07-02-2013, 09:46 AM
"Their" true verdict is correct, Tiki.
It's a verdict reached by those six people deliberating the evidence. If "they" ignore their oaths and deliver a verdict that they don't believe in, due to fear of public reaction, it's "untruthful". If they deliver what they've decided upon based on the evidence presented at trial and by following the process, it's their true verdict.
"Truthful" and "correct" are not the same. But, you know that. People can honestly reach wrong conclusions in good faith.
And, I agree with Judge Perry. The Casey Anthony verdict was surprising. If he's correct in assuming that the demeanor of the lawyers presenting the evidence at trial was a factor in their verdict, it proves that they weren't the brightest jury, imo. Juries sometimes consider the defendant's appearance as well. No argument that such things can influence how a jury views the evidence and have an impact on the verdict.
That's entirely different than delivering a verdict that they believe is false based on what they perceive will happen outside of the courtroom (after having already assured the court that they would not consider or be in fear of public reaction when deliberating a verdict).
I get your points, I just see it differently.
It's a verdict reached by those six people deliberating the evidence. If "they" ignore their oaths and deliver a verdict that they don't believe in, due to fear of public reaction, it's "untruthful". If they deliver what they've decided upon based on the evidence presented at trial and by following the process, it's their true verdict.
"Truthful" and "correct" are not the same. But, you know that. People can honestly reach wrong conclusions in good faith.
And, I agree with Judge Perry. The Casey Anthony verdict was surprising. If he's correct in assuming that the demeanor of the lawyers presenting the evidence at trial was a factor in their verdict, it proves that they weren't the brightest jury, imo. Juries sometimes consider the defendant's appearance as well. No argument that such things can influence how a jury views the evidence and have an impact on the verdict.
That's entirely different than delivering a verdict that they believe is false based on what they perceive will happen outside of the courtroom (after having already assured the court that they would not consider or be in fear of public reaction when deliberating a verdict).
I get your points, I just see it differently.