The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Financial Planning / Tax Strategies
|Subject: Re: The Cost Basis Crisis||Date: 7/13/2006 10:35 PM|
|Author: DeltaOne81||Number: 87782 of 125005|
One of the jurors said that, but I did not think the juror was necessarily right, and I did not understand the distinction anyway. That is why we asked the judge to clarify the issue, but his clarification did not really clarify anything.
Thats because you asked the wrong question. The question wasn't to define the two, but to ask which is applicable here, and to define that one.
The answer, as you probably know now, is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The definitions are fuzzy because they're concepts, not mathematical formulas.
I was on a jury in New Haven in the summer of 2001. Convicted a man of quite a serious crime. The judge definitely should have given you jury instructions. Explaining the law and the standard you had to meet. And in the oddness of your case, absolutely should have made clear that lack of a defense is *not* evidence is not to be considered as such. Not doing so would have most certainly been grounds for appeal. Either that, or you guys just weren't paying attention.
Glad to say the jury I was on took it seriously, although the matter required as much. And I'm sure we did exactly the right thing considering everything in front of us.
Something that bugged me was I saw a blurb about the case in a paper the next day (it wasn't a famous case or anything, but it got a blurb apparently). They said we deliberated for 'less than 5 hours'. First, 5 hours is a long time, especially when the case was relatively open and shut (not entirely obviously, but after some discussion, it became pretty clear to us all). Second, there was a weekend in the middle of it, during which we were all undoubtedly thinking about it very much.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|