So many forums, not sure where this should go.  Maybe it will get moved.  

You should watch this show (I saw it last week).  It's a different kind of reality show, you might be surprised how different things really are in the courtroom.  The next one is going to be interesting.  It's about self-defense.

In the Jury Room

Reminder that everyone should try to watch this.  Again, I don't know if it will be relevant or not but I do know a couple of things.

It is real.  It's not happening in a jury room tonight but when it was filmed, the jurors were actually discussing and deliberating the case.  It is edited but the context is still valid...you decide.

Also I know there is a lot of discussion in this forum about what a jury will and will not do, how they listen and process the case, what the prosecutor will do to you, etc. in a shooting case.  Unless you've been on a jury (or know someone who has), very few of us know what is it like to go thru deliberations other than what we read.  Talking to a jury panel after the verdit doesn't do it justice.  Now is our chance to at least get a glimpse into this unique area so when we post [our arguments] here, at least they have some basis (a polite way of saying we might actually know what we are talking about).

Also you get to see how the jury sees the evidence during the course of the trial, how they handle the way the case as presented by the trial lawyers, how they receive their instructions, how they read back the charges, how they consider a list of charges and make their decisions, their reactions, facial expressions, and most importantly, how they relate to the defendant (you or me) during the trial.  You get to see how they compromise during deliberations, how personalities come out, how they interpret the law, how they really relate to being your "peers".  Will this get this all from one show?  Probably not.  Again, this case tonight might be a slam dunk since the DA says he murdered and he says it was self-defense.  I don't know.

Hopefully someone will be able to rationally discuss this with me (in this thread) tomorrow or whenever you get around to watching it if you have Tivo.

It's a good show. I was watching it a while back and I really got into it. It makes you think about what you would do if you were in the jury's place. It makes you think.

Why watch a TV show, when you get called for jury duty, go and do your obligation. Then you will really know what's it like to pass a judgement against a human being that will put that person in prison for the rest of his natural life and the he's only in his late 20s. I've been there and I've done that.

Quoted: Why watch a TV show, when you get called for jury duty, go and do your obligation. Then you will really know what's it like to pass a judgement against a human being that will put that person in prison for the rest of his natural life and the he's only in his late 20s. I've been there and I've done that.

+1 Been there, done that, well worth the experience, one less animal on the streets.

Every case is different.

Maybe people here have never seen a jury much less in a courtroom.  For those, it gives you some idea of how the legal system works.

This is not a show to help you understand what it's like to pass judgment on someone, but to give you an idea if you are the defendant or the victim.  It's not about putting the bad guy away.  I called attention to this particular show because it's about a shooting and self-defense....listen to the laws and the criteria and the way it is all perceived...in Colorado at least.

Apparently this case that's on tonight isn't exactly what I thought, I'm predicting the shooter is guilty...nevertheless it's another point of reference.

They found the guy guilty. Why can't it be self defense if the gangster shot first. Does the gun have to be visible? If the shooter heard gunfire, couldn't that be counted as self defense. I'm not too sharp on the law in that case.

Yes he was guilty 2nd degree murder w/o provocation.  Seems to me the only missing piece would have been if the gangster had fired first.  If the gangster had fired first, there would have been a self-defense verdict IMO.

Quoted: Yes he was guilty 2nd degree murder w/o provocation.  Seems to me the only missing piece would have been if the gangster had fired first.  If the gangster had fired first, there would have been a self-defense verdict IMO.

He did fire first. It was established by the doctors that it's highly unlikely that the gangster fired after he got shot. I say the guy should have been not guilty. I think he heard the gunfire and shot at the gangster. He might not have seen the gun, but I think he heard the gunfire.

I didn't watch the complete show, but I've been in enough trials to know that the jury will get a second by second rundown of the events over a period of 2 or 3 days or more as they unfolded at the crime scene. But in real life those events happened in a a split second, and you've got to determine whether you were or weren't in the law.

Quoted: I didn't watch the complete show, but I've been in enough trials to know that the jury will get a second by second rundown of the events over a period of 2 or 3 days or more as they unfolded at the crime scene. But in real life those events happened in a a split second, and you've got to determine whether you were or weren't in the law.

geish, you are right he did fire first, I should have said "if he had first AT the defendant..."

warlord, the jury was presented with conflicting testimony...so they had to make up their mind as to what happened based on the fact how they saw it.

BTW, another show is coming on tonight.  Not about guns tho....

I said  not guilty on premeditation. They couldnt prove that. Not 100% anyway. But he was negligent by even going there for a fight. It was this action that lead to the situation, therefore I thought he did deserve some blame. I was confused about the who shot first issue, but even still, none of that would have ever happened if he hadnt gone looking for trouble. I was thinking manslaughter but I guess under the definition of the law it still wasnt enough.

Quoted: Quoted: Yes he was guilty 2nd degree murder w/o provocation.  Seems to me the only missing piece would have been if the gangster had fired first.  If the gangster had fired first, there would have been a self-defense verdict IMO. He did fire first. It was established by the doctors that it's highly unlikely that the gangster fired after he got shot. I say the guy should have been not guilty. I think he heard the gunfire and shot at the gangster. He might not have seen the gun, but I think he heard the gunfire.

I wonder if it couldn't have been a final spasm before he dropped, that fired the round. The round also went nowhere near the shooter.

Self defense, when you arm yourself, and go and challenge another person to a fight, at that person's house? Come on.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes he was guilty 2nd degree murder w/o provocation.  Seems to me the only missing piece would have been if the gangster had fired first.  If the gangster had fired first, there would have been a self-defense verdict IMO. He did fire first. It was established by the doctors that it's highly unlikely that the gangster fired after he got shot. I say the guy should have been not guilty. I think he heard the gunfire and shot at the gangster. He might not have seen the gun, but I think he heard the gunfire. I wonder if it couldn't have been a final spasm before he dropped, that fired the round. The round also went nowhere near the shooter. Self defense, when you arm yourself, and go and challenge another person to a fight, at that person's house? Come on.

Well I guess you saw it, didn't you get the feeling (as I did) that if the dead guy had fired a shot at first and narrowly missed the defendant (instead of firing into the wall behind him) and then the defendent "returned fire", don't you think they WERE leaning towards self-defense?  Crazy as it sounds since I'm with you, he came there with a gun, but I'm thinking the jury was initially trying to find a way to let this guy go.  No?

Quoted: Well I guess you saw it, didn't you get the feeling (as I did) that if the dead guy had fired a shot at first and narrowly missed the defendant (instead of firing into the wall behind him) and then the defendent "returned fire", don't you think they WERE leaning towards self-defense?  Crazy as it sounds since I'm with you, he came there with a gun, but I'm thinking the jury was initially trying to find a way to let this guy go.  No?

I saw about 20 minutes of it, toward the end.

I think they were wrestling with the elements of each crime they had to consider, the actions of the defendant, and the actions of the deceased.

I think they keyed into a few things, like the defendant saying he only pulled the gun after he knew the deceased had one in his hand.

I think they were also having some trouble about why the defendant went to the other guy's house.

I can't tell what they would do if the situation was just a little different. But it seemed where the guns were pointed, when, etc. came up when they were deciding whether or not Manslaughter was a viable charge.

I guess I'm a little bit biased agianst the gangster. He started the whole incident didn't he? He punched the other guy at the parking lot. He's also a gangster and that doesn't go well with me. If I were one of the jurors, I think it would have been hard for me to follow the guidlines of the law and I would have tried to justify the killing of the gangster.

I feel sorry for the shooter. He had his whole life ahead of him. I guess you can say the same for the gangster, but then again, he's a friggin gangster.

Quoted: I guess I'm a little bit biased agianst the gangster. He started the whole incident didn't he? He punched the other guy at the parking lot. He's also a gangster and that doesn't go well with me. If I were one of the jurors, I think it would have been hard for me to follow the guidlines of the law and I would have tried to justify the killing of the gangster. I feel sorry for the shooter. He had his whole life ahead of him. I guess you can say the same for the gangster, but then again, he's a friggin gangster.

I feel the same way...the jury tried to get it down to MS but they couldn't because it wasn't an accident due to negligence.

I think the jury screwed that guy.

Quoted: I think the jury screwed that guy.

Why?  The case didn't fit the criteria required for self-defense.  Are you thinking jury nullification?