.jpg)
8.21.2007
Voir Dire
One of the Ticket's morning show hosts, Junior Miller, had jury service yesterday. The show spent a segment today on a question he was asked during jury selection.
Could you convict a defendant for sexual assault of a child if the only person to testify was the child but you believed that's child's testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, everyone wants more information before you answer the question, but that's all you get. It was fascinating to listen to them struggle with the answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
It would be interesting how a lawyer would answer that question if he or she were allowed to serve on a jury pertaining to sexual assault of a child.
With a few exceptions of course, children tend not to lie about those things...they are usually painfully honest.
As a Lawyer the answer is Yes, because the answer is you believe the child beyond a reasonable doubt which means you believe the child which is an absolute, don't let the lawyer lingo confuse you simpletons.
I could convict a defendant if I believed beyond a reasonable doubt the testimony of ANY witness. However, I would NEVER be able to believe beyond a reasonable doubt the testimony of a child under the age of 11 with regard to sexual abuse without the testimony of a more credible witness to substantiate the testimony of the child.
The validity of ANY testimony is solely dependent upon the credibility of the witness providing the testimony.
Just ask the great wise one w/ the Squarehead and Cowboy Hat....Please Please for the Love of God and everything that is Holy...Do you know everything??? As soon as I saw the post i just knew when i clicked TatorHead would chime in...Gonna go throw up...
Ha ha ha.......TatorHead! That's a new one.
10:25 - Mzchief does seem to know a lot of info about many topics. I'm pretty sure she knows about this subject because she has a law degree. I'm not surprised you want to throw up, jealousy does that to stupid people like you.
Let me make sure that I understand you mchief. If your child, who is 10, tells you that she/he was pushed down by an adult, and her/his arm hurts, you don't take her to the doctor/police because she/he is not credible! Sexual abuse or not, when does the object of complaint make a difference when a child is involved? Just because the injury doesn't dipict physical or internal signs, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Please tell me that you are not protecting the children in Wise County! Please tell me that if this happened to your child that you would not let this go because she or he is ten. I would suspect that if this was your child, you would be at the local Police Department making a report. I would also bet that you would want the officer to say that he believes your child and would want a prosecutor to take the report to court to convict someone.
10:25 The color green you are flinging like a chimp is making me want to throw up.
Pick up your hail damaged, thunder thighs, one by one, and try to get off your fat arse. I will be happy to call a forklift, if you like. Now, go learn something and quit being jealous of those who are smarter than you.
10:25 You my dear, are a perfect example of a typical "Christian".
Could it possibly be true that our resident, I have the answer for everything, MzDemented,(Chief),has been stumped by 11:10? I think you would have to have a child yourself to answer that question and from all of the posts I've read from MzDemeaner she certainly doesn't seem to be very parental. Hopefully she hasn't chosen to reproduce and bring more Mzcreants (miscreants), look it up,such as herself into this world.
It can get tricky. Kids today have it drilled into their head about "stranger danger", "private areas", "no touch" and a host of memory devices and teachings that are very important to their safety. All for good reason. But it also makes kids real quick to overreact to situations that are totally and completely innocent and non threatening in any way. I've seen it. I've seen little kids scream out "hey that's my private area" in a crowded playground when all a teacher was doing was trying to get a hold of them and help them get down from some playground equipment.
Hey 9:54 - know any simpleton lawyers?
11:10 I can’t help but laugh when I read your post. As soon as mzchief returns to respond to your idiotic post, (if she cares to) you’ll see how dim-witted you really are.
Trust me honey, your two fries short of understanding what she previously stated. Your just trying to start an argument at which you will loose.
The question posed was could you convict if you believed beyond reasonable doubt. Isn't that all that is asked of any juror in any case? If I believed beyond reasonable doubt there would be no reason not to convict.
To 11:10...
Obviously, you did not understand what I wrote. I clearly specified children under the age of 11 years old lacked credibility with regard to matters of sexual abuse. I said NOTHING that would make a reasonable person think I did not believe ANYTHING said by all children 11 years old and younger. Due to how easily swayed and coerced children 11 and younger are regarding the matter of sexual assault I would not be able to believe beyond a reasonable doubt the testimony of a child under 11 years old.
All it takes to sway a child's testimony or enhance their memory is for a parent/guardian/authority figure saying something as innocuous as "As soon as you tell us the things the bad man/woman did to you we can go home and have ice cream." or "Be a good boy/girl and tell the officer about the bad things the mean man/woman did to you." That type of unintentional coercion happens all too often.
I absolutely would want an unbiased investigation of the accusations of sexual assault made by any child or adult. Perhaps such an investigation would provide evidence to substantiate the child's accusation. If there was NO evidence or testimony of a credible witness to substantiate the child's claim then I would NOT vote to convict. As for an officer immediately deciding whether or not a child's claim was justified; It would be my hope and expectation that the member of law enforcement who was conducting the investigation would be professional enough to remain objective and conduct an unbiased investigation without having predetermined the outcome of the INVESTIGATION.
As for whether or not I would believe my child's claim regarding a physical injury that I could not see; I would, like any other responsible parent, take my child to a doctor so the doctor could investigate my child's claim about having an injury and provide evidence to substantiate my child's claim and take the appropriate action to rectify my child's malady. However, I would NEVER demand the doctor affix a cast to my child's arm based purely on the fact that my child claimed their arm hurt like a broken arm especially since my child has never had a broken bone.
LOL
How interesting -- another example of prejudice (prejudging) based solely on an arbitrary age limit. No exceptions; no individuality; no acknowledgement of the question's purposely-included phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt."
One might assume that if the child is the only witness to testify, that to believe the testimony beyond a reasonable doubt probably indicates corroborating evidence.
To say "never" about such a situation indicates a certain...concreteness of opinion. A bit sad to think a person has all future decisions already made, regardless of what new information might come his or her way.
To wordkyle...
You have assumed facts not in the record, something I did not. Nowhere in Barry's postulation did it say anything about corroborating evidence. All that was presented as a reason to convict someone accused of sexual assault was believing beyond a reasonable doubt the TESTIMONY of the child who was sexually assaulted. I do make it clear that I would believe beyond a reasonable doubt the testimony of a child so long as there was corroberating evidence to substantiate the child's testimony.
Based upon your statement, you are inclined to believe beyond a reasonable doubt anything and everything a young child tells you, perhaps that explains why you are the perfect Republican. Everyone in their right mind would have a reasonable doubt when it comes to the things young children say.
You best climb down from your high horse. Everyone knows you would never say Clinton was a great president and Bush sucks. We all know you would NEVER agree that it is a woman's right to make the choice to have an abortion.
A bit sad you have such a high opinion of yourself when you are so self-righteous and so wrong so much of the time.
Please note, my first sentence in my first comment of this blog; "I would convict a defendant if I believed beyond a reasonable doubt the testimony of ANY witness." Do also note, Barry posed no question as to whether the child's testimony was believed beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, my answer to the original question as it was presented is YES.
Hey 3:26 -- COurthouses are full of em, come take a look sometime.
Ah, MC once again mistaking her belligerence for intelligence.
You've made clear your prejudices. Some people probably even find your solidity of opinion (in advance of knowledge) admirable.
The original question apparently is, for you, a paradox. The question itself assumes the listener believes the child, yet you say you could never believe the child.
It's a thought-provoking question -- unless one's mind is already made up.
Mzchief you have a whole lot more patience than anyone I know. I'd have saved a lot of typing and just told wordkyle he was an idiot and forgotten about trying to explain anything to him. Anyone with any sense can see he was just trying as usual to find fault and act holier than thou.
Mzchief, Of course I realize that your alias is an intentional alteration of the word mischief, just as I used the name Mizdemeaner, an alteration of the word misdeameaner.I am very happy to hear about your wonderfully intelligent son. I too had not 1 but 2 wonderful sons, one was killed by a drunk driver in Peru while on a missionary trip 4 years ago and my remaining son was killed in Iraq. So sadly you will never have the pleasure of coming into contact with my sons either. I wish him good health and safety throughout his life, and as hateful as you appear to be, I wish for you to never have to outlive your wonderful son.
To wordkyle...
The original question is indeed a paradox because it is a statement that leads to a contradiction or a situation, which defies intuition and in this case established facts.
The FACT I am EDUCATED with regard to the unreliability of children's testimony in sexual abuse cases and have seen numerous experts testify countless times to that fact does indeed make me belligerent with regard to my intellect unlike you whose arrogance is due to your ignorance.
By addressing me with the abbreviation for MzChief of “MC” indicates your inability and/or unwillingness to grasp even the simplest of facts after they have been explained to you thus there is no reason to believe you are anymore capable of grasping any other information imparted to you.
My apologies to you for having not realized earlier your mental ineptitude. I do indeed feel foolish for having argued with an idiot.
To 8:12...
Thank you for your well wishes toward my son.
In your comment directed to me at 2:14 you mocked me for having answers, called me "MzDemented", "MzDemeaner", a Mzcreant, inaccurately assessed me as "doesn't seem to be very parental", hoped that I was childless and incorrectly predetermined that any of my offspring would be "Mzcreants (miscreants)" and now YOU are assessing me as "hateful."
You truly need to take a long look in the mirror at YOURSELF. Perhaps grief and bitterness have distorted YOUR ability to judge reality and YOUR actions as well as the actions of others.
As would any person, I certainly wish you the best in dealing with the misfortunes of your two sons.
MC - the question is a paradox only for you, and for those like you who have made up your mind ahead of time without regard to information. Your response to believing a child's testimony was an unqualified "never." The question is not a paradox for others who might be open to the possiblity of believing a child.
Your belligerence has nothing to do with any information you may have picked up along the way. It has everything to do with how you interact with others, especially those who refuse to be bullied by you. You appear to have no other tools than a hammer.
I choose to address you as MC because from your posts I view you as thinking of yourself as "Miz Chief." (Position, not name.) How you wish to be addressed is unimportant. You regularly violate the dignity of other people with great enthusiasm. Others enjoy the same privilege toward you.
It's amusing to see you degrade yourself with petty personal insults. You seem to run out of mature tactics fairly quickly.
One benefit to your position on Barry's lawyer question: it saves you the trouble of having to actually think before you make a decision.
Have you ever noticed that a guy will pick his nose in a crowd thinking maybe no one will see him but they always do.
Here's a newsflash too, 12:57. We can see you pickin your nose in the car too. Stick to pickin your banjo.
WordPyle, You're the perfect Repuglican because no matter what facts you're told you still believe what you want to believe. Mzchief tells you her name isn't MzChief it's mzchief and you still insist her name is MzChief. She tells you she has heard experts testify that kid's aren't reliable witnesses when it comes to sexual abuse and you're sure you know better just because you say so. You never paid enough attention to the things mzchief said to notice she always said kid's are unreliable witnesses when it comes to sexual abuse. She didn't say anything about never trusting all kid's testimony, she just doesn't trust them 100% when it comes to SEXUAL ABUSE. If you weren't such an arrogant dumbass you would have figured out that mzchief thought a shitload more about the question than you did because she noticed nothing was said about corroborating evidence.
Mzchief is wrong about you being an idiot because you're a f*cking idiot. Go ahead and say that I'm a lesser person for straight up calling you what you are. I know it's tough for you Repuglicans to admit it but just because you say something is one way it doesn't mean everyone is going to ignore the facts and believe your bullshit.
If half of you fools spent one fourth of your argument energy actually working on a problem (rather than all this childish name-calling) I would have one eighth more respect for you. Do the math.
12:14, Why would anyone care if some anonymous person on a blog has respected for them, especially someone who called them "fools" and "childish"? Looks like you jumped right in with the name callers that you don't respect.
anon 8:23 - Greaaaat post.
In one fell swoop you managed to get in name-calling, profanity, misrepresentation of my position, misrepresentation of MC's position, missing the point of my post, and inflicting typos and bad grammar on us. You likely also suffer from the heartbreak of psoriasis.
Are you running for office? You're the ideal Democrat candidate.
MC - well, let's look at it:
1) 8:23 said that I "insist" your name is "MzChief." From my 12:33 post: "I choose to address you as MC because from your posts I view you as thinking of yourself as "Miz Chief." (Position, not name.)" Verdict on 8:23: Misrepresentation of my position.
2) 8:23 said: "... you're sure you know better just because you say so." I never said I know better. (More of 8:23's misrepresentation) I ridiculed the notion that you could NEVER believe a "child under 11." [Sample question for the witness: "When do you turn 12? Tomorrow? Sorry, I can't believe you today."]
To repeat, your acting belligerent and arrogant does not make your prejudices any more appealing. You appear to have only two tools: 1) You quickly resort to personal attacks; 2) You proclaim your expertise on subjects based only on your unsubstantiated claims (e.g."I am EDUCATED...have seen numerous experts...") Your credentials are "internet credentials." Chatrooms are full of 14-year-olds with the same credibility. (By the way, universities graduate thousands every year -- other people know things, too.)
Barry's lawyer's question is designed to provoke thought. Thoughtful people consider such questions carefully. I gather that we can "include you out" of that group.
Overall, MC, your constant one-note screech is simply boring.
Post a Comment