Horace Finklestein
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,658
- Reaction score
- 1
A judge who allows (nee insists) that a person who openly says she "doesn't like to judge anyone...that's only for God to do" be on a capital murder case, is a judge who has unfortunately stacked the deck towards acquittal.
A judge who allows another person who openly states he is strongly opposed to the death penalty to be on the jury of a DP case further stacks the deck.
The case was lost for the state the moment the jury was sworn in. Those 2 jurors never should have been allowed on this jury. The state didn't want them; JP allowed it and did his best to corral people onto the jury when a few of them (at the least) should have excused.
The added 'benefit' for the defense is that the jury didn't pay attention, didn't understand most of what they heard in terms of scientific evidence, didn't understand much of anything. But hey, at least they got daily treats from the sweets lady.
Yeah I'm not a big fan of HHJP anymore. The few things he got wrong are what threw this case for the defense. In addition to what you mentioned - the obvious perjury of CA was completely unfair to the SA, and the DT being able to argue "molestation/abuse/p@nis in her mouth" and then being forbidden from using that nonsense in the closing - because HHJP said there's no evidence of it happening - seems unjust. They planted the seed wrongly and were able to get away with it.