Could you give the man a fair trial?

[Ed62]

I wonder how many people could actually give Vick a fair trial. As much as I'm against the things he's accused of, I could listen to both sides of the story before I made a decision of guilt or innocence, if I were on the jury.

Ed

[jonathan55]

Didn't he plead guilty on Monday?

[Ed62]

Yeah, I think he did. I was asking if you were on the jury (if there were a trial), could you give him a fair trial. Initial post was a poor choice of words on my part.

I have jury duty coming up in a couple of weeks, and I've been wondering if I could do it. I decided I could.

Ed

[SwingKing]

As bad as that situation is, I think I could be impartial and listen to the evidence. There are a lot worse court cases to be on.

About a year ago, I got called for jury duty and was in the selection group for a child abuse case. I was never so happy to be dismissed in my life. It would have been very tough to sit through a case like that and not want to punish someone. Innocent until proven guilty is a wonderful concept but hard to follow in a case like that.

-- Ken

[Uncle Cracker]

On any jury, you have to stay objective and make your call based on the evidence and on the judge's explanation of the applicable law. I have been in this position numerous times. The only time I had any difficulty was a case where a homeless man was stopped for a traffic violation on his scooter. He lost his temper with the cop, and tossed his styro bike helmet in his general direction. The cop promptly took out his baton and beat this man literally until he was unrecognizable. The letter of the law says the man was guilty of assault on an officer, but it was really hard for me to put him away. But the officer was not on trial. The poor man probably was better off with three hots and a cot, anyway, but it was not the easiest thing I ever had to do.

I think Vick could have gotten a fair trial, and his lawyers would have been given their full complement of challenges and voir dire during jury selection, in order that his interests would be given their due consideration. Media sensationalization is commonplace during celebrity trials any more, and judges are not as inclined as they once were to allow defense objections based on that complaint.

[Russianwolf]

yes, I could.

I did Grand Jury Duty several years ago in DC and somehow got stuck in the "Murder GJ".

The way it works in DC is GD duty is 30 days and decides which cases go to trial. You only hear one side of the case, the prosecution. I saw things that I really didn't want to see during that month and won't soon forget, but I'm glad I was there. There are honestly alot of people out there that don't have a concept of what the responsibility is to sit on a jury. They think it's their chance to make a statement.

One case had a couple being mugged in Georgetown by two men. They saw the two individuals leave and then a third person get into the car with them a block away. I honestly could not explain to some of the jury members why the prosecutions case aginast that third individual didn't hold water. Guilt by association was enough for them. "but he was their back-up" And when did the prosecution provide this evidence? They didn't.

It's sad.