Reply to Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]At the end of the day jurors tend to value documentary evidence over just about anything else. Heard created quite a bit of live-time documentary evidence, some of which were troubling, but her claims were far more severe than what she could prove up with documentary evidence, despite what looked like a concerted effort to create a record at the time. That's why she lost. Not because of the testimony, because of the documentary record. [/quote]

You get that this is really problematic, right?  Not just specifically for this case, but as to jury verdicts generally?[/quote]

No actually I think juries should rely primarily on the best evidence. [/quote]

And you know that’s not always documentary evidence, right?  You are falling for the same fallacy that juries tend to.[/quote]

It is always the best evidence for a jury even if it isn’t always the God’s honest truth. It’s entirely possible AH didn’t take photos of the worse damage, only more minor damage. It’s possible she sought medical treatment only for an invisible scalp contusion, but not hundreds of cuts from broken glass. But it’s right and good for a jury to rely first on what they can see/watch/read and only second on what was said on the stand by witnesses with an incentive to lie. It may not always lead to the closest truth but obviously the alternative wouldn’t either and in fact would lead to finding the truth far less often. [/quote]

That a jury believes it is the best evidence does not mean it actually is the best evidence.  There is lots of research to back up that juries give undue weight and credibility to documentary evidence and that it sometimes leads to incorrect results.  Especially when you have a judge making poor rulings on which documents are admissible. [/quote]

They don’t have the ability to figure out who is telling the truth and who is lying. That makes documents better given the imperfect system. Obviously no system will perfectly guard against incorrect results, but a pure testimonial system would surely be worse than a pure documentary system. [/quote]

They also don’t have the ability to determine conclusively if a document is accurate or if it communicates the entire story.

But sure, go ahead and assume that you know everything about civil litigation. 
[/quote]

Well I am a civil litigation trial lawyer. So I appreciate not every document is always what it purports to be. But in this case the authenticity of the documentary evidence supporting AH’s claims was largely not in dispute (the only exception was she claimed her medical records were not accurate, but she also didn’t claim they were inauthentic). The problem in this case, for AH, was certainly not that inauthentic documents became part of the record. The problem was that she created quite a bit of authentic documentary evidence during the course of the claimed abuse, but strangely failed to record the worst of what she claimed happen. [/quote]

All of that garbage you just spewed is exactly why undue reliance on documentary evidence is so problematic.  Gee, I wonder why she might not have recorded the worst of the abuse?  It couldn’t possibly because it’s harder to hold your phone steady when the person is beating you than it is when they are destroying a room. [/quote]

You either are not familiar with the record in this case or else you’re being intentionally obtuse. Where are the photographs of her beaten or covered in glass cuts? She has one of what she claims is him having thrown a phone (which the police woman who saw her immediately after testified did not reflect an injury) but that’s it. Yes it’s unusual for DV victims to carefully document their abuse, but that’s what she certainly appears to have been doing, and yet she has no evidence for her claims of being beaten and cut. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics