From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:43:37 +0800
To: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: active practice in America
In-Reply-To: <199609290438.WAA23813@infowest.com>
Message-ID: <324F6997.4856@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


attila wrote:
> In <199609290133.UAA00319@smoke.suba.com>, on 09/28/96
>    at 08:33 PM, snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> said:
> > A Person going by the name Attila said:
> > to put it another way: in criminal procedings: I would rather
> > be considered guilty, until proven innocent; than I would be
> > presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

> =If you were the person being _tried_ for a crime, you would rather
> =have to prove that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY have commited the crime as
> =opposed to having to have the government PROVE that you DID DO it?

>         you bet --the objective of the defense is to cast aspersions
>     on the government prosecuters --in other words, create that
>     doubt.  you do not need to prove your innocence unconditionally,
>     just "taint" the prosecuter a bit.  however, in many cases you are
>     guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers.
>         as for peers --look at OJ, and the reverse weighting of the
>     Santa Monica jury v. downtown.

Speaking of peers, what would the founding fathers have said about the 
trial of the officers in the Rodney King case?  Would they, as police 
officers, have a right to a jury of their peers?  Would their peers be 
the people in Simi Valley, where many or most of them live?  Or would it 
be more appropriate to have a jury of the victims' peers?  Or both?