|
Homepage: http://linuxhelp.150m.com/ A jury verdict in a criminal case is not really a single verdict. It's actually twelve individual verdicts. It is important that jurors realize that each of them is personally and individually responsible for the verdict; the majority doesn't rule. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very personal standard; nobody can force someone else to agree that the doubts that she has are not reasonable. It is not acceptable for one juror to try to pressure or coerce another juror to reach a verdict contrary to her own personal judgment, and it is not acceptable for one juror to submit to another juror's pressure to reach a verdict contrary to her own personal judgment. "I was outvoted" and "I was under so much pressure" are not justifications for reaching the wrong decision. Once the jury has reached their verdict, the judge will poll the jury -- will ask each juror, "is this your verdict?" If the collective verdict does not match the juror's personal judgment, the answer has to be "no" and the verdict does not stand. Goodman, the judge in the trial, polled the jury before the verdict was read. In almost all cases, it's done afterward. Defense attorney and legal analyst Michael Cardoza said (in an interview on Mornings on 2) that in his 34 years of practicing he's never seen it done that way. Cardoza said doing it Goodman's way avoids the possibility of having a juror say that he or she was forced into a verdict. So, Cardoza is saying that Goodman, in effect, stopped any of the jurors from saying that they felt they were forced into a verdict. Because Goodman did this, we can assume that there was at least one juror who felt pressured to come up with a verdict contrary to their true belief. This is yet another way in which the corrupt judge, Goodman, influenced the trial outcome against the interests of Hans Reiser. A POLL from blog.wired.com gave the following results (from a pool of 3,004 wired.com readers): 63% NOT GUILTY. The prosecution did not prove its case (intelligent people) 14% Guilty of first degree murder. The prosecution proved Reiser's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the total nutcases). 13% Guilty of second degree murder. 8% Guilty of manslaughter. In the Reiser case we have 12 members of a jury who supposedly reached twelve individual verdicts. We will assume that the jury has been randomly chosen from a public similar to that polled, as it should have been. Then we have: The probability that the first jurist will conclude first degree murder is = 0.14 = (0.14)^1 = ONE in 7. The probability that the first 2 jurists will conclude first degree murder is = (0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^2 = 0.0196 = ONE in 51. The probability that the first 3 jurists will conclude first degree murder is = (0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^3 = 0.002744 = ONE in 364 The probability that the first 4 jurists will conclude first degree murder is = (0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^4 = 0.000384 = ONE in 2,603 The probability that the first 5 jurists will conclude first degree murder is = (0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14)(0.14) = (0.14)^5 = 0.00005 = ONE in 18,593 Continuing, we arrive at: The probability that all 12 jurists will conclude first degree murder is = (0.14)^12 = 0.00000000006 = ONE in 16,666,666,666 = ONE in 17 BILLION. One in 17 billion. NOW THAT IS A RIGGED JURY. So our assumption that the jury was similar to that of the general polled public, is clearly false. That is, the JURY WAS RIGGED. |