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]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]

NP: First, this isn’t always the case. Second, jurors are constantly evaluating a witnesses credibility. Finally, do you know of a better system of justice we should use?

It is rare that a case goes to a jury at all. If the situation and liabilities are clear, or if it is a nuisance case, it will settle out of court. Only the messy unclear civil cases (usually) go to a jury. Both sides are confident they can get the jury to see it their way. Many lawyers feel that if you have to put the case to a jury, you’ve already lost, and in our system it is then up to judge and jury to figure it out as a very last resort.[/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