On the psychology of juries, from trial lawyer Michael Popok on Legal AF

[ancianita]

(skip 4:02-5:14 ad)

[Justice matters.]

1. Criminal-defendant-hitler2 wannabe thinks he will skate scot-free from this trial...

Just like he always did skate scot-free in any litigation he was involved in before, except the ones he had to pay money (not "his" really: somebody else money) to get away with it.

He obviously doesn't care (sleeping? Like he doesn't care... do you? lol).

[soldierant]

2. I've seen lawyers

not understanding the psychology of the jury. But Popok get is exactly right. Even in a short trial, which only last for, say, a day or two, the instant they are alone together, that's what happens. (And one of the things that happens is that when in doubt, you remember that it is the prosecution's duty to prove guilt - not the other way around. Evidence matters. Feelings don't.

Now, with regard to his theory that no one is coaching Trump** - I can't be sure of that - becaus no matter what anyone told him, he would not listen. Trump** is Trump**.

[ancianita]

3. I haven't. So this

has been helpful. Still, if Popok's right, isn't he saying that feelings do matter when jury's are alone together? That evidence corroborates the defendant's show of guilt in behavior toward the jury?

[soldierant]

4. In one court martial that I was on (a Special so there wer five of us),

and I mention it in connection with the jury sizing up witnesses., hen we started to deliberate, we all had the same got feeling that the defendant was likely guilty. That was not based on evidence. But we also had the same feeling,based on the evidence of our eyes, ears, and brains, that the prosecution's star witness was not credible. Guess which one we went with.

[ancianita]

5. Right. And that was under military law, not criminal law in civilian courts, right?

I've no idea which one you went with -- the prosecution? I guess that because, IIRC from formerly being the wife of an Army officer, that defendants in court martials are not granted the presumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty; nor do I recall that prosecutors are held to any beyond-reasonable-doubt standard.

So which did you go with?

[soldierant]

6. Yes, it was under military law. But the burden of proof is still on the prosecution.

We couldn't ni conscience convict. None of us really liked it, but we felt we had no other option. And we were all in a greement very fast - probably instantly, and it only took a few sentences from a couple of us for us all to realize it.

[ancianita]

7. Okay. But you don't mention a presumption of innocence in military code.

So even if the burden of proof was on the prosecution, wasn't there enough evidence for you to just find for the prosecution along with your feeling the defendant was "likely guilty"? Just wondering.

I'm also gathering that you all felt that you collectively did the right thing.