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.
Oh give me a break, jurors have tv dont they ? so they had some idea of how the media hype was going to be . I wonder if there would have been a different verdict if she was from a low class family or if she were hispanic ,or black ? Makes one wonder if they would have been so hot to trot to write a book then hmmm....
Like OJ Simpson or Kobe Bryant? If I recall correctly not a single juror made money off the the Bryant trial.
I'm almost sure that the judge screen the programs they could watch on T.V., they had to get special permission to even watch a hockey game.
There is a potential conflict of interests, even if only illusionary, since they had a decision in the final outcome. The judge and the jury, can, but shouldn't, profit from the case because of that appearance of conflict. Sleazy without a doubt.
I'm not so sure about that. If they had returned a guilty verdict and one of the jurors decided to write a book about their experiences I don't think it would sell any worse.
I'm not so sure about that. If they had returned a guilty verdict and one of the jurors decided to write a book about their experiences I don't think it would sell any worse.
It is the same thing as a referee profiting from a sports game-- it is unethical because the referee has the ability to "fix" or "adjust" the game to a particular outcome.
It is the same thing as a referee profiting from a sports game-- it is unethical because the referee has the ability to "fix" or "adjust" the game to a particular outcome.
Interesting how the law does not prohibit it for jurors. They really should. Say I was a defendant in a high profile case, I certainly would not want a jury that knew they could make money off my case. I would rather they just deliberate with none of that stuff in the back of their minds.
I hope no one is stupid enough to offer her a book or movie deal this lady does not deserve anything wither she was innocent or guilty. Just because she was in a high profile case does not entitle her to anything. It would be a disgrace to the memory of Caylee.
IMO Baez deserves his win. He worked hard. However, I don't see much of a market for a bio of Baez at this time. He needs to win a few more big cases before that kind of book would sell very well.
Of course, his law practice should grow as a result of winning this case, so he will profit from it. But that's how lawyers build a good practice, by winning, then more people will hire them. He'll get more publicity as a result of this win. I liked that he also spoke to the public in Spanish today.
Give it time. He'll be on TV. ("Johnnie Cochran Tonight" will be marked as Exhibit 1.) Jeepers, every time I see Mark Furhman and Michael Baden together on FOX I do this:
It is the same thing as a referee profiting from a sports game-- it is unethical because the referee has the ability to "fix" or "adjust" the game to a particular outcome.
It's not the same because there's no guarantee of profit. What if that same referee wrote a book about the game? What if the game had a dramatic ending? Would you say the referee called the game to make it close? I don't think you would.
The situation you're talking about would be ALL 12 randomly chosen jurors, some not knowing about the media attention, silently agreed before the trial to fix the outcome to make the biggest spectacle in the hopes that one or two get a book deal in the end, while the others get nothing. It's so implausible that no person can seriously believe that any jury would do that. It's certainly not worth curbing people's first amendment rights to prevent with laws.
It's not the same because there's no guarantee of profit. What if that same referee wrote a book about the game? What if the game had a dramatic ending? Would you say the referee called the game to make it close? I don't think you would.
The situation you're talking about would be ALL 12 randomly chosen jurors, some not knowing about the media attention, silently agreed before the trial to fix the outcome to make the biggest spectacle in the hopes that one or two get a book deal in the end, while the others get nothing. It's so implausible that no person can seriously believe that any jury would do that. It's certainly not worth curbing people's first amendment rights to prevent with laws.
No need to make a "pact" or anything, but the idea that a not guilty verdict would make them more money could be in the back of the jurors minds...
I know it made sense to me before the trial-- and if I thought it, surely others considered it too-- possibly even jurors...
Pretty obvious that the controversy of a not guilty verdict will make more money than a guilty verdict. Every network is scrambling to get a juror to talk (paying them to come on) about why they delivered a "controversial" verdict, think they would be doing that if they delivered a guilty verdict?
Why would any one wants to read a book written by a juror...I can fill out the blanks by myself...
"we had not clue, we had no tv, we were not allowed to discuss it amongst ourselves, I looked at the defendent and noticed...., I didn't believe...., I thought that person was credible..., the defense lawyer..., the States attorney...., and I never expected it to be so hard to make a judgment on another person..."
There you have the book....for free! ...and it won't take long since all the bs is left out...haha.
I wouldn't want to buy a book that Casey put out because it would be a fairy tale of lies from her.. I wouldn't believe a thing she ever said so why would I want to buy a book she had anything to do with.
I wouldn't want to buy anything the jurors says.. I know how they think already and know what they would say.
I already know they are missing the common sense gene. One can have an air of intelligence and have no common sense at all. I have seen many of them.
They usually go under the guise of intelligence yet they cannot reason about the deeper connecting circumstances to comprehend. They are dead to reasoning to find basic reality. It is strange they cannot basically think deep and usually get stuck on one idea or surface equasion and can't move to the deep thinking of reasoning to come to a conclusion of what the truth says.
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.
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.
...and it won't take long since all the bs is left out...haha.
