07:
    angrywebmaster recently posted..His Royal Highness, Emperor Michael Bloomberg Hereby Decrees…My Profile

  7. 7
    Secondmouse growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn @ #4:

    The only similarity between Edwards and Oliver North that I can come up with is that they both stood before a judge during their lives.

    Actually, in an era where this president has shaped policy in such a way that he can now personally select the nation’s enemies, foreign and domestic, American or not, and have them targeted for assassination by drone strike without due process, North’s actions during Iran Contra seem somehow….quaint.

  8. 8
    themandownthehall growls and barks:

    Edwards was right. There really are 2 Americas. The one for rich lawyers like him and one for the rest of us! :)

  9. 9
    Bitter Clinger growls and barks:

    themandownthehall says:

    Edwards was right. There really are 2 Americas. The one for rich lawyers like him and one for the rest of us

    Bingo!! :em01:

  10. 10
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Anyone who believes Edwards $$$$ didnt affect this verdict is DELUSIONAL

  11. 11
    DJ Allyn growls and barks:

    angrywebmaster says:

    I didn’t know it at the time, but Lawyers will usually get rid of IT people if they can. We have a bad habit of both being logical and thinking for ourselves. We also tens to be rather independent as well. Not what a lawyer wants for a juror.

    I’m sure it couldn’t have been your choice for an avatar… lol :em05:

    There is an entire list of people they challenge for or without cause. There is an entire science behind jury selection, with psychologists who do background checks on prospective jurors and study body language. You can tell more about a person by what they are saying with their body language than anything that comes out of their mouth. 70 percent of communication is body language, and no matter how hard people try not to, their body language can be read like a book.

    Secondmouse says:

    The only similarity between Edwards and Oliver North that I can come up with is that they both stood before a judge during their lives.

    Yes, one was found not guilty of one charge and had a hung jury on five other counts, while the other was found guilty by a jury but had that conviction overturned by an appellate court on a judicial technicality.

    The end result is the same — both are considered innocent.

    LC Gladiator says:

    Anyone who believes Edwards $$$$ didnt affect this verdict is DELUSIONAL

    It couldn’t be that the government had a problem proving their case? Remember, the Edwards defense rested almost right away. Why? Because when a defense realizes that the government still hasn’t proven the case, it is MUCH safer to just shut up and sit down, and hand the case to the jury.

    I think that was the problem the jury had. They had one side of the case, and without the defense sticking their feet in their mouths, they didn’t really have the other. A lot of cases are lost exactly because the defense tries too hard.

    Again, the interesting thing will be when the prosecutor polls the jury on the remaining five counts to see where they were at.

    I am not sure, but wasn’t the charge he was acquitted on the more serious of the six charges? That would make a huge difference in whether the government wants to pursue the case further.

  12. 12
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    angrywebmaster @ #:
    Defense attorneys are also especially reluctant to allow psychologists or current or retired law enforcement officers onto a jury. Gee whiz, I wonder why? :-D

  13. 13
    DJ Allyn growls and barks:

    LC Ogrrre says:

    Defense attorneys are also especially reluctant to allow psychologists or current or retired law enforcement officers onto a jury. Gee whiz, I wonder why?

    Because they are biased?

    They won’t let attorneys sit on juries either. They won’t let crime victims, ex-felons, families of crime victims or ex-felons, people working in an industry that is remotely related to the case or anyone else who might have a whiff of outside experience or bias. Again, there are jury experts who are paid huge sums of money to pick juries.

    All that said, there was an interview on the Today Show this morning with three of the jurors in the case. They all felt that he was guilty, BUT that the evidence just wasn’t there to prove it.

    I know, what someone is going to say: “how in the blazes can they feel he was guilty and not vote for him to be guilty?”

    The answer is a simple one. Feeling that someone is guilty is a whole lot different than having proof that he is. If not, then why bother with a trial? Just call twelve people into a room and ask them if they “feel” he was guilty.

    They had problems with the government witness, Andrew Young. They thought he was a sleezebag who profited in this thing.

    One of the jurors said that there is enough contradiction in the current election finance laws that allowed for Edwards to get away with it. All he had to say was that he didn’t have personal knowledge of where the funds were going and leave it up to the government to prove otherwise. The government failed to prove that he knew.

    Besides, this case was a dog from the get-go. He was being tried for his knowledge of several third party payments to his mistress. None of the money was alleged to have been run directly through the campaign. The government’s star witness, Andrew Young, quickly spent the $1.8 million on stupid shit like a pool, and a home theater, and cars. The jury didn’t get to hear from the typical defense witnesses like Fred Baron, Rielle Hunter, or John Edwards. All they had was Rachel ‘Bunny’ Mellon and Andrew Young, and they were turned off by Young.

    The jury needed to be able to see evidence that John Edwards personally knew about the money being diverted from his donors to his mistress.

    Like I said, the jury having the “feeling” that Edwards knew is a whole lot different than being presented with the proof that he knew.

  14. 14

    The guy was bangin’ strange cuntmuffins simultaneously with playing the “Dying Wife” sympathy deck to his supporters and contributors.
    ‘Not against the law of course,, but for honorable folks,,that put’s him in a special category which is completely incompatible with any measure of public trust.

  15. 15
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    The law in these cases is so complex that no one can understand. And the DOJ is pretty much incompetent. John Edwards is a real moral douchebag, but the verdict was predictable. The DOJ will probably go after Zimmerman with more vehemence than they did with Edwards, anyway.

  16. 16
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    No, DJ, they don’t seat psychologists or leos on juries because they both know when they are being lied to. As you pointed out, defense lawyers hire psychologists to screen jurors by their body language. Gaia forbid that someone who can tell when they are being lied to by a witness actually be allowed on a jury! Why, a goblin might actually be convicted of something.
    I am curious about one thing, DJ. While you addressed the point about hypothesis testing and confidence intervals as applied to juries, why did you not address the fact that the Senate, instead of doing their duty and removing Comrade Bubba from office as they should have, refused to seriously consider the evidence against him. Why did it take the State of Arkansas, after Billy Jeff left office to punish him for perjury, and suborning perjury? Do you believe that those two charges just don’t rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”?

  17. 17
    Fa Cube Itches growls and barks:

    Elites almost never get convicted of anything. It’s impressive enough that he even got indicted.

  18. 18
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    Personally, I hope they treat him the same way the prosecuter in Texas treated Trent Lott.

  19. 19
    DJ Allyn growls and barks:

    LC Ogrrre says:

    I am curious about one thing, DJ. While you addressed the point about hypothesis testing and confidence intervals as applied to juries, why did you not address the fact that the Senate, instead of doing their duty and removing Comrade Bubba from office as they should have, refused to seriously consider the evidence against him.

    The Senate DID their duty. You just didn’t like the result.

    Juries — and in this case the Senate — not only have a duty to determine whether someone is guilty, but the do have a unique opportunity to determine whether they feel a crime has been committed and whether they agree with the “crime” involved.

    Time after time, a jury has decided that a defendant may have committed what the state said he did, but have let the guy go because they didn’t agree with the law itself. It’s called Jury Nullification The Senate did exactly that.

    I suspect that the Senate did that because they weren’t going to set precedence for removing a sitting president. The first one is hard, but once you do, the rest will be easy. Nobody would survive a first term after that…

  20. 20
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn says:

    Juries — and in this case the Senate — not only have a duty to determine whether someone is guilty, but the do have a unique opportunity to determine whether they feel a crime has been committed and whether they agree with the “crime” involved.

    And hey, if the crime is perjury, then you have to apply nuance to decide whether some people’s perjury is as bad as other people’s perjury.

    What’s funny is how perjury is a crime unless you have enough friends to say that it suddenly isn’t
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..Choom Ba Ya Open ThreadMy Profile