Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I wouldn't blame the jury on this one. They were treated to heart breaking testimony from a small child who was violently raped at gunpoint which culminated in her pointing at the defendant and saying "That is the man who raped me, he is sitting right there." What jury wouldn't convict on such evidence.

What the jury isn't told is that the defendant was rousted up when the word went out to bring in whatever black men they could find in the neighborhood. What the jury isn't told is that the initial report was of a man with face stubble and not the full beard he had when arrested.

Now the jury was told that there were multiple alibis, all of whom were black family members. They can be blamed for that. But really, seeing the little girl point to the man and say she is certain he is the one who raped her she remembers his face quite clearly, are you really going to say you would vote to acquit? Or would you assume the family members are lying to protect their own.



"I wouldn't blame the jury on this one. They were treated to heart breaking testimony from a small child who was violently raped at gunpoint which culminated in her pointing at the defendant and saying "That is the man who raped me, he is sitting right there." What jury wouldn't convict on such evidence."

Evidence? You wouldn't blame the jury on this one?

Fuck that. That's not evidence. That's ignorance.

I blame the jury 100%.


Testimony from the victim is considered evidence in most court systems. I wouldn't expect a jury of average people, especially back then, to be aware of the cognitive biases that made the testimony so unreliable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: