The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Financial Planning / Tax Strategies

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/i-always-thought-that-criminal-cases-you-needed-24302318.aspx

Subject:  Re: The Cost Basis Crisis Date:  7/4/2006  10:27 AM
Author:  JeanDavid Number:  87680 of 121316

I always thought that criminal cases you needed to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and with civil cases you simply need to have a preponderance of evidence.

I thought so, too. The law saw this as such a trivial case that the jury consisted of only 6 jurors, not the usual 12. But the defendent was accused of robbery for which the sentence could be from 5 to 7 years in jail. I would call anything that resulted in a prison term for other than contempt of court a criminal case.

But IMAO, it makes no difference in the case in question. I did the wrong thing by voting, eventually, to convict when I did not believe the prosecutor proved the case. But try sitting in the jury room with a unanimous (other than me) angry people who would not speak to me and would not listen to anything I had to say, who wanted to go about their regular business, and did not care about the minor injustice of sending an innnocent man to prison.

In Twelve Angry Men, at least the jury were on speaking terms (and eventually acquitted the defendent). On my jury, one was doing business on her cell phone even though the judge prohibited cell phones and beepers in the jury room. They did not want to be there and I was holding them up.
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us