www.ditl.org

I'll admit to having downloaded free stuff (of all kinds) and a catalyst for this was the fact that I've historically been poor personally (I'm still a student after all!). Nowadays, the convenience of getting almost any song you want free is hard to resist for many, with the increasing threat of viruses being the greatest deterrent. Nevertheless, the genie can't be put back in the bottle, for music, movies, newspapers, etc. When the music industry shut down the original Napster, "they" simply responded with better file sharing designs that weren't so easy to kill.

Also, it did occur to me that you might have to do a bit of work to assemble a jury composed entirely of people who have never once downloaded something illegally themselves in the first place, nowadays!

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:Also, it did occur to me that you might have to do a bit of work to assemble a jury composed entirely of people who have never once downloaded something illegally themselves in the first place, nowadays!

Actually, if they did happen to find that jury, then the verdict could be overturned by any lawyer with a brain, she was not being judged by a jury of her "peers" thus making it an unfair trial, so it would get overturned, I'm sure it wasn't even asked in jury selection.

Yeah, I don't know that this was the case at all, but it did occur to me that she was likely handed this verdict by a jury which included people who had downloaded stuff themselves (and quite possibly shared it too). It's just such a common thing, making it sort of like asking a New York jury to convict someone of jaywalking!

(now I do realize that these jurors may have put aside their history to follow the letter of the law)

Nickswitz wrote:

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:Also, it did occur to me that you might have to do a bit of work to assemble a jury composed entirely of people who have never once downloaded something illegally themselves in the first place, nowadays!

Actually, if they did happen to find that jury, then the verdict could be overturned by any lawyer with a brain, she was not being judged by a jury of her "peers" thus making it an unfair trial, so it would get overturned, I'm sure it wasn't even asked in jury selection.

I'm not sure that rule is ever applied in practice.

For example, if I were ever on trial, could I specify that all jurors have IQs over 180 to justify them being my "peers"? I doubt it.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I'm not sure that rule is ever applied in practice.

For example, if I were ever on trial, could I specify that all jurors have IQs over 180 to justify them being my "peers"? I doubt it.

No, you couldn't specify anything, however, if you were a white man who was on trial for killing a black man, and the jury was all black, then it would be overturned very easily if a guilty verdict were given.

But yes, this is very rarely put into practice, because usually the person doesn't know anything about the jury, except race, and they can't learn anything about the jury either legally.

However... if their lawyer knew that it was basically a rigged jury, then he could get it overturned or get a mistrial.

Well, then that would pretty much guarantee a mistrial in my case...

If your lawyer thought it was rigged and argued it well enough in court. Essentially anything could be a mistrial if your lawyer can sell it... lol

Nickswitz wrote:If your lawyer thought it was rigged and argued it well enough in court. Essentially anything could be a mistrial if your lawyer can sell it... lol

So... what if you represent yourself? Could you then learn anything about the jury? If not, wouldn't that be an unfair advantage for the prosecutor?

Honestly, the things I like about the US legal system could fit on one post-it note.

Nope, if you represent yourself, you get to choose a jury for yourself... lol

Nickswitz wrote: However... if their lawyer knew that it was basically a rigged jury, then he could get it overturned or get a mistrial.

That might be the grounds for the appeal.

I'm just surprised that she could lose in a jury trial the first time. Appealet trials aren't jury but the first one probably was. Only a fool would wave right to jury when as you guys said everyone does it.