|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
Does not matter. The jury knows that an
iPhone is twice as expensive as a
droid
phone. They get it. They know this trial is
all about money. They can
smell that
Apple started this farce because Apple is
being taken to the
cleaners.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
It shouldn't be like that. The jury - in the modern system - should be twelve
people at random. That means you DON'T stack it by eliminating people who might
know what's going on. In fact, if you go back to the *true* meaning of "a
jury of your peers" it was stacked with people who DID know what was going
on.
It's not quite the way it's done in the UK, but I'd like to see jury selection
consist of "here's the next eighteen people on the list, prosecution and
defence each pick three people to throw off. If you want to throw off more, you
have to *justify* *every* *one*. And if one of the three you throw off just
happens to have been thrown off twice before, you get surprised by having to
justify it." Once that's done, the first twelve are your jurors, with the
rest (if any) being alternates as required.
Suddenly, you can't stack juries any more ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|