|
Post by grandma on Mar 14, 2007 15:36:01 GMT -6
The jury recommends death
|
|
|
Post by grandma on Mar 14, 2007 15:52:56 GMT -6
The vote was 10 to 2 in favor of death
|
|
|
Post by grandma on Mar 14, 2007 15:53:24 GMT -6
He's going to live longer on DR than Jessica lived all her life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2007 15:55:23 GMT -6
I don't care what his IQ is, or if he has mental health problems, this animal should be removed from the human race ASAP.
They should take him out back and bury him alive, and I mean today.
I know it wont happen but it should.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2007 15:57:21 GMT -6
And who are the idiots who voted against?
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 14, 2007 16:05:25 GMT -6
Individuals that lied in the jury selection process and failed to admit that they follow an anti death penalty philosophy. This case is one of those that SCREAMS for a death sentence. Love, RED And who are the idiots who voted against?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 14, 2007 16:08:37 GMT -6
I wholeheartedly look forward to his death!
|
|
Paul
Regular
110% Pro-DP
Posts: 440
|
Post by Paul on Mar 14, 2007 16:24:42 GMT -6
Individuals that lied in the jury selection process and failed to admit that they follow an anti death penalty philosophy. This case is one of those that SCREAMS for a death sentence. Love, RED And who are the idiots who voted against? But all individuals must have their own opinion on DP. Or does the voir dire process include the question: Are you pro or anti DP? Of course, I cannot understand, why those two guys didn´t vote for the DP. Couey deserves only Sodium thiopental,Pancuronium bromide and Potassium chloride!
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 14, 2007 16:30:01 GMT -6
Potential jurors in a capital case are asked clearly and openly during voir dire whether their own personal views would prevent them from imposing the death penalty. These 2 bozos lied. There's no objective reason WHATSOEVER to support anything other than a death sentence in this case, Love, RED Individuals that lied in the jury selection process and failed to admit that they follow an anti death penalty philosophy. This case is one of those that SCREAMS for a death sentence. Love, RED But all individuals must have their own opinion on DP. Or does the voir dire process include the question: Are you pro or anti DP? Of course, I cannot understand, why those two guys didn´t vote for the DP. Couey deserves only Sodium thiopental,Pancuronium bromide and Potassium chloride!
|
|
Paul
Regular
110% Pro-DP
Posts: 440
|
Post by Paul on Mar 14, 2007 16:36:25 GMT -6
Potential jurors in a capital case are asked clearly and openly during voir dire whether their own personal views would prevent them from imposing the death penalty. These 2 bozos lied. There's objective reason WHATSOEVER to support anything other than a death sentence in this case, Love, RED But all individuals must have their own opinion on DP. Or does the voir dire process include the question: Are you pro or anti DP? Of course, I cannot understand, why those two guys didn´t vote for the DP. Couey deserves only Sodium thiopental,Pancuronium bromide and Potassium chloride! And is the jury vote secret or public?
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 14, 2007 17:08:03 GMT -6
Jury deliberations are secret. Love, RED Potential jurors in a capital case are asked clearly and openly during voir dire whether their own personal views would prevent them from imposing the death penalty. These 2 bozos lied. There's objective reason WHATSOEVER to support anything other than a death sentence in this case, Love, RED And is the jury vote secret or public?
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Mar 14, 2007 17:10:05 GMT -6
Great news grandma!!! Well put Red....OF COURSE to sit on a jury, you must be willing to uphold the laws of the state where the trial is held. I'd actually rather think they were lying bozo's... Than WILLING to apply the death penalty.... But thought this child murderer....didn't DESERVE it. By the way.....unless he opts to forgo his appeals....he'll never sample the "wardens cocktail". Kinda sad
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Mar 14, 2007 17:12:31 GMT -6
Individuals that lied in the jury selection process and failed to admit that they follow an anti death penalty philosophy. This case is one of those that SCREAMS for a death sentence. Love, RED And who are the idiots who voted against? Question from a legal perspective (and this isn't my idea...I saw it on TV). Is it odd that when people are on non-murder trials as a juror, they don't ask about jury members views towards prison - but in DP trials, they ask about specific sentencing? Seems like this is an obvious test of "jury of one's peers" - but it seems obvious enough where I'm guessing there's been a court case on this. Has there been? Probably quite a few?
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 14, 2007 17:17:12 GMT -6
The reason why potential jurors are not asked whether they could impose a prison sentence (I'm talking about a felony case but non-capital in nature) is because a finding of guilt carrys prison time automatically (i.e., priosn is the penalty as a matter of law). In a capital case, a death sentence is not automatic. However, prosecutors do ask constantly whether jurors would have a problem imposing signifcant prison sentences in case of conviction. Love, RED Individuals that lied in the jury selection process and failed to admit that they follow an anti death penalty philosophy. This case is one of those that SCREAMS for a death sentence. Love, RED Question from a legal perspective (and this isn't my idea...I saw it on TV). Is it odd that when people are on non-murder trials as a juror, they don't ask about jury members views towards prison - but in DP trials, they ask about specific sentencing? Seems like this is an obvious test of "jury of one's peers" - but it seems obvious enough where I'm guessing there's been a court case on this. Has there been? Probably quite a few?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Mar 15, 2007 5:32:26 GMT -6
The reason why potential jurors are not asked whether they could impose a prison sentence (I'm talking about a felony case but non-capital in nature) is because a finding of guilt carrys prison time automatically (i.e., priosn is the penalty as a matter of law). In a capital case, a death sentence is not automatic. However, prosecutors do ask constantly whether jurors would have a problem imposing signifcant prison sentences in case of conviction. Love, RED Yep. And yet, some people still can't convict and have the judge sentence the convicted to prison because either it's mean or the juror cannot judge anybody (which makes them perjurers, not being able to judge on the evidence and all). As for the Couey jury, if some of the 10 jurors who voted for death bring up to the court the non-deliberative nature of either of the 2 life jurors, then one or both of those jurors should be tried for perjury. Too many take the juror oath lightly, as if it's a game. It's time to start disabusing people of that idea. And perjury convictions would go a long way toward doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Mar 15, 2007 6:51:00 GMT -6
Potential jurors in a capital case are asked clearly and openly during voir dire whether their own personal views would prevent them from imposing the death penalty. These 2 bozos lied. To be the devil's advocate here, RED, isn't it also possible that some of the 10 that voted for death were firm pros?
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Mar 15, 2007 6:55:31 GMT -6
Potential jurors in a capital case are asked clearly and openly during voir dire whether their own personal views would prevent them from imposing the death penalty. These 2 bozos lied. To be the devil's advocate here, RED, isn't it also possible that some of the 10 that voted for death were firm pros? Don't think that matters as being a pro doesn't preclude you from voting against the DP. Being an anti means "in no circumstances".
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Mar 15, 2007 7:30:48 GMT -6
I agree. There is no possible reason aside from being patently against the death penalty that this jury could have been anything but unanimous. The sad thing is, in most other states, this would have meant a life sentence. Texas needs to change the law regarding unanimous jury decisions in capital cases. Potential jurors in a capital case are asked clearly and openly during voir dire whether their own personal views would prevent them from imposing the death penalty. These 2 bozos lied. There's no objective reason WHATSOEVER to support anything other than a death sentence in this case, Love, RED But all individuals must have their own opinion on DP. Or does the voir dire process include the question: Are you pro or anti DP? Of course, I cannot understand, why those two guys didn´t vote for the DP. Couey deserves only Sodium thiopental,Pancuronium bromide and Potassium chloride!
|
|
|
Post by grandma on Mar 15, 2007 7:58:23 GMT -6
My opinion is that the reason there was a 10-2 vote is because jurors knew that a majority is all they needed to recommend death. The jury was out a less than 2 hours. I feel that if a unanimous vote was required, they would have stayed out longer until all jurors were unanimous.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 15, 2007 8:54:59 GMT -6
I'm sure they were. But in this case, does it matter? This man is the poster boy for the death penalty. So if you have people that would give the death penalty to a shoplifter, what does it matter if they gave it in this case? Now, the people that did not had absolutely no reason not to impose it. Love, RED Potential jurors in a capital case are asked clearly and openly during voir dire whether their own personal views would prevent them from imposing the death penalty. These 2 bozos lied. To be the devil's advocate here, RED, isn't it also possible that some of the 10 that voted for death were firm pros?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2007 10:53:35 GMT -6
I'm sure they were. But in this case, does it matter? This man is the poster boy for the death penalty. So if you have people that would give the death penalty to a shoplifter, what does it matter if they gave it in this case? Now, the people that did not had absolutely no reason not to impose it. Love, RED To be the devil's advocate here, RED, isn't it also possible that some of the 10 that voted for death were firm pros? I think that now the jury should go back and take a vote on if he should be put to death immediately, or if he should go through an appeals process. Anotherwords a vote for take him out back and shoot him.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 15, 2007 13:02:01 GMT -6
Texas needs to change the law regarding unanimous jury decisions in capital cases. So does South Dakota. The first case tried, after the dp was reinstated turned out 10 for and 2 against. If we had the majority that guy may have been executed by now. I don't remember his name but I do remember what happened. A guy robbed an elderly man for $40, the elderly man was attending his newspaper stands. So the man murdered was doing a job and minding his own business and was murdered for $40. If I remember right it was for drug money. It happened two blocks from where I lived, when I lived in Sioux Falls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2007 13:05:59 GMT -6
Texas needs to change the law regarding unanimous jury decisions in capital cases. So does South Dakota. The first case tried, after the dp was reinstated turned out 10 for and 2 against. If we had the majority that guy may have been executed by now. I don't remember his name but I do remember what happened. A guy robbed an elderly man for $40, the elderly man was attending his newspaper stands. So the man murdered was doing a job and minding his own business and was murdered for $40. If I remember right it was for drug money. It happened two blocks from where I lived, when I lived in Sioux Falls. All states need to go to 7-5 to execute.
|
|
jbpro
Regular
Member of the Month - 3/09
Posts: 294
|
Post by jbpro on Mar 15, 2007 22:38:48 GMT -6
The vote was 10 to 2 in favor of death I think 2 of the jurors didnt have such a high iq
|
|