Genarlow Wilson get 10 year for BJ

[Tormod]

This is just another example of the powerful preying on the weak. It's disingenuous at best, and just blatantly dishonest at worst. I sincerely hope you don't consider this kind of behavior ethical.

 

Touché.

[Cedars]

Fine. The JUDGE is to blame then. Point being the jury was not adequately informed of their options or the consequences of their verdict.

 

I didn't google Jury Nullification but I did look up the relevant case law.

 

Sparf vs US is the one that holds that Juries need not be informed. And in U.S. v. Krzyske, a conviction was upheld even though the judge outright lied about the possibility, informing the jury that there was "no such thing as a valid nullification." (A clever lie, since it is an opinion disguised as the truth in all but the most careful parsings.)

 

Furthermore, I have it on good authority that any juror who displays a knowledge of jury nullification is immediately dismissed during selection. This is one of the open secrets of the legal profession.

 

The real blame lies with the juror who didnt know the basics of what a juror can/cannot do. It has been ruled on several times about a judges responsiblity to the courts regarding this issue. Again, the jurors anger is misplaced and the reality is it falls entirely on herself.

 

As I understand it, each side (defense/prosecution) has a certain number of strikes they can use and there doesnt have to be any reason given. You bet making your awareness of jury nullification will probably get you stricken from the jury. I cant think of any reason a prosecutor would take a chance at the case being lost because of some 'loose cannon' he allowed to sit on a particular case. Thats just bad business. But I sure dont want that changed because it give the defense an equal opportunity to strike a juror that writes down on his/her jury questionare, "the cops dont arrest innocent persons".

 

Look how easy it was for you to find this info by googling. Its not like the information is in a banned book that you have to exit the country to find.

 

 

Perhaps I misspoke earlier when I characterized this as "a crime." It isn't a crime - in fact it's perfectly legal. But it's also a perfectly awful way to behave. But it certainly is a "crime" against decency. The selective withholding of truth is a lie on the witness stand, and it ought to be a lie here.

 

Its not even awful. Its not indecent, its not the selective witholding of truth. Its been ruled upon that judges are not required to do this. And even so, we end up with hung juries without this introduced. The law is simple enough, either the evidence introduced convices beyond a reasonable doubt or it does not. Jury nullification isnt a legal position so much as it is a social studies topic. But its there for you to find out and apply as a jurist. Just like any philosophy is out there for you to apply as a jurist. Just be careful in the deliberations that you dont reveal your decision is based on something outside of the law. Cuz its grounds for appeal. For either side equally.

 

But there's a double standard for being tried as an adult, where the situation is weighed and decided upon, and voting, where there is a clear delineation about which no debate is possible. I hope you see the disconnect here.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. But I certainly hope you are not suggesting that the US should abandon the option of trying someone as an adult.

 

 

Applying this logic to any other situation reveals it's absurdity. If you were to buy a car, and you hear a thumping sound from the left front wheel, are you expected to self-diagnose the problem before you take into a mechanic? If the mechanic tells you it's the CV joint, but it's really just a loose brake pad, are you expected to take apart the mechanical parts to verify this for yourself? Trust no one? Caveat emptor? How would you feel if your doctor told you needed a blood transfusion to get rid of the flu?

 

This is an absurd comparison (doctor) to the above listed case. But the reality is, its not uncommon for mechanics to suggest the replacement of parts that are fine. We see expose' on tv all the time, under the category of Buyer Beware.

 

And prosecutors and judges are elected. There are methods to remove persons who do not do the job the majority wants them to do.

 

This is just another example of the powerful preying on the weak. It's disingenuous at best, and just blatantly dishonest at worst. I sincerely hope you don't consider this kind of behavior ethical.

 

TFS

 

Yes it is. Those boys should inquired into the the age of those girls before engaging in sex acts. Those boys should have done some background work and found out what their obligation under the law was regarding 'free love' in the state which they resided. Those boys should have left the video camera off. There was nothing ethical about the actions of these men who were charged with crimes.

 

They did it to themselves.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. But I certainly hope you are not suggesting that the US should abandon the option of trying someone as an adult.

 

You are saying there is no room for debate when an 17 year old wants to vote, or a 20 year old wants to drink. But there is room for debate when the 17 year old needs to be tried as an adult. How is this consistent? All of the responsibilities, and none of the privledges, eh?

 

But the reality is, its not uncommon for mechanics to suggest the replacement of parts that are fine. We see expose' on tv all the time, under the category of Buyer Beware.

 

And who's the jerk here? Do you blame the buyer for the mechanic being shifty?

 

Just be careful in the deliberations that you dont reveal your decision is based on something outside of the law. Cuz its grounds for appeal. For either side equally.

 

Prosecutors don't get appeals in the US. It doesn't matter if the jury acquits because they don't convict on Tuesdays.

 

Interestingly, I tend to agree with Justice Scalia on this one "Juries are the spinal column of American Democracy." Jury nullification is one of the few instances in the law where the intent clear overrules the letter. And the fact that it is effectively enshrined INTO law (in US vs Moylan - that one I got from wiki) should indicate to us that the letter of the law is that the intent of the law is more important.

 

Therefore, the idea that the "letter" of the law is more important, or overrides it's intent (or that trying to determine intent is useless, and all we have is the letter) is not only contrary to the spirit of the law, but in fact contrary to it's letter.

 

TFS

[Cedars]

You are saying there is no room for debate when an 17 year old wants to vote, or a 20 year old wants to drink. But there is room for debate when the 17 year old needs to be tried as an adult. How is this consistent? All of the responsibilities, and none of the privledges, eh?

 

First, my response about the voting age, drinking age was in response to a "mental maturity" question. As far as whether these things are open to debate, of course they are. Voting used to be 21. Drinking used to be as low as 18 in some places. Government can change these laws. But until they do....

 

You dont get to have sex with underage persons just because they are "mentally mature".

You dont get to film sex acts with persons under 18 just because they are "mentally mature".

 

I can even take this one further:

 

If asked whether I thought these girls were mentally mature enough to give their consent to group sex, filming of oral sex, drinking until they are so messed up people could run a train on them and they wouldnt be able to stop them... Well.... NO I dont think these girls were mentally mature enough to give their consent to the actions that occured in that room that night.

 

 

Prosecutors don't get appeals in the US. It doesn't matter if the jury acquits because they don't convict on Tuesdays.

I should have been clearer on this, my bad. It works for both sides because of this and similar court efforts:

 

"The California Supreme Court recently handed down a landmark decision that redefines the relationship between citizens and government. In the conclusion of the majority decision, the court declared: "We reaffirm, therefore, the basic rule that jurors are required to determine the facts and render a verdict in accordance with the court's instructions on the law. A juror who is unable or unwilling to do so is 'unable to perform his [or her] duty' as a juror and may be discharged."(1)"

 

Kort Explores - Judges vs Juries

 

It is under this/similar methods that the prosecutor can ask the judge, or the judge can decide to declare a mistrial and thereby allow the state to pursue the charge(s) again with a new jury. And a defense can appeal a decision.

 

Hence my warning about not letting anyone in the deliberation room know that something outside of the law as being used to come to your decision.

 

Therefore, the idea that the "letter" of the law is more important, or overrides it's intent (or that trying to determine intent is useless, and all we have is the letter) is not only contrary to the spirit of the law, but in fact contrary to it's letter.

 

ummm... the case you quote (from wiki):

 

A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.

 

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed. Id.

 

I am not arguing that Jury Nullification should be outlawed. My point simply its not the prosecutor or judges place to inform jurists of this. The point was anger was misdirected and the blame lies within the jurist who hasnt taken the time to find out what their responsiblities can encompass.

 

I am surprised at how willing some people are to blame anyone but Genarlow Wilson for what happened to Genarlow Wilson.

[Rebiu]

I am surprised at how willing some people are to blame anyone but Genarlow Wilson for what happened to Genarlow Wilson.

Perhaps that is because what happened to him is not justice and does not serve his/her/or the publics good. In fact it is no longer even a crime. I suggest that you cannot find people that agree with you because you are wrong.

[TheFaithfulStone]

"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

It is under this/similar methods that the prosecutor can ask the judge, or the judge can decide to declare a mistrial and thereby allow the state to pursue the charge(s) again with a new jury. And a defense can appeal a decision.

 

The California Decisions seems to be in such clear violation of precedent that I doubt very much if it stands. Furthermore, it's still illegal to ask a juror WHY he or she decided like she did. And jury deliberations are sealed from EVERYBODY but the jury. It's kind of dent de sans. (Ahh to speak in French obscurely.)

 

My point simply its not the prosecutor or judges place to inform jurists of this. The point was anger was misdirected and the blame lies within the jurist who hasnt taken the time to find out what their responsiblities can encompass.

 

But, the defense attorneys can also NOT tell the jury about it. And any juror who KNOWS about it is not likely to be a juror much longer.

 

Maybe it isn't the prosecutor or the judges place to inform the jury of this - afterall, they are generally the ones who stand to benefit. It probably isn't the mechanic-who-wants-to-sell-you-a-new-CV-joint's place to tell you it's a loose brake drum either. Even if the jury ASKS about jury nullification, the judge can't tell them about it - or he can lie about it outright. If you say "maybe it's just the break drum?" It's like the mechanic now says either "No, defintely the CV," or "I won't fix your car now." Of course, in the analogy, you can take your car somewhere else. No such luxury for the poor sap on the recieving end of an unjust law.

 

If you ask an expert a question, or have a reasonable expectation that an expert will provide you with information, and that expert witholds part of the truth, or gives an incomplete answer in order to gain an advantage, that expert has acted unethically.

 

True or false?

 

TFS

[Cedars]

The California Decisions seems to be in such clear violation of precedent that I doubt very much if it stands.

 

Until the california issue is ruled on, it stands. You can doubt all you want it is still the ruling and I only posted it as a legal example, not as my own opinion.

 

 

Furthermore, it's still illegal to ask a juror WHY he or she decided like she did. And jury deliberations are sealed from EVERYBODY but the jury. It's kind of dent de sans. (Ahh to speak in French obscurely.)

 

But, the defense attorneys can also NOT tell the jury about it. And any juror who KNOWS about it is not likely to be a juror much longer.

 

 

Its happens all the time. Deliberations may be sealed, but foremen are asked all the time what the problem is and they tell the judge. Juries have complained to judges about certain members (for various reasons) in each and every state. A friend was on a jury that complained to a judge in wisconsin, their complaint was over a juror who basically claimed "the cops dont arrest innocent persons" and was the only one holding out to convict. So my warning is valid. Dont let anyone in the jury room know you are using something other than the law to come to your conclusion.

 

Example (with other factors)

Reuters: Juror Contempt Conviction Reversed

 

And while I personally believe I am of sound enough stature to stand up to majority who disagree with me in a deliberation room, via friends experiences in a deliberation setting, those rooms can get quite hostile and I am not sure I couldnt be pressured into caving.

 

Maybe it isn't the prosecutor or the judges place to inform the jury of this - afterall, they are generally the ones who stand to benefit. It probably isn't the mechanic-who-wants-to-sell-you-a-new-CV-joint's place to tell you it's a loose brake drum either. Even if the jury ASKS about jury nullification, the judge can't tell them about it - or he can lie about it outright. If you say "maybe it's just the break drum?" It's like the mechanic now says either "No, defintely the CV," or "I won't fix your car now." Of course, in the analogy, you can take your car somewhere else. No such luxury for the poor sap on the recieving end of an unjust law.

 

If you ask an expert a question, or have a reasonable expectation that an expert will provide you with information, and that expert witholds part of the truth, or gives an incomplete answer in order to gain an advantage, that expert has acted unethically.

 

True or false?

 

 

 

And I think I have clearly established that the judge/prosecutor is under no legal/ethical/moral obligation to encourage jury nullification through their instructions to a jury. A judge has a different job than a prosecutor and the defense job is different than the other two.

 

False. The "expert" may withold info on how easy it is to fix a piece on your car to get the business. No fraud committed and the job gets done correctly. There is no legal obligation for a mechanic to tell me how to fix something myself, there is no legal obligation for a computer repair shop to tell me how to fix something myself. Its not a moral/ethical issue. Thats just good business.

 

I just went thru this with rewiring my house. I met resistance on every front including the State Electricity Board. MN allows me to do these things on my own, but you contact them and they wont even tell you if what you have planned is ok. They tell you to hire an electrician, even though the man I was talking to is a MN Certified Electrician.

 

If nothing else this thread may have alerted some readers to the reality of Judge/jury/innocent/guilty/nullification etc, so if they are called to jury duty they are better informed than the woman who is complaining about the system. Or worse yet, someone is charged with a crime and thinks "oh a jury will never see it that way". Reality is, there is a very good chance your jury wont have a clue about what is and isnt a part of their options.

 

Then there is always the chance that the majority will agree with the law, even if it is as harsh as it was in this particular case.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Until the california issue is ruled on, it stands. You can doubt all you want it is still the ruling and I only posted it as a legal example, not as my own opinion.

 

Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, then it doesn't matter because we're talking about Georgia and that only applies to Califorina. :naughty:

 

And I think I have clearly established that the judge/prosecutor is under no legal/ethical/moral obligation to encourage jury nullification through their instructions to a jury. A judge has a different job than a prosecutor and the defense job is different than the other two.

 

You absolutely have not. There my be no "legal" requirement - but I think that issue is settled. They are not required too, but should they? I am not required to help starving children, but should I? It's entirely an ethical argument now. My point is that we think other people who behave like this are being jerks, but that when lawyers behave like this, it's just "good lawyering."

 

False. The "expert" may withold info on how easy it is to fix a piece on your car to get the business. No fraud committed and the job gets done correctly. There is no legal obligation for a mechanic to tell me how to fix something myself, there is no legal obligation for a computer repair shop to tell me how to fix something myself. Its not a moral/ethical issue. Thats just good business.

 

Entirely not the same thing. You don't have a reasonable expectation that a mechanic will tell you how to fix your car. But you do have a reasonable expectation that he won't do twice as much as is necessary to do so, and won't lie to you about how much is necessary.

 

Continuing in your example - if you had PAID the electrician to TEACH you how to wire your house, and he had said - "Make sure the green wire is grounded," but never mentioned that the white wire should also be grounded at the box, so that you would burn down your house, or your electricity didn't work and then HE could wire your house, that would be the same thing.

 

TFS

[Cedars]

It's entirely an ethical argument now. My point is that we think other people who behave like this are being jerks, but that when lawyers behave like this, it's just "good lawyering."

 

From this website (truencated) http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/ooh9899/57.htm:

 

"Judges apply the law and oversee the legal process in courts according to local, State, and Federal statutes."

 

"They must ensure trials and hearings are conducted fairly, and the court administers justice in a manner safeguarding the legal rights of all parties involved."

 

"They rule on the admissibility of evidence and methods of conducting testimony, and settle disputes between the opposing attorneys."

 

"They ensure rules and procedures are followed, and if unusual circumstances arise for which standard procedures have not been established, judges direct how the trial will proceed based on their knowledge of the law."

 

"Judges instruct juries on applicable laws, direct them to deduce the facts from the evidence presented, and hear their verdict."

 

And as posted earlier, the U.S. v. Moylan ruling.

A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.

 

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed. Id.

 

It appears to me, by everything I have read, it would be unethical for a judge to instruct on nullification. Legal precedence has been set.

 

And as I pointed out earlier, the legislature had the option of making changes in the law retroactive during their reconsideration of the law. They consciously chose not to.

 

Georgia Supreme Court rejects Wilsons Appeal (12/16/06).

gwinnettdailypost.com

[cwes99_03]

This is the crime in this case. The fact that the prosecutors took advantage of legal technicalities to sucker the jurors into doing what they wanted.

 

Would the jurors have voted to convict if they had heard what the consequence were? If they were informed that you can in fact vote someone innocent if you think the law is insanely stupid? It doesn't seem like it from that article. But know there is nothing they can do - because the "lawyers" took advantage of their ignorance of an enormously complex system.

 

It's "technical honesty" - the same kind Bill Clinton practiced when it depended on what the definition of "is" was. I see no distinction between this and just an outright bald-faced lie.

 

A lie with half a truth is the most damned of lies.

 

 

TFS

 

I don't know what you are arguing about. The mandatory sentence has no bearing WHATSOEVER, on whether or not he is guilty. Thus the jurors are not allowed to know anything that might affect their verdict in a prejudicial manner before they decide it. That is why no prejudicial statements are allowed to be made until a verdict is decided.

AFTER THE VERDICT, the jury that is expected to sentence the offender as well is allowed to hear any prejudicial testimony or evidence that may affect sentencing. However, in this case their was no jury sentencing. The law stated 10 years. The jury was not allowed to consider this evidence as it might unduly affect their ruling on WHETHER OR NOT HE DID IT.

 

Sorry for shouting. The american justice system divides the parts of the case up so ensure that the jury only deliberates on the act itself to determine guilt. If a jury frees a guilty man, then the system doesn't work well. If they find an innocent man guilty, then the system doesn't work well. If they find a guilty man guilty and later complain about the law that states he must go to jail for 10 years because he is guilty, then the system worked to perfection, and they can go to their law makers and ask that the law be changed (which is exactly what they did.) Furthermore that offender can apply for a board of appeals to have his sentence shortened, and they will have the ability to do so.

[blue69]

Cedar... your postings crack me up.

 

I think the basic message that most people post here is that the charge and conviction of Genarlow for Child Molestation is a joke. One legal minor charged as an adult for actions with another minor.

 

This charge (and conviction) is what is crazy.

 

He was never convicted of rape. He wasn't convicted of child pornography. He was convicted of any other crime. His crime very plain and simple is receiving a blow job from a 15 year old. He was 17.

 

Maybe the letter of the law dictates this sentence and charge. Unfortunately for him the law changed AFTER his conviction. This means people (lawmakers) did realize that this law was stupid. The original author of the law stated that this wasn't the intended result of the law.

 

The supreme court jesters couldn't make this right. The prosecutors are content with themselves. You (and others like you) want to continue to condemn this young man for his choice of activities. You might want to go after all the other sexual deviants in this world. The whole group sex activity is completely irrelevant. Look at the bottomline. Forget about the scenario. He was charged, convicted and sentenced for receiving a blowjob from a girl 2 years his junior. 2 years!! By all rights he could have been charged as a minor. Instead he was charged as an adult. Why?

 

When prosecutors are given discretion with what to charge and what not to charge you get inconsistency. When you have laws being applied inconsitently you create this type of mess.

 

Cedar I wish you would get off your high moral horse and recognize this entire situation for what it really is. You sound like an educated person. Stick some common sense in your thought process and you might be brilliant!

 

Everyone goes off about all sorts of other things related to this. Stick to the point. What was he charged with? What was he convicted of? What is he doing time for? Is that right?

 

Peace.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The whole discussion seems to boil down to whether the letter of the law or it's intent is what is more important. Clearly, the child molestation law was not intended to apply here. (Witnessed by the fact that it now DOESN'T.) We can argue back and forth all day about where we discover what the intent of the law is - but in this case everyone pretty much knew the intent of the law was not for Genarlow Wilson to go to prison for 10 years for underage sex.

 

Of course, if you want to maintain that the intent of the law IS to send 17 year olds having sex with fifteen year olds to jail, and not to send 35 year olds to jail, then I think we are probably starting from positions so diametrically opposed that we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

But, I suspect any reasonable person would have a hard time equating the actions of a peer who has sex with an underage person, and an adult who has sex with an underage person. It can be difficult to not conflate the notion of the point of a law with it's text - but it is also necessary. If justice is to be fairness (thank you John Rawls) then ignoring context is tantamount to ignoring justice.

 

I posit that the letter of the law is only more important when you are looking to abuse it.

 

TFS

[Cedars]

Cedar... your postings crack me up.

They shouldnt crack you up. They most certainly are not meant to make you laugh. Keep this in mind as you chuckle, I have a good chance of being selected for a jury if called.

 

I think the basic message that most people post here is that the charge and conviction of Genarlow for Child Molestation is a joke. One legal minor charged as an adult for actions with another minor.

 

This charge (and conviction) is what is crazy.

Thats your opinion, which you are most certainly entitled to. My opinion is MORE charges should have been filed including child pornography. I think the prosector went too easy on the whole bunch of them. Genarlow Wilson was offered a plea deal and chose to take his chances, unlike the 5 others who were charged during the same incident. As I understand it, if they had chosen to plead Not Guilty, they would have all been charged as adults. So it wasnt a prosecutor singling out one person, it was a prosector willing to charge all the parties involved equally. If it works the same way in Georgia as it does in Minnesota, the judge for Genarlow Wilsons adult trial was a different judge than the one who decided he could be charged as an adult. It was Genarlow Wilson's right under the law, to plead Not Guilty, but it doesnt mean it was the wise decision. And it is not the fault of the people doing their jobs including the judge, jury and prosecutor.

 

Cedar I wish you would get off your high moral horse and recognize this entire situation for what it really is. You sound like an educated person. Stick some common sense in your thought process and you might be brilliant!

While I appreciate constructive criticism, its not about my moral high horse, its the reality of the courtroom, the law, and what goes on when you decide to go in front of a jury. Anytime a person opts to go in front of a jury, when charged with such a crime, providing the evidence the prosection had, they have a very good chance of a jury thinking "I am damn sick of seeing this going on and I intend to stop it in whatever method is available to me, he broke the law and that is clear to me". Its not my common sense that brought this upon Genarlow Wilson and the reality is, if Mr. Wilson had applied some of my common sense or morals to his own approach to the situation in this particular episode of 'This is your Life' he wouldnt have found himself in the position he is in.

 

I have no idea what I would have voted as a jurist in this particular case. I did not see the film, I did not hear the evidence presented and I was VERY aware of what Jury Nullification is long before Genarlow Wilson decided to expose himself for the camera.

 

Everyone goes off about all sorts of other things related to this. Stick to the point. What was he charged with? What was he convicted of? What is he doing time for? Is that right?

The simple point is, a jury convicted him based on the law and a judge sentenced him to exactly what the law said was required.

[Cedars]

 

Of course, if you want to maintain that the intent of the law IS to send 17 year olds having sex with fifteen year olds to jail, and not to send 35 year olds to jail, then I think we are probably starting from positions so diametrically opposed that we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

 

Where in this entire thread did anyone suggest a 35 year old shouldnt be sent to jail?

[TheFaithfulStone]

I think you misunderstood. The intent of the law IS to send 35 year olds having sex with 15 year olds to jail.

 

The intent of the law is NOT to send 17 year olds having sex with 15 year olds to jail.

 

Do you disagree with that statement?

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

They shouldnt crack you up. They most certainly are not meant to make you laugh. Keep this in mind as you chuckle, I have a good chance of being selected for a jury if called.

 

I doubt it. You'd probably get dismissed in voir dire by the defense. You seem to have a hostile attitude toward criminal defendants.

 

In this particular case, you definitely would NOT serve on the jury. You mentioned your background as having your older boyfriend check, and if that came out you'd be struck for reason, and if it came out after the trial, they'd arguably have grounds for a mistrial.

 

TFS

[Cedars]

I doubt it. You'd probably get dismissed in voir dire by the defense. You seem to have a hostile attitude toward criminal defendants.

 

In this particular case, you definitely would NOT serve on the jury. You mentioned your background as having your older boyfriend check, and if that came out you'd be struck for reason, and if it came out after the trial, they'd arguably have grounds for a mistrial.

 

TFS

 

Actually I am quite charming, funny, people feel at ease around me, dogs like me, and I have a beautiful smile. When I worked for government several people (mostly lawyers) questioned me about why I havent run for office myself. You wouldnt be able to read my position on anything I didnt want you to.

 

What makes you think the questions asked in a jury questionaire would even cover aspects of what a boyfriend may or may not have asked my parents about during my dating experience? Or that in reading them, I would honestly not associate the question with this past experience?

 

And do you really think this past boyfriend (from many years ago) would associate his responsible actions regarding his sex life, to the possiblity that it prejudiced my opinion and inspire him to alert anyone to his actions during our dating experience?

 

Actually the highest probablity that I would be stricken from a jury for this crime is the fact I watch the news almost every night, and I read the papers. The fact that I am informed about what goes on around me is the significant factor in the potential for my dismissal from such an event.

 

Now that tells you alot more about what the potential qualifications of the 'jury of your peers' consists of.