The OJ trial aside, do you believe in the jury system?

Answer 1

absolutely. We ALL know the systems not perfect. How could it be, it was created by man, and mistakes will happen.

But I am an army veteran who spent ten years protecting the freedoms we have and I would die to help maintain that right .

Answer 2

Actually, the OJ trial is the perfect example of how well the jury system works.

The general public heard and saw many things, which were excluded by the judge for being inflammatory and misleading, which the jury was never exposed to. the result- the people who heard and saw the excluded evidence all thought OJ was guilty. Most of that evidence was circumstantial and had nothing to do with the incident in question. It was presented in such a way that made people believe OJ was guilty, but really proved nothing.

The jury only saw the evidence which was allowed at trial, and subsequently saw reason to doubt the prosecution's version of the events on the night in question. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury ruled correctly.

the OJ case showed conclusively that inflammatory and circumstantial information about a case can and will sway a jury to vote guilty, even when such evidence doesn't prove guilt.

Answer 3

Yes, if done fairly, it's the system of justice that the public majority agreed to abide by and replaces the vigilante system which was very often flawed in many aspects.
The best way to approach OJ's acquittal is to consider what the jury saw. They heard the Fuhrman tapes where he made highly derogatory statements about blacks then lied underoath. The lead investigator in charge of the whole case freely admitted in court that he did indeed take a vial sample of OJ's blood from the lab and carried it back into the crime scene, which is against police policy. There were no witnesses and the murder weapon was never found. The jury saw a video taken by paparazzi of OJ, Nicole, Denise and their parents all talking in a nice peaceful manner right after attending OJ/Nicole's daughter's dance recital - and Denise even kissed and hugged OJ (all this was a few short hours before the murders). The jury was taken to OJ's house and did not see a rumored large blood trail. There never was the amount of blood on OJ's body, clothes, car or house consistent with someone who had done this crime in person. The jury saw that the glove truly did not fit - it was the wrong size (heat shinks not moisture). The murder weapon was never connected to OJ or even found. The book "if i did it" deals with one chapter that is hypothetical and labeled fiction - a great part of the book likely is OJ defending himself against false allegations. Some may disagree with the jury verdict but it's unfair to state with absolute certainty that this person is guilty. OJ has always maintained his innocence.
More reference:
http://members.aol.com/CntrbndMag/oj.html
Top forensics scientist Dr. Henry Lee in his book "cracking cases" provides compelling scientific points that OJ is highly unlikely to be the one who did this unfortunate crime.

Answer 4

yes and no if the jury is selected by the rules of our constitution yes then the judge will be impartial or either excuse himself, and the judge will also inform the jury of how the evidence is supposed to be considered" a organization called the (fully informed jury association ) wanted to put a man in the court s to inform the jury of their obligations but, the supreme court ruled them out " the judge will charge the jury in a method that almost guarantees a conviction, that is why we have a 98.8% conviction ratio today in our free country, it is estimated that 75 to 80 %of the people who serve on jury's believe the lie that cops , prosecutors don't lie , does anyone remember the rampart scandal in Los Angles where a reporter had set up some cops and later called the F,B,I, in and found that the cops were robbing, burglarizing places and putting the blame on others , now Calif, has to retry 1000s of cases, that is the one s where the person has not already been executed, or the case in Illinois where they executed 47men and after a federal investigation they found that 35 of these men were not guilty, until we get back to what our constitution say's, the jury system is terrible, and is worse than no justice system at all. the blacks have mostly been informed on this and use it in most case's, today no one is safe from the justice system guilty or not , America has the highest conviction ratio than any nation on planet earth,

Answer 5

Your first aspect is useless on. responsible and responsible. 2d, Mark Furman's (no longer Vermin) movements in no way made OJ innocuous era. Mr. Furman movements were regrettable yet might want to no longer have swayed the jury to an innocuous verdict. it would have not swayed me. I knew OJ did it the first day the information broke after I discovered OJ escaped to Chi city. He replaced into operating from the regulation. third, I watched some television of the present trial. From what i ought to be certain he received a honest trial. How ought to he help yet no longer have honest trial in basic of ever crew contained in the country gazing over the trial searching for the way out for OJ? to respond to your question, sure i believe he received a honest trial. i replaced into happy to be certain justice being very last served on a criminal.

Answer 6

Sometimes human emotions preside over logic. I remember, during OJ's trial, even I was in denial but now the fog has cleared. Jury are people like me sometimes. May be there would have been riots, if he was found guilty.

Answer 7

I think the jury trial system is broken, and quite impossible to get fair jurisprudence. (Both for the victims and the accused.) The problem is trial lawyers themselves. They will do anything they can to stall proceedings as long as possible, so they can bill every phone call, every brief, every courier trip... What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One's a scum sucking bottom feeder, and the other is good with hush puppies....

Answer 8

For the most part, yes. However it has been proven to be flawed and it is appaling that innocent people, although the percentage is small, have been convicted and experienced execution.

Maybe with DNA we will have a more perfect system and more evidence to present to the jury.

I think it is unfair that people with money can hire top notch attorneys but the rest of us would have to accept an overloaded Public Defender. I trust I will never be in this situation,

Answer 9

The jury system certainly has its flaws, but overall, I think it gives us a little more justice than places without the jury system.

Answer 10

A jury muffed this one, but having a jury is better than having one guy sitting up front with a gabble making all decisions. Unfortunately, there are members of the jury who can barely read and write.