Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is what Alan Dershowitz is effectively suggesting.
Dershowitz shouldn't be "suggesting" anything without proof. But Fox doesn't demand proof for anything they broadcast so I understand why he doesn't feel the need.
If he has any evidence whatsoever that the jury acted out of fear and not on the merits of the case let him show it. Otherwise he is spreading fake news.
But again, he's on Fox, where fake news is the only kind they broadcast.
Dershowitz shouldn't be "suggesting" anything without proof. But Fox doesn't demand proof for anything they broadcast so I understand why he doesn't feel the need.
If he has any evidence whatsoever that the jury acted out of fear and not on the merits of the case let him show it. Otherwise he is spreading fake news.
But again, he's on Fox, where fake news is the only kind they broadcast.
Proof according to who? You?
Professor Dershowitz is an widely recognized expert in these sorts of issues, and followed the trial and the related events carefully. He saw the evidence that the trial was not conducted fairly, some of which he noted in his quotes, which were contained in the article in the OP.
Dershowitz believes there is sufficient evidence to expect this verdict to be overturned. And he does not have to check with you on that before expressing his opinion about that. At least, not yet.
Prove that that was the basis of the jury's decision and not just your own wishful thinking.
Proof is not required for this. If it was possible any jury member was influenced by the statements OR the media...... it is enough to order a new trial.
Proof is not required for this. If it was possible any jury member was influenced by the statements OR the media...... it is enough to order a new trial.
Due process demands it.
Only IF a reasonable person could have been expected to possibly find reasonable doubt in the case absent the comments. If the appeals court finds there is little to no chance a different verdict could have been reached absent the comments then it should stand.
They will need to present evidence on appeal that the jury might have had reasonable doubt if not for the inappropriate comments. I think that will be a tall order.
Exactly. Hard to think that watching the video of a cop kneeling on a man's neck three minutes after that man has taken his last breath would produce a different verdict than what it did. Pictures don't lie.
The jury members were obviously afraid of retaliation and their livelihoods being destroyed by the leftwing gestapo if they gave any verdict other than guilty.
Only IF a reasonable person could have been expected to possibly find reasonable doubt in the case absent the comments. If the appeals court finds there is little to no chance a different verdict could have been reached absent the comments then it should stand.
True, but I think it is a tall standard to say a reasonable person could not have found doubt. Besides no appeals court wants to encourage juror intimidation.
His professional 'opinion', was not on court record for this particular case.
He is not on the defense team or the prosecutors team.
Matter of fact he isn't a consultant for either court representative in this specific case.
Let him express his bias opinion.
He is a citizen . And sometimes citizens are open to stirring the pot.
I say put a lid on that pot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.