OWS activist faces 7 years in prison for being sexually assaulted by a cop

[Bandit3 the Worker]

WTF Snowstalker? She assaulted a police officer, this was ascertained by a jury of eight women and four men.

The video proves that the cop assaulted her - not the other way around.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

WTF Snowstalker? She assaulted a police officer, this was ascertained by a jury of eight women and four men.

The video proves that the cop assaulted her - not the other way around.

They how is it that all twelve jurors didn't see it the "correct" way?

The jury could have been paid off.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I also think the prosecutor needs to be impeached for even bringing this case.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

To be honest, I'm still surprised OWS is still going on at this point.....have they accomplished anything in the past 2 years besides 'assaulting' police?

For one thing, we got the Stock Act passed. We may have even kept Romney from winning.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Now the jury says they were MISLED by the prosecution!!! They weren't even informed about the possible penalty or other key facts of the case.

How can anyone get a fair trial when we let liars prosecute cases?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Nor outside a capital case should jurors EVER know of the possible penalties. Their job is to determine whether under the facts/evidence and the law the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing is the perview of the court. Jury nullification is a bad, bad thing.

Our system is supposed to be based on fully informed juries. There are times when a jury has a right to nullify.

In fact, juries in Kentucky decide the sentence - not just the question of innocence or guilt.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Then you should NEVER serve on a jury involving a marijuana-related offense. You have a right to your views, but when one's views keep them from being a fair and impartial juror, then it's a violation of your oath of office to serve.

If you lie about it in jury selection (including remaining silent when asked about such views), it's arguably perjury.

Defendants have a right to be tried by a jury that's been informed of the facts.

We need to find smart judges who'll toss out convictions that have resulted from uninformed juries.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

"Fully informed" means on the evidence, and what the law requires for a conviction. NOT penalties, for again, that is the court's perview. If there are mitigating circumstances, that is for the court to determine in minimizing penalties, NOT for the jury to give a mulligan to a defendant proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just because they don't like what could happen in sentencing.

Smart jurors consider this stuff all the time. I've heard of cases where jurors decided not to convict on one charge because they knew the defendant was going to get a stiff enough sentence for a different charge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've had to do jury duty in Kentucky several times.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Seriously though, that's neat to learn. Can you tell me about some of the decisions you had to make regarding penalties vs. guilt/innocence?

Unfortunately, I didn't get to make many actual decisions, because jury duty is an infrequent occurrence. But I always viewed jury duty as my responsibility to help correct a flawed justice system.