No Tears for You!
The Aeson
13-09-2006, 17:10
Apparent crying on the stand when testifying about your son's murder is grounds for a mistrial now.
BARTOW, Florida (Court TV) -- Warned by the judge that tears could trigger a mistrial, a mother was stoic in front of a Florida jury Tuesday as she relived the day she discovered the bloodied bodies of her children.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/13/no.crying/index.html
Drunk commies deleted
13-09-2006, 17:11
One wouldn't want to prejudice the jury with a touching display of emotion.
Farnhamia
13-09-2006, 17:12
It's plainly prejudicial.
Fartsniffage
13-09-2006, 17:15
I don't know on this one. I seems important to find the correct balance between witnesses being able to display emotion and them displaying too much. After all I think that I would find it difficult to examine a crying mothers testimony dispassionatly for flaws or inconsistancies were I on a jury.
I don't know on this one. I seems important to find the correct balance between witnesses being able to display emotion and them displaying too much. After all I think that I would find it difficult to examine a crying mothers testimony dispassionatly for flaws or inconsistancies were I on a jury.
If you want a ROBOT to get on the stand, why not just ask her beforehand and read the text aloud? At that point, what's the point of even having people be witnesses at all? Why is there even a god damn courtroom, there could just be a hand-out to the jury with all the evidence and testimony written down!
And this puts a lot of power in the prosecution's hands - if they were to make her cry with questions, they could win with a mistrial automatically. It's bullshit.
The Psyker
13-09-2006, 17:38
If you want a ROBOT to get on the stand, why not just ask her beforehand and read the text aloud? At that point, what's the point of even having people be witnesses at all? Why is there even a god damn courtroom, there could just be a hand-out to the jury with all the evidence and testimony written down!
And this puts a lot of power in the prosecution's hands - if they were to make her cry with questions, they could win with a mistrial automatically. It's bullshit.
WOuldn't a crying murder victims mother causing a mistrial hurt the prosecution, considering the emotional appeal would help with a conviction?
WOuldn't a crying murder victims mother causing a mistrial hurt the prosecution, considering the emotional appeal would help with a conviction?
Bah. Sorry, I meant defendant.
Scarlet States
13-09-2006, 17:47
If you want a ROBOT to get on the stand, why not just ask her beforehand and read the text aloud? At that point, what's the point of even having people be witnesses at all? Why is there even a god damn courtroom, there could just be a hand-out to the jury with all the evidence and testimony written down!
And this puts a lot of power in the prosecution's hands - if they were to make her cry with questions, they could win with a mistrial automatically. It's bullshit.
That's a very good idea I think. It definitely adds to the impartiality of the jury.
Philosopy
13-09-2006, 17:50
You could just as easily argue that her not showing any emotion could prejudice the jury. After all, they might start to think she's so unbothered by it all that she did it herself.
It's a stupid ruling. If she's clearly putting it on, that's one thing, but to tell someone they can't be emotional about one of the most emotionally horrible things that could possibly happen is absurd.