Can you get an untainted jury w/ todays media

fishbane · 10-24-2003, 07:16 AM

A few days prior to the first DC snipper trial a movie about the case was on USA network.

Should the media be allowed to do this?
I am not saying these guys are innocent.
They do deserve a fair trial though. Can you get one with todays media monster?

We know for fact now that with DNA eveidence that innocent men have been put to death.

10-24-2003, 07:22 AM

Not in high profile cases.

The news media needs to use their First Amendment Rights responsibly.

letsfish · 10-24-2003, 07:29 AM

It is the result of the immediate access that we have to news or in the case of a movie a story source. Hopefully a jury will act on the evidence presented. But to get that jury has to be increasingly difficult, because of our access to the news.But it makes you wonder- what about in the younger days of this country and a crime was committed, a suspect found and presented before a jury, this suspect likely was known by the people that were in the jury because of the closeness and size of the community. Today that would have been seen as unfair.

OceanBlue · 10-24-2003, 07:36 AM

Funny you should ask. I could probably serve on any jury in any case as I don't watch TV, read a paper and the news I get either comes from a few minutes on the radio here and there or from very selective reading on ifish. :grin: I prefer mushroom-ism. It's either that or anti-depressants and/or anxiety medication :grin:

Birdnest · 10-24-2003, 07:38 AM

I have an idea...

To better serve the accused we will provide them with completely impartial jurors. This is how. We buy a nice size tropical island and stock it with all of the amenities you would want with the exception of connection to the outside world. Your days woulld be spent fishing, reading, and drinking. You would rototate a new group in every 6 months.

I'll go first.

Joe

lingslayer · 10-24-2003, 07:43 AM

Good point Fishbane.
Just like the OJ trial, what rocks were the people on the jury hiding under that they had no prior info that might prejudice their opinion of the facts presented?

This is what the "change of venue" was originally intended for, but with the national media that won't work anymore.

If you can find 12 people that know nothing of the case(s) in question, you have found people that don't pay attention.
Jamie

fishbane · 10-24-2003, 07:46 AM

In that world I would love to be a professional Juror. As long as girls in grass skirts come with the island

10-24-2003, 07:50 AM

Ling,
You might find this hard to believe but I didn't know who OJ was before the "low speed chase".

lingslayer · 10-24-2003, 08:11 AM

Exactly my point Keta!
But I'll bet you knew quite a bit about him by the time he came to trial huh? So most of what you learned about him was connected to the case,...

You wouldn't have made a "fair and impartial" juror anymore than I would have. The only other thing I knew about him was he played football and acted in the "Naked Gun" movies.

We'll see what happens with the DC sniper case, and how long it takes to build a jury.

Jamie

Birdnest · 10-24-2003, 08:48 AM

I do believe the movie coming out before the trail is way over the top.

It would seem virtually impossible to be completely impartial. Any person would bring with them a lifetime of experiences, that on some level would shape your decision.

I can't quite wrap my brain around the personality type that is oblivious to the outside world and would remain unbiased based on the mass media.

We, as the viewing public, are to blame for the media circus that surrounds these events. We all tune in, CNN (and others) makes millions on commercial revenue, and we eat it up like candy.

A change of venue is an antiquated attempt at a fair trial. Unless you move the trial to another planet, your jurors will walk in with some preconcieved notion of guilt or innocence.

I also think the juror selection process is a little funny. Both sides strive for a juror that will be sympathetic to their argument, in other words, biased. Just look at the OJ jury. This system also assumes that there is an 50/50 split with the initial juror pool, but that is just bad statistics. With a sampling pool that small, only luck will produce a 50/50 split. Don't get me wrong, if I commited a crime, there is no other place on Earth I would rather be tried. (sp?)

Maybe we should turn it into a reality show and we can all vote.

Joe

skahorse · 10-24-2003, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Fishbane says:
We know for fact now that with DNA eveidence that innocent men have been put to death.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This isn't really on-topic, but you did post it in your original post, so I will address it.

Are you sure about this? I've heard otherwise...? I don't have any personal proof. I've just heard from, what some of you might call the "Talking Heads", that the above statement isn't true. Just wondering if you could enlighten me with some documented examples of putting innocents to death. (Other than abortions)

Thanks.

--Skahorse

fishbane · 10-24-2003, 09:18 AM

Hi Ska,
Yes I can but I have to run soon but I will send you some info soon.

A large **** case in the east recently was overturned when a man who had recently been jailed was was tested.( Accused sex criminals are being dna tested as they are incarsarated by certain states.) I have mixed feelings on that issue.
His Dna matched perfectly to eviendence on and within the victim A man who had who had been convicted on so called witness testomony was released. The victim who was ***** has now not only admitted she was wrong about him now speaks out to church groups and law classes that testomony can be wrong and ruins innocent peoples lives.

The govenor of Illinois has banned capitol punishment recently due to the fact they dicovered thru DNA eviedence years after the fact that they had executed the wrong men on some murder cases.

You can due a web search and get more facts or search news websites.

1pump · 10-24-2003, 10:52 AM

Quote:

I can't quite wrap my brain around the personality type that is oblivious to the outside world and would remain unbiased based on the mass media.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Neither can I. But there's a lot of them out there. A significant percentage of people (especially in this country) don't know or care about anything that doesn't directly affect their little corner of the universe. It baffles me to no end. The scary part is that juries will get only the most ignorant types for high profile cases.