So I was in Jury today and...?

Question

well the case was based on entirely circumstantial evidence.
When we went to deliberate I had some reservations and spoke of them. (the case was in regards to a store that had been burgalized)
One of the answers I got was "well I know the store owners grandparents and they are good christian people"
Anyone see cause to vomit?...because I almost did.
And yes I grilled him about it...even though the our decisions were the same I questioned his reasons behind the decision.
Vomit Votmit Vomit.
Anyway this scares me can anyone take a guess to as why?

Answer 1

It's not a repulsion to Christianity (as Jimbo might realize if he found the "On" button to his brain). It's the fact that nobody should be let off the hook just because "the store owner's grandparents...are good Christian people." Heck, the same could be said about my grandparents (on side of my family), but that wouldn't prevent me from *having the ability* of burglarizing a store, or from running a store that was burglarized. The religion of somebody's relatives has nothing to do with that individual's ability to respect or disrespect the law. To see somebody think otherwise is to feel a horrid cry in you that makes you realize that some of our fellow humans just don't have higher brain functions, and it's frankly disgusting that those primates dare to call themselves "human."

Answer 2

I would guess that the reason is because you have a basic revulsion to anything Christian. But beyond that you probably recognized that the Defense Atty didn’t do his job by allowing someone with a possible bias on the jury.

As someone above mentioned it could be grounds for a mistrial (assuming the perp was convicted).

As to the remark itself irrespective of the jury room it is something I hear a lot and it just conveys that the person(s) who are the subject of the remark are good citizens, Christian in this case being more of an adjective than an expression of religiosity.

Answer 3

The grandparents Christianity has nothing to do with the guilt (or innocence) of the suspects. The tacit statement in the Juror's assertion that "someone must be punished because I share values with the victim" is a violation of constitutional law.

Answer 4

You should have asked to see the judge. The judge would have to release the Jury member that spoke of non-evidentiary bias and use an alternate or declare a mistrial.

Even now, should someone involved in the trail see your account the verdict would have to be struck.

Answer 5

What? You didn't want to sent the accused to prison solely because the victim's grandparents were good christians? Not very Christian of you!!!!

Answer 6

From my viewpoint, it would probably be because you are aware that just because a person believes in God, that he or she will never have anything bad happen to them or that a Christian person (the possible burgler in this instance) could never do anything wrong. Either way...those are concepts of mans religions...not God.

God loves all of us as individuals regardless of what we have done or not done. He also will call or has called all of us at one time or another in our lives. If people will answer that call, He will lead them to understand what He wants from them.

Answer 7

It very well should have scared you; it was, of course, totally irrelevant to the case. Justice must be based on evidence, and that wasn't.

Answer 8

I guess that person probably meant that they were trustworthy but its pretty stupid to judge based on religion.

Answer 9

That juror should have been disqualified because of a conflict of interest.

Answer 10

Because you know there is nothing good in a lawyer and you are jealous when someone says there is something good in a Christian.