- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
The large-scale reasons, ideologue "activist" judges and bribes don't need much attention beyond the obvious. My thoughts are focused at ghd moment on details.
A few examples:
1. The Indiana Constitution specifically authorizes jurors to judge both the facts and the law yet juries are routinely instructed that they are obligated to return a guilty verdict if a certain poing is proven within a certain standard of evidence.
2. Witnesses including defendants are legally required to tell the truth in its entirety yet the evidence (and laws for that matter) that the jurors are allowed to hear are often heavily curated.
3. There is no means for jurors to submit questions which have not been addressed. Personally, as a juror, I would put the monkey on the prosecution's back but plenty of potential jurors would fail to see unaddressed questions as reasonable doubt.
A few examples:
1. The Indiana Constitution specifically authorizes jurors to judge both the facts and the law yet juries are routinely instructed that they are obligated to return a guilty verdict if a certain poing is proven within a certain standard of evidence.
2. Witnesses including defendants are legally required to tell the truth in its entirety yet the evidence (and laws for that matter) that the jurors are allowed to hear are often heavily curated.
3. There is no means for jurors to submit questions which have not been addressed. Personally, as a juror, I would put the monkey on the prosecution's back but plenty of potential jurors would fail to see unaddressed questions as reasonable doubt.
