Comments on: Undercover mother: exposing a juror’s lies http://apublicdefender.com/2008/11/29/undercover-mother-exposing-a-jurors-lies/ Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:29:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SPO http://apublicdefender.com/2008/11/29/undercover-mother-exposing-a-jurors-lies/comment-page-1/#comment-44303 SPO Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:24:59 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1849#comment-44303 The right not to testify doesn't mean that people outside of the courtroom don't get to draw their own conclusions from a defendant's refusal to testify or to dime out his co-defendant. You make the same error as someone who thinks that implants cause breast cancer simply because a jury once said so. The right not to testify doesn’t mean that people outside of the courtroom don’t get to draw their own conclusions from a defendant’s refusal to testify or to dime out his co-defendant. You make the same error as someone who thinks that implants cause breast cancer simply because a jury once said so.

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2008/11/29/undercover-mother-exposing-a-jurors-lies/comment-page-1/#comment-44291 Gideon Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:09:37 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1849#comment-44291 Are you referring to that last quote, preceded by the sentence starting "on a side note"? If so, I have to disagree with you. The implication is that because he didn't testify at trial, or snitch on the co-defendant, he had something to hide. It belies a fundamental lack of understanding of the right to not testify and the burden of proof. Are you referring to that last quote, preceded by the sentence starting “on a side note”?

If so, I have to disagree with you. The implication is that because he didn’t testify at trial, or snitch on the co-defendant, he had something to hide.

It belies a fundamental lack of understanding of the right to not testify and the burden of proof.

]]> By: SPO http://apublicdefender.com/2008/11/29/undercover-mother-exposing-a-jurors-lies/comment-page-1/#comment-44290 SPO Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:01:17 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/?p=1849#comment-44290 I'm not sure that your criticism of Vanity Fair is right. That something is not admissible in a court of law is not necessarily irrelevant for determining whether the guy, in fact, did it. Governor Wilder based a decision to execute a man because the man failed a lie detector test. Turns out, of course, that Governor Wilder did the right thing in allowing Roger Coleman to be executed. I’m not sure that your criticism of Vanity Fair is right. That something is not admissible in a court of law is not necessarily irrelevant for determining whether the guy, in fact, did it. Governor Wilder based a decision to execute a man because the man failed a lie detector test. Turns out, of course, that Governor Wilder did the right thing in allowing Roger Coleman to be executed.

]]>