I didn’t really follow this, but if a jury said not guilty isn’t it at least somewhat reasonable to assume the evidence wasn’t that strong? Or I guess the prosecution could have intentionally made a weak case, but idk
I figured he would go down hard as a scapegoat for the rest of the (white) people involved. Maybe Diddy had enough blackmail or something to wiggle out of it, but also I’m not quick to assume the jury got it wrong if they got to see evidence and hear testimony we didn’t. I typically just trust a jury more than the prosecution, cops, government in general, etc.
They screen specifically for that. You need to be the type of person they perceive to not be on any side so if you show strong reactions to something you won’t make it. Fence sitters, or “centrists” are very much preferred.
That’s what I’ve been hearing about the case. I haven’t followed the nitty gritty too closely, but know people who do. The general consensus I’ve gotten is that the prosecution came under prepared for as big of a case as they’re trying to make. I’m also assuming that they got less evidence than they would get out of court because individual evidence has to be stronger when you’re in court (at least if the defense lawyer is any good).
Reminds me of Casey Anthony’s trial. Everybody was so pissed at that jury because it was so obvious that she did it, but if you see the case the prosecutors made against her it becomes very clear very quickly why she was found not guilty.
Not to mention the judge not allowing them to show his social media posts about wanting to shoot people or tell the jury he beat up a girl at his school.
Yeah, I get what you mean, I even said the prosecution could have brought a weak case. Both the defense and the prosecution teams choose jurors, so if the prosecutor was basically throwing the case then they would certainly try to choose a favorable jury. The court ultimately decides what the jury sees.
I’m just not convinced the government would orchestrate a complex conspiracy to get Diddy on lesser charges instead of just like…not charging him at all in the first place? Allowing him to take a favorable plea deal? Idk there are a lot of ways they could have handled this that seem less complicated than fixing a jury trial.
I didn’t really follow this, but if a jury said not guilty isn’t it at least somewhat reasonable to assume the evidence wasn’t that strong? Or I guess the prosecution could have intentionally made a weak case, but idk
I figured he would go down hard as a scapegoat for the rest of the (white) people involved. Maybe Diddy had enough blackmail or something to wiggle out of it, but also I’m not quick to assume the jury got it wrong if they got to see evidence and hear testimony we didn’t. I typically just trust a jury more than the prosecution, cops, government in general, etc.
Politely, juries are full of morons who couldn’t skip jury duty and busybodies who want to judge others.
They screen specifically for that. You need to be the type of person they perceive to not be on any side so if you show strong reactions to something you won’t make it. Fence sitters, or “centrists” are very much preferred.
In a satanically fascist society screening for neutral individuals gives you the most satanically fascist treatlerites to ever walk the earth
That’s what I’ve been hearing about the case. I haven’t followed the nitty gritty too closely, but know people who do. The general consensus I’ve gotten is that the prosecution came under prepared for as big of a case as they’re trying to make. I’m also assuming that they got less evidence than they would get out of court because individual evidence has to be stronger when you’re in court (at least if the defense lawyer is any good).
Reminds me of Casey Anthony’s trial. Everybody was so pissed at that jury because it was so obvious that she did it, but if you see the case the prosecutors made against her it becomes very clear very quickly why she was found not guilty.
In short, fuck cops
To my knowledge the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was like that too, as in the prosecutors messing up big time.
“Messing up” implies a lack of malfeasance.
Not to mention the judge not allowing them to show his social media posts about wanting to shoot people or tell the jury he beat up a girl at his school.
sure, I get the impulse, but who selects the jury and controls what they see?
Yeah, I get what you mean, I even said the prosecution could have brought a weak case. Both the defense and the prosecution teams choose jurors, so if the prosecutor was basically throwing the case then they would certainly try to choose a favorable jury. The court ultimately decides what the jury sees.
I’m just not convinced the government would orchestrate a complex conspiracy to get Diddy on lesser charges instead of just like…not charging him at all in the first place? Allowing him to take a favorable plea deal? Idk there are a lot of ways they could have handled this that seem less complicated than fixing a jury trial.