What must be understood about a Jury, and convincing them as an Attorney to decide in Their Clients Favor, is NOT JUST a Lesson in Pointing Out;
- How much better your PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is in Establishing Truth.
- The Veracity of the Witnesses who Testify on behalf of your Client.
- How the Opposition has Failed to provide Sufficient Evidence, along with no Compelling Testimony, to decide in Their Favor.
The Above, are on the Surface, what people are led to believe is the Proper Function of a Trial Setting. That both sides present the Evidence, Offer Opposing Conclusions on what it means, and after Instruction by the Trial Judge, retire to decide on a Just and Fair Verdict.
Yes, all of the Above can and will probably be brought out during the Trial., but it is not just CONTENT THAT MATTERS, BUT PRESENTATION. HOW INFORMATION IS GIVEN TO THE JURY, CAN BE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE EVIDENCE ITSELF.
Now if a Courtroom/Trial setting was set up to just Determine the Most Accurate Interpretation of the Evidence, and Rendering the Most Just Decision, the Criminal Justice System in the U.S would be much different.
1) A JURY IS DRAWN FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND SITTING ONE IS NOT BASED ON ANY ABILITIES THAT POTENTIAL JURORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE.
2) PICKING THE MEMBERS OF A JURY, IS SUBJECT TO PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES BY EITHER ATTORNEY. QUITE SIMPLY, THIS MEANS DISMISSING INDIVIDUALS REGARDLESS OF THE CAPABILITIES THEY MAY HAVE IN EVALUATING THE MERITS OF EACH SIDE, AND RENDERING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT.
3) WHILE POTENTIAL JURORS ARE SUPPOSE TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS HONESTLY, THOSE WHO HOLD HATEFUL AND IRRATIONAL PREJUDICES MAY SEE NO REASON TO LET THEM KNOWN TO THE COURT.
4) THE EXTENT TO WHICH PUBLIC OPINION MAY WEIGH ON ANY JURORS MIND, AFFECTING THEIR JUDGMENT. THIS INCLUDES THE PERCEPTION THAT THE COMMUNITY MAY HAVE ABOUT THE CASE, AND HOW RESIDENT JURORS MAY BE TREATED AFTER THE TRIAL.
LOOK FOR MORE ON THIS SUBJECT.