Re: This is a listed crime?

At 05:50 PM 9/21/98 +0000, attila wrote:
>    "I dont know nuthin' 'bout it" 

Double negatives are your friend :-)

>    agreed, in theory. but how do you protect yourself when two or more
>    take the stand and swear under oath that you said: "......" or, even:

Yeah.  The times I've known the facts in cop-vs-citizen cases,
the cops have often been lying; I have to assume that they're often lying
in cases when I don't know the facts as well.  Of course, getting
somebody with that kind of attitude about cops onto a jury 
is somewhat unlikely, but occasionally you'll find neutrals.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

--
At 12:09 AM 9/23/98 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> Yet some of the apolitical numbskulls I know about have
> served on several juries in the same time. The Poisson, as
> expected, or something more human?

I have often read allegations of manifest jury rigging, but
from highly unreliable sources.

If juries are routinely rigged, then we would expect a high
number of repeats, particularly in politically sensitive
cases such as taxes, drugs, or organized crime.  We would
expect a drug jury to be composed primarily of people who
have been repeatedly called for a drug jury previously.  If
juries are rigged, it should be easy to check statistically.
Simply compare the number of repeats at a jury call with the
expected number of repeats.

To rig a jury by excluding undesirables such as Tim May would
be far too laborious.  To rig a jury it would be necessary to
include only desirables, thus the pool from which the jury is
selected would be vastly smaller than the official pool, and
simple statistics would show this up.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     36kfZmqoLcEiOYb2EmT85BRIwhd8rlU2mEbg9tAo
     423cg9OMSTWTZb0pVq0EhzhtObK62XbWKkGvWVSHk
-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.


http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald

--
At 9:12 PM -0500 9/23/98, James A. Donald wrote:
> > To rig a jury by excluding undesirables such as Tim May
> > would be far too laborious.  To rig a jury it would be
> > necessary to

At 09:52 AM 9/24/98 -0500, Petro wrote:
> No, no, On the contrary, far too easy.
>
> There are certain people who are NEVER called to jury duty,
> people convicted of felonies & etc. simply put the name of
> an undesirable on this list, 

The number of identifiable undesirables is too small to
guarantee the desired trial outcome.  To ensure a desired
outcome it would be necessary to screen out a very large
number of potential undesirables.  It would be much easier to
screen in a small number of desirables.

> > and simple statistics would show this up.

> If anyone were to look.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     M+t9fZl1uB+ChARqSR+DFzmoEJWNgr/rn5RGHaZA
     4/GeYPAq0AtkguzZ+40UycomDZMeuRMUpYyjzWHDJ

-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.


http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald