BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Crime What would you want for compensation

Hmmm....well....maybe the DA if exculpatory evidence had been withheld from the defense. But I don't see how the DA could be held personally liable if they acted in good faith.

Juries simply have to sort things out based on the evidence presented by both the defense and the DA and make the best decisions they can with the information they are given and must exclude any and all information they might have heard about the crime or the defendant that came from outside of formal court proceedings. I believe that most juries act in good faith and would not vote for a conviction unless they really thought the defendant guilty. Hard to jail someone for having the courage of their convictions. And think of how hard it would be to convict any criminals if the people on the jury felt that they could be jailed if they got it wrong.

Sure, juries get it wrong sometimes. Occasionally an innocent person is jailed. But more often the guilty party walks - look at the O.J. Simpson murder case.....now there's a jury that ought to have been tossed in the slammer.

I think that jury, like so many others, was intimidated by the whole thing, not to mention the people involved.

Right I don't think you can blame the jury. They do the best they can do, they don't choose the evidence or testimony. It would really be based on if the lawyers knew of something that *would* clear him and chose to hide it ... or if there was evidence the police should have found but they didn't due to sloppy police work.

Ok, I guess that is all true. I didn't think about that stuff regarding the juries and the DA.

Besides evrybody else already took all of the good things for compensation.

Can I still have my free cable television for life?

Well I bet if you sold book rights you could certainly get that and much more!

I'd like to chime in on the jury aspect...

My mom once had to serve jury duty on a murder trial (they don't call it 1st degree here on GA, it's something like murder w/ malice - or something similar, but means the same thing).

She actually had a very hard decision finding the man guilty - although all evidence pointed directly at the man. But she is very anti-death penalty, and she knew that if the man were found guilty, that was the sentence the state would be asking for.

She did finally vote "guilty", but it was a hard decision for her - and it still bothers her.

So I don't think there are many juries that take lightly the decisions they have - whether the penalty is death or life imprisonment.

That's a good point, I'm sorry your mother had to go through that! I'm surprised they let her on the jury if she didn't believe in the death penalty, since that was one of the options on the table.