All threads

All of the threads for this selected topic

Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Procyon B: Hi everyone.
Glevitzingen: It did not seem to me that we addressed the question at hand. It is still unclear to me what the conversation of appellate judges has to do with the decision to apply for a change of venue in a jury case
OP: we got off on a tangent
Luyten 726-8B: Hey.. On the last question, I think everyone has biases and all juries act on their biases. For example, most people are more favorable to the state's positions and believe police. They don't think people would be at trial if they weren't guilty and that is obviously not the case.
Procyon B: lol it had nothing to do with it. it was just a fun conversation
Procyon B: I think sunflower is right. But can't we allow everyone to get to the jury that they are comfortable with?
OP: I'm not opposed to changes of venue as a principle. In general, I think we should protect defendants against juries that might be pre-disposed to a finding of guilty
Centaurus A: what does that mean, though? defendants and the prosecution will never have the same ideal jury
Procyon B: What about in this case, where they are predisposed to finding innocence.
Hoags Object: I think there are times a change of venue should be granted, and times it should be denied. I would need to know more about how those decisions are made before I can say how I would change them.
Glevitzingen: Well should the prosecution's ideal jury matter?
Procyon B: Why should the prosecution not have a chance?
Centaurus A: lol no i don't think the prosecution's should generally... but this is a case that is one of those rare times i do
OP: Yea I agree with that comment. Should we be giving the state advantages in prosecution? Aren't juries meant to be a check on the state?
Luyten 726-8B: @Glevitzingen i think not. The prosecution has no constitutionally protected right to a fair trial. i could care less about their ideal jury
Glevitzingen: Well they are not the one going to jail and losing their freedom, so its unclear to me why making it easier for them should matter?
OP: Yea. But then as applied to this case it's uncomfortable for sure
OP: I'm not sure we should be allowing defendants to run to safety necessarily either. Especially when that's applied unevenly
Centaurus A: i think that's probably the point of this example, right? because it's a rare moment the state is theoretically going after its own for racial brutality
Glevitzingen: Well in this case I think the idea that they wouldn't get a fair trial in this community was racist and should be interrogated
Procyon B: LA juries in the early nineties may have all been basically all white. If that is true then the change was to take the case away from an area where rioting happened.
OP: Changes of venue are usually reserved for cases where there's a large amount of press/attention, right?
Hoags Object: I agree. We were not given enough evidence to conclude that the original jury would be prejudiced. However, I don't know if there was any information bearing on the decision that was not presented to us.
Glevitzingen: The argument though was the opposite they did not think they would get a fair trial because they would have been tried in the community the policed. While in fact, the community at hand would be more familiar with the policing practices in their neighbor and the abuse of power displayed.
Procyon B: But that would not help in the application of law. It would just say we hate you so you don't get a fair trial.
Centaurus A: yeah exactly. they were only claiming that so they could get to an all-white jury to "escape" accountability. which they basically did.
Luyten 726-8B: For me, this case feels differently on the venue change question because cops are state actors and are accountable for more than just the actions of themselves.
Luyten 726-8B: the state has been saying "i hate you so you dont get a fair trial" to POCs for centuries... Hence the sentencing disparities in crack v powdered cocaine and the marijuana v. opioid response
Glevitzingen: How does understanding the abuse of power, impact the application of law?
Centaurus A: yeah i think that's why this is an interesting question, especially because it points out some of the issues of racial profiling built into the jury system itself, such as venue changes and voir dire, which are basically totally legal, batson challenges notwithstanding
Glevitzingen: It only I think changes the level of credibility individuals will place on the polie