OJ Simpson

Peterson Trial

I was hoping to get more answers on this question but oh well. I have always had my own ideas about court cases and judging others by the means of jury trials. I personally think they are a big waste of money. Some trials have the evidence to convict but because of some circumstances some evidence is never shown which to me is wrong. I have seen trials that alone lets people know the one who done it without the need for a trial. Other cases where evidence is lacking when someone has to say yea or nae that can be over-turned by a judge is to me stupid and a waste. I never wanted to be part of a jury to any case. I have been dismissed as a juror because of how I feel to the point they no longer ask me to serve. To me when they call a jury in to play this means there is doubt and need the jury to sort it out. In that case there is already reasonable doubt so how could I say he/she is guilty with this reasonable doubt right from the start. So in a manner of speaking if I am forced to be on a jury the person is going to walk if it comes down to me. When it comes to evidence I say use all you can find and if there is a problem of how it was obtained then prosecute the ones that did it wrong. If with that evidence, if it is enough to convict do so in chambers, if not tell the investigators they need a better case.

Lorena Bobbit! That would have been a different sort of trial! Intresting stuff going on there!!! invis.+5 . How many "Bobbit" jokes went around during that time????

Bernard Madoff case.

I have been called to jury service many times, both criminal and civil. I never make it past the attorney questioning phase. In my county, the pre-service questionaire, requires that you list any and all organizations to which you belong. Right out of the gate, being a member of the NRA and a Republican doesn't cut it with most defense or litigation attorneys. Although I feel that I would be objective in deciding based on the law and the proofs presented, it seems obvious to me that I am too conservative for the attorneys to risk such when making their selection. Sorry that my answer doesn't really address your question, Chief. In most of the so-called "famous cases", I'm not certain I wouldn't have decided the same as the sitting juries did. The one exception I can think of would be the first trial of the Menendez brothers...but, even then, I didn't hear all of the evidence presented. Prosecuters often fail in what and how they try cases. +5

The Michael Jackson case would have been interesting.