Intruders-Alert

SuzyRidr2 wrote:

RoadKing wrote:

SuzyRidr2 wrote:Gross negligence (firing a weapon in public 3 times) should have made the task of making involuntary manslaughter stick a walk in the park for a prosecutor facing an objective and reasonable jury.

I have read and heard that prosecution was weak in that liberal setting. I believe that.

That's possible. It's also possible that the jury was hand picked to acquit Jose regardless of the facts presented.

In other words, not only was the prosecution weak, it was also complicit in the verdict of not guilty. Right? I believe it.

EVER WATCH " BULL " ON TUES EVENINGS ?

OF COURSE THE JURY WAS HAND PICKED FOR A VERDICT ....

HARRIS wrote:EVER WATCH " BULL " ON TUES EVENINGS ?

OF COURSE THE JURY WAS HAND PICKED FOR A VERDICT ....

Bull on Tuesday evenings. Hmmmm. No, nor any other evenings. You are talking fake bull bleep news, right?

RoadKing wrote:

HARRIS wrote:EVER WATCH " BULL " ON TUES EVENINGS ?

OF COURSE THE JURY WAS HAND PICKED FOR A VERDICT ....

Bull on Tuesday evenings. Hmmmm. No, nor any other evenings. You are talking fake bull bleep news, right?

No, there is a show called "Bull", where the accused hire this guy to hand pick (rig) the jury for their favor.
Rather good show actually, and it would not surprise me if it mimics real life.
Check it out some time.

I thought each side has the opportunity to interview potential jurors and either object or accept their participation in a case. So I would say no one has the advantage except for any particular lawyer having an exceptional skill at jury selection.