Dear Bill,
Why do you think appeals exist?
If Bob loses his appeal, I may have to accept -- with difficulty -- that he killed her. Until then, as I say, I find it likelier than not that his appeal will succeed. This is not 'armchair lawyering': it is a reasonable (though not necessarily correct) assessment of the situation affecting a man I have known for 20 years.
Roger
I don't believe any positive or interesting discussion can come from this thread beyond speculation.
Not exactly. If the evidence is unreliable (tampered with in some way, chain of custody of evidence severely flawed), this is grounds for declaring a verdict 'unsafe'. It is not impossible that the prosecution overreached themselves: a lot of weak evidence can lead to the same conclusion as a small amount of strong evidence, but if any significant portion of that weak evidence can be overturned, the whole conviction may also be overturned.Further, aren't Appellate Court decisions based on the legal procedure or the trial rather than evidence?
Since a jury found him guilty isn't it fair to say that he IS guilty until proven innocent? Further, aren't Appellate Court decisions based on the legal procedure or the trial rather than evidence?
The handling and admissability of evidence IS procedural, is it not?
Having sat on a jury in a felony case, I can say the verdict of guilt or innocence is largely result of the courtroom show. It rarely has much to do with what actually occurred, unless the case is very factual and clear (those hardly ever get to trial, except under over zealous prosecutors), and in any case, the lawyers play to emotions in most reasonings. Shell would have faced an uphill battle in the venue of his trial, because of nature of his work runs contrary to the moral judgements of most "peers" to be found in that region.
The non professional jurors in the US can and do ignore facts and basic legal concepts, such as being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and reasonable doubt, if there is not a sufficiently assertive and educated person in the group to remind and explain the concepts (sometimes repeatedly) and generally want to find based on their personal perceptions of the individual.
As to Shells guilt or innocence, I have no idea, and certainly wouldn't pretend to. I'm just relating how it generally works, in my first hand experience.
Hello?
I don't know Mr. Shell but it's hard to have much sympathy for the guy. Not that you can believe everything in the press but "in love" with a 19 year old drug addict? Taking photos of himself touching (or whatever) her corpse? Dropping Echinacea into her drink? Hard to imagine that he was surreptitiously trying to cure her of a cold. I suppose one could argue which crimes he committed but not innocence.
I am not sure how someone could look at these accounts and think he could win an appeal. Even if he could win legally he would be another OJ. Please explain why this case would win an appeal based on the newspaper accounts. Seems more like they justify a harsh sentence.
If you really thought the trial on which you served as a juror was just a show then you should have requested to be excused from the jury.
First off, the fate of a human being was in your hands, you owed the situation greater attention than you might apply to watching a movie.
Second, trial by jury is an essential element of our judicial system designed to ensure the defendant of a fair hearing. While individuals trained in the law can, and do at time sit on juries, the entire purpose of the jury system is to provide a trial of one's peers.
FWIW, while the US Constitution ensures a defendant of a RIGHT to a jury trial; this does not preclude a defendant from waiving that right and requesting a trial before a judge only (a.k.a. "bench trial").
The fact that virtually no defendants ever requests that is a testament to the efficacy of the jury trial system. I can assure you that if it were otherwise, then defense lawyers would regularly advise their clients to demand bench trials. And that just about never happens.
In addition, jurors are barred by law from discussing their deliberations outside of the jury room.
This shows you how important it is to look at systems, as a whole.
In Canada, an accused charged with a sufficiently serious offense also has a right to trial by jury. In contradistinction, however, any one who is trained in the law is not permitted to serve on juries, nor are police officers.
In addition, jurors are barred by law from discussing their deliberations outside of the jury room.
We don't elect judges, and superior court judges almost without exception come from the ranks of experienced and effective trial counsel.
One of the results of all this is that a substantial number of accused receive advice from counsel and do elect trial before judge alone.
Matt
If you really thought the trial on which you served as a juror was just a show then you should have requested to be excused from the jury.
First off, the fate of a human being was in your hands, you owed the situation greater attention than you might apply to watching a movie.
Second, trial by jury is an essential element of our judicial system designed to ensure the defendant of a fair hearing. While individuals trained in the law can, and do at time sit on juries, the entire purpose of the jury system is to provide a trial of one's peers.
FWIW, while the US Constitution ensures a defendant of a RIGHT to a jury trial; this does not preclude a defendant from waiving that right and requesting a trial before a judge only (a.k.a. "bench trial").
The fact that virtually no defendants ever requests that is a testament to the efficacy of the jury trial system. I can assure you that if it were otherwise, then defense lawyers would regularly advise their clients to demand bench trials. And that just about never happens.
.....
You missed my point. I am well aware of the Constitution and a few other things, including the absolute inanity of many persons that are selected for jury service. ....
...
Yes, after 800 years or so, the present system "sucks". Please come up with a better one. ....
They're "inanity" is:
a) Your opinion of them;
b) A definition of "one's peers" when you disagree with them.
We would hardly be served with justice if we excluded the average, inane person in deference to someone's determination of who is "qualified".
Yes, after 800 years or so, the present system "sucks". Please come up with a better one.
The fact is, most folks hate the jury system when it "lets off" people they think are guilty except when they hate the jury system because it convicts people they think are innocent!
Replace the name Bob Shell with OJ Simpson in this thread and carry on your argument!
No one here attended or served on the jury for either trial.
But you all have "opinions" as to the outcome - opinions that are interestingly divergent although based on nothing but......
How about this? Elect the jurors and randomly select the members of the House of Representatives, instead of vice versa! You with me on this one, JBrunner?!
They're "inanity" is:
We would hardly be served with justice if we excluded the average, inane person in deference to someone's determination of who is "qualified".
He was found guilty of his crimes. Nothing else needs to be said. . . I never met the man, but his images always gave me the creeps. I never understood why people held him in such esteem. It is not like he was overly talented. He was a third rate photographer at best, and a poor author. Now he is a convicted felon. I think good riddance is in order and I for one hope he isn't set loose on a technicality.
He was found guilty of his crimes. Nothing else needs to be said. Any support for his "innocence" or his ability to get off on appeal is frankly insulting to the girl who is no longer with us. Shell was obviously not the man the people on this forum whom called him a friend think he was. Any speculation based on newspaper stories or Shell's own account is frankly lunacy, even if you are a lawyer or a friend. A jury found him guilty. It is time to accept it and move on. Be sorry for the poor girl who he took advantage of, don't be sorry for Shell. Imagine if that poor girl was your daughter. Always remember the victims because they can't speak for themselves.
He was found guilty of his crimes. Nothing else needs to be said. Any support for his "innocence" or his ability to get off on appeal is frankly insulting to the girl who is no longer with us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?