QUOTE(Momof3 @ Nov 11 2003, 09:50 PM)
Aquilla, that is my question. I know they have to be convicted without unreasonable doubt. Marqie has stated what I think most people feel. Do you think you can be a jurer and be impartial?
You say you can and I believe you could but what I wanted to know do you think most people could be able to be impartial?
Ok, I see where you were going with that now, and it's a good question. I certainly can't speak for most people, really can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have been on a couple of juries through the years. Most of the people serving with me seemed to have come in with a pre-conceived belief that the person being charged in the crime is probably guilty, their logic running along the lines of "they wouldn't be going to all this trouble if he didn't do it".
However, once the trial began, those people paid pretty close attention to what was being said and what was being presented. They listened to everything, some even taking notes and they took their job seriously, VERY seriously. I was on one case that took them 2 days to present and took us 3 days to deliberate. People pulled out their notes and we discussed each and every issue that came up. It was quite an enlightening process to me. Those people really wanted to do the right thing and quite frankly, some of them put up a better case for the defendant than his lawyer did. Those experiences really strengthened my belief in the the jury system.
So, to answer your fundamental question, I think these two guys can get a fair trial based on nothing else other than my very limited personal experience.