Lisa loves Pooh
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 40,449
Casey Jordan also said it might be helpful if potential jurors were required to attend some type of seminar. Of course, Sunny Hostin took issue with that and accused Casey Jordan of calling the jurors "stupid". It seems that to Sunny Hostin, the jurors are untouchable - that we have no right to question or criticize their decision. I'd love to ask Ms. Hostin this question: if it came out that, for example, a particular juror was trying to force a quick decision in order to go on a vacation, would she still feel that the juror was above reproach? Is there any juror conduct that she would criticize?
She would not be saying this is she was found guilty.
If people have to decided based on LAW...
I do think some coaching is in order.
Think of how many people are ticked off at the McD's lawsuit. (yes, I realize that is not a criminal suit--but similar idea). I can see both sides--but the evidence is particularly in the plaintiff's favor.
Think of if people decided to ignore the law and just feel that the woman was stupid and it's her own fault?
Well the jury found fault because they followed the law and found the evidence met the criteria necessary to find McD's at fault. They were not swayed by a "well of course Coffee is hot defense".
What happened in this case was a "we must not trust George defense". And the jury bought it without following the law.
Educating jurors is not a bad idea. I do not know how that would be done. Baez would object that it is inflammatory to his client.