Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)

12. In other words, treating the jurors as criminals that can't be trusted

Reply to HiPointDem (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:25 AM

Jul 2013

I haven't heard about access to media by the jurors in this case but I haven't been paying close attention either.

Again, my original comment was more about the vibe of "NSA can be trusted but jurors can't" I'm getting from some people.

Personally I'd be more likely to trust jurors than the NSA.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sheriffs Office Admits Jurors were allowed unsupervised access during Zimmerman trial. [View all] Maraya1969 Jul 2013 OP

the defendant will NOT be requesting a new trial based on this information .... nt msongs Jul 2013 #1

ha... Pelican Jul 2013 #2

If you want to keep anyone at all reasonable off juries then by all means treat them like criminals Fumesucker Jul 2013 #3

based on b37's own words she wasn't reasonable, and it's not the jury that is being JI7 Jul 2013 #4

The apparent outrage over "unsupervised access" is what I'm addressing Fumesucker Jul 2013 #6

i don't trust the nsa or any jury selection process that results in the wife of a friend of the HiPointDem Jul 2013 #8

The jury sequester doesn't strike me as all that "lax" Fumesucker Jul 2013 #10

access to media and regular access to outsiders strikes me as not a sequester. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #11

In other words, treating the jurors as criminals that can't be trusted Fumesucker Jul 2013 #12

the case was deemed to be high-profile enough that there was a need for sequestration. i HiPointDem Jul 2013 #14

I think I heard that sequestration was a response to privacy concerns on the part of jurors Fumesucker Jul 2013 #15

i think it's true that if all jurors had to be sequestered, that would be a stronger argument. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #16

what a bullshit excuse. Scout Jul 2013 #23

The jurors could easily receive information they should not have even during "supervised" contacts Fumesucker Jul 2013 #25

O'Mara was saying how Zimmerman was frustrated with how people JI7 Jul 2013 #5

he set in motion the events that led to the death of an innocent teenager Skittles Jul 2013 #9

"A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse" B Stieg Jul 2013 #13

+100nt bravenak Jul 2013 #29

kr HiPointDem Jul 2013 #7

Yeah, that's another thing..... ReRe Jul 2013 #17

Sadly Mr Holder so far has been almost worthless as AG. Ford_Prefect Jul 2013 #18

re: your last paragraph "pandering to the crowd"... ReRe Jul 2013 #21

Yes, but somehow "Lip Service" fails to capture the cynical quality I had in mind. Ford_Prefect Jul 2013 #27

Hardly the first post on this topic. Igel Jul 2013 #19

This message was self-deleted by its author pintobean Jul 2013 #20

Thanks for that info, Igel ReRe Jul 2013 #22

Lots of folks get their legal knowledge from 'Law and Order' / 'LA Law', etc.. X_Digger Jul 2013 #24

I served on a jury too... ReRe Jul 2013 #26

Those may be correct as far as the letter of Florida Law is concerned. Ford_Prefect Jul 2013 #28