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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (1502)	9/25/1998 4:55:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

Wrong again Dipy. I'll deal with this first - "regardless of all the legal mumbo-jumbo, it is the jury that has the final say!" No. A judge has the authority to disregard a jury verdict and more importantly, sets the penalty for the crime. I'm trying to decode the first part of your post, but it is either tortured logic or just obtuse. "if a guy in such a situation happened to tell a lie, and the prosecution wanted to pronounce him guilty, and base their argument entirely on the fact that he made a false statement there, there will be many members on the jury who won't buy it." I hope you don't rely on that if you're ever brought to trial and then lie under oath - a jury member who finds you not guilty based upon demonstrably false testimony on your part is guilty himself or herself of failing to honor the oath they took as jurors. A judge is rather careful and explicit in instructions to jurors, particularly in the matter of the credibility of witnesses. Liars rarely win, sorry. Mr. K.