Comments

1
This is a dumb opinion.

The point of the question is simply to ferret out who could never vote for conviction in a he-said/she-said situation, i.e. the vast majority of rape cases.

"Some systems of justice require a higher level of proof than our system requires. This is a he-said/she-said case, and in this country, it's possible to convict someone of rape on that basis. In other systems of law, it isn't. Is it going to be a problem for anyone that he-said/she-said is a sufficient basis to support a conviction?"
2
Disagree slightly Colin. I agree that the question posed by the prosecutor was proper and important, but it seems like a potential juror's response got the discussion off track. Trial judge could have easily given a simple instruction that the defendant requested.

This is a good opinion about a dumb trial court judge.
3
@bg: "During voir dire, the prosecutor engaged potential jurors in a discussion about their views regarding the prosecution calling only one witness to prove a fact. The prosecutor contrasted for the potential jurors a scenario that he asserted "was out of either Iran or Saudi Arabia" where an alleged rape victim was required to produce five male witnesses to prove the rape. One juror purported to correct the prosecutor, stating that the prosecutor was describing Sharia law, a religious law, not the legal system of a country." Opinion, p.2.

That tiny mention, by a juror, not even the prosecutor, of Sharia doesn't merit a new trial.

Along the same lines, is it inviting anti-Jewish/Christian sentiment to say "an eye for an eye" isn't the standard for punishment?
4
It's okay for women to get stoned.

It has a totally different meaning here in Oregon.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.