Associated Press – January 6, 2006, 2:27 PM EST:
A jury looking at the bloody coat of the victim in an attempted murder trial found something the authorities missed: 30 bags of what appeared to be crack.
The deliberations were stopped after the discovery Thursday, and the jury was told to return to the courthouse next week.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5033 access attempts in the last 7 days.
“This is actually more common than you’d think. I work for a court and once the jury found a written confession in the defendant’s coat pocket. A mistrial was declared and the guy ended up pleading guilty.”
You have got to be kidding me. That’s too lame for either Matlock, or Night Court.
It also seems really really really fishy, but then I don’t know the details of the story.
SignOfZeta, no one admits knowing how the confession got put into the coat. Probably was just sloppy police work.
Take a look at your co-workers. I work every day with about two dozen educated professionals, the dumbest of which probably has an I.Q. around 110. And yet there isn’t two of them that can actually solve or deal with a problem outside the norm.
Now why would we expect members of the police force to be smarter than the college grads we work with every day? My experience has shown that only one engineer in ten actually knows engineering. I expect that applies to police work as well; only one detective in ten knows how to investigate.
This is actually more common than you’d think. I work for a court and once the jury found a written confession in the defendant’s coat pocket. A mistrial was declared and the guy ended up pleading guilty.
And in a civil case involving a multiple vehicle accident, the jury figured out why the plaintiff didn’t sue a particular driver who most likely caused it. From a photograph introduced into evidence they could tell the car’s license had expired, and surmised, with no valid license, chances are, no insurance. Needless to say the plaintiff lost that case, it make him look greedy suing the guy who happened to have insurance versus the guy who actually caused it.