What was up this guy's arse?

It was a shitskin. He was doing his duty sending a shitskin to his death.

>There was zero credible evidence he was innocent.

Doesn't mean shit. He doesn't have to prove his innocence.

Yes, Xi

Attached: IMG_4336.jpg (1050x597, 66K)

As does every first world nation around the world.

Right. And neither does the jury.
The prosecution has to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which they did.

Except they didn't. His lawyer was incompetent and didn't bring up obvious facts that could have exonerated him. Did you even watch the film?

I didnt understanding the ending to this movie? Why did they all just walk away? Where are they going?

To the baseball game.

The characters made assumptions like the lady did wear glasses but chose not to which is what juries arent supposed to do but makes for a cool movie

This is now a One Room Movies thread

Attached: sunset-limited.jpg (420x619, 74K)

>facts
Everything that was brought up was circumstantial.
>I bought a knife they same as this kid, totally means someone else could have stabbed him with the same weapon
>This woman probably wears glasses, her testimony is totally useless
>This old man may not have been able to reach the door in time despite testifying he did, he might have wanted to seem important
>What's that? You can't remember the name of some obscure movie you saw a few weeks ago. Well, then it's totally reasonable this kid couldn't remember a single solitary thing about the movie he was just at or the cinema he went to.

The point was, they had reasonable doubts. Which is all you need to acquit.

None of that shit is enough to warrant a reasonable doubt.
facts
>kid is a known delinquent with a criminal history
>kid owned the murder weapon
>kid had witnesses testify that he and the victim were fighting earlier in the night
>two people testified to seeing the kid commit the murder
>kid could not provide an alibi

QUICK, VOTE FOR THE BLACK GUY

Attached: circle.jpg (800x450, 37K)

There is literally no "required level" of reasonable doubt.

It has to be reasonable doubt. It's right there in the term, genius. Reasonable.

Yes and what is reasonable to one person will not be to another.
"Reasonable" is relative.

Ok first of all do you understand what a reasonable doubt is?
Clearly not.

No, it's not. It's fair and practical judgement. If any of that circumstantial shit that was illegally introduced after the trial manages to present a reasonable doubt contrary to the established facts you're a bonafide retard.

>No, it's not
If you just wanted to shitpost you should have said so.

If you're a sobsister retard you could have just said so before and we could have avoided this pointless discussion about the obviously guilty kid.

it's weird how this shit ebbs and flows

I am tellings you, the nigger boy did it!

>that circumstantial shit that was illegally introduced after the trial
What the fuck are you taking about? Idiot.

What was this guy’s problem?

Attached: 946FF1F9-DFFD-44F9-8D0C-CC30CB6DA40B.png (200x200, 47K)

It is illegal to introduce new evidence after the trial. It is not the jury's job to introduce arguments or evidence contrary to what has been presented, in fact it's illegal. And all the shit he brings up is circumstantial.

Racist sperg.

Lived amongst niggers so knew what they were really like. Everyone other juror had only known niggers from the black people they'd seen in movies.

No one introduced new evidence.
The jury used their own judgement which is what they are supposed to do.

The knife, the alibi and questioning the prosecution's witnesses credibility. That is the job of cross examination.

There was no knife introduced after the trial. That was the murder weapon that was introduced during the trial.
>questioning the prosecution's witnesses credibility
That is literally what juries are supposed to do.

He had a REALLY annoying roommate that pissed him off before he came to the trial.

>There was no knife introduced after the trial. That was the murder weapon that was introduced during the trial.
Yes there was, dumbass. The weapon used to murder the kid's father was owned by the kid and known because it was a totally unique. The kid's contention was that his knife fell out of a hole in his pocket, someone stole it and then entered his house and used it to murder his father, with whom he had been arguing with earlier.
Fonda pulled out another knife he had purchased as evidence that someone else could potentially purchase that knife in the neighbourhood.
Of course that still leaves the question of what happened to the kid's knife that miraculously disappeared.

You realize the knife that Fonda had was not "introduced as evidence" right?
Have you never seen an episode of Law and Order or something?

Seems like Fonda was the actual killer, a Keyser Soze style mastermind that got onto the jury to taunt the justice system with his genius.

What would you call bringing in something to support an argument to jurors in favour of the defence?

Well first of all 'after the trial' if the jury is deliberating then the trial isn't over.
The guy having a knife isn't evidence he is explaining his doubt in the prosecutions case literally that's the jury job.
Pro-tip: If they wanted to just weigh up the facts as presented with no interpretation or consideration then they wouldn't need a jury at all because the outcome would be objective, not subjective.
Also a jury can do literally whatever the fuck it wants to. See oj, they even admitted after it was payback for Rodney king beatings.

A good argument.

>Also a jury can do literally whatever the fuck it wants to.
In this case they did, They let a killer go by ignoring the substantial evidence against him in favour of flimsy circumstantial garbage.
They pulled their own OJ.

What exactly do you think the job of the jury is? Please if you ever get called up tell them you are mentally insufficient.

judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CCB/1286.htm

Read up here, dickhead.

No. A juror is not allowed to conduct their own investigations.

We're not in Australia you retarded faggot.

IM GOING DO GILL YOU

Point to the statute that says this.
I'll wait.

That's not what happened, he pointed out a flaw in the prosecutions argument.
If he had said the boy was innocent because I saw him not do it, that would be introducing new evidence, but he didn't do that, he is judging the case presented by the prosecution/defence not the accused directly.

The defence and prosecution present two opposing narratives, the job of the jury is to assess the credibility of each, juror 8 pointed out a flaw in the argument and was even able to demonstrate it. That disassembly of the prosecution case is far beyond reasonable doubt, he has proved the narrative flawed.

nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Circumstantial_Evidence.pdf

Western law doesn't differ wildly but please refer to this you humungous retard.

Evidence Outside the Record. Rule 226a(II)(5)-(7) prohibits jurors from
making independent investigations, inspections, observations, views, or experiments. Additionally, jurors are prohibited from relating any personal
experiences or special knowledge to the other jurors and are strictly prohibited from considering any matter outside the record.78 According to
rule 226a(II)(5), all evidence must be presented from the witness stand so
that each side may examine the witnesses and make proper objections.

rolling

Attached: 35a5gsx.jpg (653x463, 70K)

Fair enough.
However it happens all the time. Jury proceedings are secret so there is no one to keep them in check.

I'm not well versed but the usual instruction takes the form
A juror may use the evidence and testimony presented at the trial and their own prior knowledge of the physical and social world.
That second bit is important because without it they wouldn't be able to pass any judgement at all. So pretty retarded.

Their fucking job is to judge wether the accused is guilty based on the evidence, witness testimony, investigation provided in the court. It's illegal to bring your own evidence, do private investigation, and cross examine as a juror, retard. Everything that retard Henry Fonda did is illegal.

If it was actually done the way you say, you could get a computer to do it.

Don't just bend over to this colossal ignoramus
Own research means facts about the events, not prior knowledge or experience of the general, which is what that is.

If the prosecution said well the guy did it and he flew away in a rocket ship to Mars the jury are allowed to say, hey, wait a minute, as far as I know rocket ships can't go to Mars yet, maybe that's false. Own research means they aren't allowed to go and inspect the site of launch and determine for themselves if a rocket ship was there or not, that's councils job. That's the point, they are judging using only:
A) evidence presented in the case
B) their own knowledge and experience of the world IN GENERAL.

Well Henry Fonda's knowledge and experience of the world includes the fact that the knife is not unique.

When he was a kid I saw him post on Yea Forums. I was so disgusted I nearly threw up.

It's jury duty, he just wanted to go home a relax like the rest of us.

lol laughable that you're having to resort to such outlandish comparisons to try and support your flimsy, ill-informed arguments
Also

>A) evidence presented in the case
>B) their own knowledge and experience of the world IN GENERAL.
And how does the presumption that the woman wore glasses and therefore her eyewitness testimony is not credible fall under either of those?

But the witnesses were not 100% plausible, witnesses are just for the show when you prosecute someone unless they were right fucking there and saw everything clearly and heard everything clearly without any room for doubt.

He was concealing the real knife.

Yes exactly and therefore perfectly fine
From his experience of people wearing glasses he knew that the divots in her nose were from wearing glasses.
If he had said, I was there and I saw the woman not wearing glasses so I know she was mistaken. That would be not allowed. What he did was ok. You can't really be this thick and not just pretending??

Yikes, I'm gonna go ahead and give the DA job to someone else hotshot.

>But the witnesses were not 100% plausible,
Based on what? The assumption that this man may not have been able to see the person he claimed to or that the woman wore glasses?
Not sufficient to dismiss their testimonies. If it were it would have been brought up in court so that the prosecution can raise sufficient objection.
For all we know the old man needed to clarify how long he'd been out of bed before he opened the door or the woman needed to ascertain that she only wears glasses for reading.
Throwing out their testimonies based on circumstantial assumption is wildly irresponsible at best.

>From his experience of people wearing glasses he knew that the divots in her nose were from wearing glasses.
>If he had said, I was there and I saw the woman not wearing glasses so I know she was mistaken. That would be not allowed. What he did was ok. You can't really be this thick and not just pretending??
But he doesn't know the nature of her eyesight issue. For all he knows they could be reading glasses and she works as a bookkeeper and has to wear them all day.

When a jury does it it's automatically valid. Juries are like the pope.

>wildly irresponsible
Or its their job.

Doesn't matter. The point is that there's reasonable doubt he didn't do it. He's still going to rot in prison the rest of this life, this way the jury feels good because they didn't kill a kid

And for all he knows they might be long distance glasses and her testimony is useless. Ergo reasonable doubt.

>Yes exactly and therefore perfectly fine
No. He only discovered the knife was not unique through independent investigation. If one of the jurors brought that up he could have been found to have committed juror misconduct, charged with contempt of court and a new jury installed to preside over the case.

This is a good point. You have to assume everyone is lying if Fonda is to be believed.

How long until the inevitable all-female remake?

Attached: 1552254328599.jpg (960x720, 104K)

But he doesn't know. And it wasn't brought up. So it's not sufficient for a reasonable doubt to outweigh her testimony. Did he think she just testified for fun?

If he did it before he was selected for jury duty its perfectly fine.

>You have to assume everyone is lying if Fonda is to be believed.
Except the kid. Despite his claims being the most outlandish and unbelievable.

Jury deliberations cannot be constrained in any way.

He specifically claims he went for a walk in the neighbourhood during period of the trial. You think he went to that same kid's neighbourhood before even having known of the kid?
Fuck me. This is utterly pointless.

Attached: 4chanargument.jpg (404x297, 43K)

I thought 4 was based. Rollan

Attached: bl4.png (408x450, 34K)

> not sufficient
Actually completely sufficient, that's what reasonable doubt is, a doubt that you can convince the other 11 to agree with.

Not lying necessarily.
Here is a protip for you user, if you ever find yourself in court arguing assist a police witness never suggest to the court that the officer is lying, suggest instead that perhaps they could be mistaken, were are all human after all.

The glasses woman was lying of course, a clear narcissist feeding on the attention.

hello i am white cop i hate black people

Why is this being slid off?

its not got or capeshit

You guys are fucking idiots. The whole point of the movie is questioning what is or is not a reasonable doubt.