Gotcha, fat guy

Quote: missedhervee

Will the time soon come when juries are replaced by AI?

If not, why not?

Quote: Tanko

No

Sixth Amendment

Quote: DRich

Quote: Tanko

No

Sixth Amendment

Amendments can be changed or overridden.

Quote: missedhervee

It is not a stretch to envision a time when the sixth amendment is modified to allow AI juries.

We already use non-human resources such as cameras to detect and cite scofflaws for speeding and running red lights.

Properly programmed, I can envision no "fairer" jury than AI.

Given the abject stupidity and decline in overall intelligence of Americans I believe it will someday be publicly discussed.

Quote: Mission146

I don't trust the results of the jury because they are made up of our peers---which means they are mostly idiots. It's not all that unlikely that all nine of them are total idiots. I'm not claiming, and would not claim, that anything was rigged.

You think that's the attorneys doing a good job-maybe. What I think is the jury finding for the Plaintiff on a preponderance standard despite having no solid evidence whatsoever. How can they have solid evidence when the claim itself is not even remotely solid?

The fact of the matter is that people take the stand and give these accounts and the juries assume that they are telling the truth if they are sufficiently emotive or compelling. That's not to say that they are lying, and it's not because they are women making a sex claim, it's just my fundamental position that my inclination is not to believe anything that anyone says if their word is the only thing I have to go off of.

With their word and six dollars, I can get a coffee drink from Starbucks---and I can do that leaving their word at home.

What we are left with is a he said/she said and people like the she more than the he, in this instance. I get that. I'd be very concerned about this result if it involved anyone but Trump, but I think he is sufficiently hated that people aren't going to care about little trivialities like evidence, proof or the fact that they are relying on the accounts of 25+ year old memories from people who could very well have been coached to lie. If not coached to lie, given 25+ years, they might have been coached to remember a phone conversation that did not actually happen the way they're being convinced to remember it as.

But, more than that, Plaintiff is the aggressor by virtue of being the Plaintiff. A few of Plaintiff's buddies saying, "Oh yeah, she totally called me about that," doesn't cut the mustard for me.

I've already said that I believe Trump has behaved inappropriately in this way. I wouldn't be surprised if he has raped someone. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he has raped his own daughter. If Ivanka put a civil suit on him for rape, I'd be a snap yes decision.

The question is whether or not the event with Plaintiff happened, not whether or not I think Trump has ever committed sexual improprieties in his entire life; I would be shocked if he hasn't done.

When it comes to the Plaintiff, here's what I would need in order of weakest to strongest, in order to get to 51%:

1.) A more specific complaint with respect to timeframe. (This, by itself, might even be enough for me)

2.) Trump not to flatly deny having ever met this person a second time. (I don't believe his denial, but it would make her case stronger had he admitted to seeing her a second time).

3.) Either of the two friends remembering the supposed phone calls to greater specificity than a nine-month range.

4.) A witness who has ever seen Trump and Carroll together-preferably at or near that location.

Even if I had everything listed above, then I would STILL have to assume that she and Trump did not have a consensual sexual liaison and that just gets me to sexual harassment and I'm still short of rape.

Even this jury answered, "Yes," to sexual abuse, no to rape and must have been split on forcible sexual contact as that was unanswered and they had to find unanimously.

In other words, the jury ultimately decided that something sexual happened between the two and that it was not consensual.

I don't know why it wasn't consensual, but sure, I don't care. Give me a more specific complaint and I'll go ahead and find that it was sexual abuse of one kind or another. We could even get into neo-liberal topics like, "Power dynamic," but who are wealthy and powerful people supposed to mingle with? Other wealthy and powerful people exclusively? Doesn't seem great for social mobility.

Do you have a link to the depo transcripts? I can't find them.

I do not have to and most certainly do not trust the jury. I assume that the jury are mostly, or entirely, idiots. Ultimately, the jury was led to believe that something is true simply because a few people biased in favor of saying it's true said that it's true. The jury had exactly nothing in terms of actual evidence and couldn't even put Trump and Carroll in the same place at the same time. Of course, I guess it's quite possible when you're giving yourself a nine month window for a ten minute encounter one minute from where a guy lives.

Do I think Carroll is lying? No. Do I think she's telling the truth? I don't know. What I can say is just as likely, in my mind, is that the two of them had some sort of consensual sexual quickie, or perhaps one that started as consensual, until it wasn't. Hell, if she was claiming THAT, I'd be all on board that Trump might have committed sexual abuse by taking it further than she wanted, or attempting to, against her will.

Quote: Gandler

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23572304-trump-deposition-transcript-ordered-unsealed-in-carroll-case-by-judge-kaplan-whos-on-sbf

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/y5C4kMda10IWsWOvufdjXYz53YV-1rfegvZs6Gqz9s9VBpm1VBjx3fp4DLhUNEVXyKlzT0e5WwUn5mlmTwAiIQHQNe8?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=2465.55

(You can also find some of the video released on Youtube)


Clearly we are not going to agree. I trust juries. Are people imperfect? Of course. But is it more likely for 9 to be wrong than 1? Of course not. Now, can 9 people not educated on the law be more swayed by emotional arguments? That is possible. But, that also assumes that they willfully disregarded their instructions.

Juries are carefully selected after much review and interviews by both sides. People on the jury are there for a reason. I don't know if you have ever done jury duty, but you can't just wander in off the street and show up, it is a whole process that really begins before you report. And, like you said, if jury trials are undesirable, people can always request bench trials. But, both sides (for civil proceedings, criminal is a different ballgame) often tend to like juries in many cases because it leaves a lot of room for error (often 1 juror can prevent a verdict), and also decided by jury just sounds better.

It gets to the point where you may as well say you don't trust the justice system. Juries exist (and have since the founding) because they are regarded as being more fair than a single judge (or even a panel) deciding something based on their education, it is meant to be a normal person looking at the evidence and going with their view.

Quote: Mission146

Thank you for the links to those transcripts. I was mainly interested in the ones from the employees. I can easily disregard everything both Trump and Carroll have to say because both of them are biased. In both cases, I assign their testimony an evidentiary value of nothing.

I trust physical evidence, and sometimes testimony, if those testifying have no reason to be biased.

There is neither prosecutor (criminal) nor Plaintiff's attorney (civil) that would ever keep me on the jury if they were even functionally intelligent. They would actually have to be able to demonstrate something with half-decent evidence.

It's not that I don't trust the justice system; I don't trust people.

Quote: rxwine

I'd assume you'd have a conniption if you were a Divorce Lawyer, as there probably is a lot of He said/she said presented as evidence.