Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (3100)	6/15/1999 8:18:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 13056

Well, yes, what was I thinking I don't know. Surely you'd have to try to talk some sense to the other jurors. If the defendant used a public defender that part of it might be solved satisfactorily. I would purposefully avoid specifics in Voir Dire if at all possible. If directly asked, it would be hard to avoid answering honestly without revealing myself, though I'd try- taking a cue from Clinton perhaps. ...um...when you say "... make me think I have a better chance of my Big Game calls coming into the money than having to deal with the jury room in such a case" ...I'm afraid you've lost me. ??? It really kills me that simple marijuana possession cases where I live often include takings of property. One fellow nearby lost $10,000 worth of equity in his home(he was allowed to keep it for himself and his family, just had to give the cash and bump up his mortgage to do so- this a result of a new "leniency" policy. This was equal to ALL the equity he'd built up in his originally $25,000 home- he lives in the country and works as a store clerk- an intelligent good hearted family man he is) PRIOR to ever going to trial. He let them in his home though the warrant only included his neighbor, because he was subtly led to believe they would plant evidence and treat him very poorly if he didn't cooperate. Dan B