en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1193111 Comments by chris_e http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment172109540 "If they had shot for an offence a little lower on the scale, they could have easily proven their case." They did. Look it up. Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:40:13 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment172109540 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171651924 Ok. Now link this to what you've previously claimed about circumstantial evidence. Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:27:30 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171651924 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171645608 Because I'm not trying to make the constitution discuss a topic it clearly does not discuss? An odd definition of living constitution. Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:01:35 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171645608 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171643733 I gave you citation as to where I got my ideas. The constitution does not mention circumstantial evidence. Sun, 10 Jul 2011 00:54:19 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171643733 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171613855 All courts allow circumstantial evidence that has any relevance to the case at hand, and is not unduly prejudicial (FRE's 401 and 403). Conduct of a party may be used circumstantially to draw an adverse inference. Most evidence presented in court is circumstantial. I have no idea where you are getting these ideas, but it certainly was not law school. Please stop tainting future jury pools, for all our interests. Sat, 9 Jul 2011 22:54:17 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171613855 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171493871 The prosecution included manslaughter in their charge. The jury acquitted on that as well. Sat, 9 Jul 2011 15:45:42 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171493871 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171227472 A homicide is just the determination, based on the totality of the evidence, that someone else caused a person's death. For example: Say they find the skeletal remains of a person on the bottom of the ocean with their feat tied to a block of cement and their hands cuffed behind their back. Since there are no more lungs test, you wouldn't be able to determine one way or another that the person died of drowning (or stabbing, etc., as any wounds that glanced off the bone would probably be chronologically indeterminate). But a coroner would call it a safe bet that someone else caused this death -- and hence rule it a homicide. Fri, 8 Jul 2011 20:04:38 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171227472 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171149208 Could you look up the meaning of "ad hominem" before attempting to make that accusation? At what point did I attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it? Also, you're moving the goal posts. I never questioned the jury system, just these jurors. More specifically, I questioned your understanding of what constitutes reasonable doubt and your ability to serve on a jury based on that understanding. It is your belief that a specific cause of death is necessary to determine if a homicide occurred. It is a "deal breaker." That isn't the law. Engaging in this legal analysis would mean you were advocating jury nullification, and either the judge or the prosecutor would preclude you from serving on a jury. You may continue to misstate my contentions if you wish, but that will only make the substance of your attack on this particular issue weaker. Now THAT's an ad hominem attack. Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:58:28 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment171149208 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170989622 To quibble, the ME just ruled it a homicide. It's the jury's job to decide if it's murder. The jury may disagree with the ME at their leisure, as homicide is an essential element to prove in a murder case. It's just not very reasonable for a jury to supplant their opinion for an ME's in this kind of case. Especially in light of the entirety of the evidence presented. Fri, 8 Jul 2011 07:12:25 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170989622 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170986396 Do you know that a coroner isn't a "corner"? Since you used the word "corner" twice now I will assume it isn't just a typo, and you really think that's what they're called. So maybe watch out on the intelligence aspersion next time. As to the substance... I'm just a guy who happens to know that your beliefs would disqualify you to serve on a jury. Any prosecutor worth their salt your use a preliminary on you, because you refuse to even attempt to understand the law. Fri, 8 Jul 2011 07:02:17 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170986396 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170984682 The other fact is that the ME concluded it was a homicide. Which is what the issue is. The new fact is that you don't understand the meaning of 'homicide.' Fri, 8 Jul 2011 06:56:41 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170984682 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170778490 If someone is found with an arrow through their head, and a knife through their heart, an ME could not determine the cause of death. But could easily conclude that it was homicide. Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:36:50 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170778490 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170777311 Well you make sure to let the judge know that during voir dire. Good way to make sure people like you who don't understand reasonable doubt are never allowed to serve on a jury. Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:33:39 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170777311 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/04/02/chicago-code-review-a-tv-show-that-dares-remind-us-of-bill-ayers/#IDComment139437246 It is about half as good as the Shield. Which, like you said, makes it well worth watching. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:24:59 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2011/04/02/chicago-code-review-a-tv-show-that-dares-remind-us-of-bill-ayers/#IDComment139437246 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/30/if-hollywoods-always-behaved-badly-why-do-we-dislike-it-so-much-more-today/#IDComment138750175 1. I think it's Dennis Prager who says that the worst thing someone can do in a relationship is to hold the other in contempt. Hollywood holds us in contempt. 2. I might consider forgiving them everything if they'd just start making good movies again. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:00:13 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/30/if-hollywoods-always-behaved-badly-why-do-we-dislike-it-so-much-more-today/#IDComment138750175 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/30/if-hollywoods-always-behaved-badly-why-do-we-dislike-it-so-much-more-today/#IDComment138743413 Could not agree more. I can deal with almost anything except for the hate and disdain for everything I believe in. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:12:59 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/30/if-hollywoods-always-behaved-badly-why-do-we-dislike-it-so-much-more-today/#IDComment138743413 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/04/is-jon-stewart-spreading-misinformation-about-teachers-pay-and-fox-news/#IDComment132543934 Under this broad analogy, only the CEO could have made the 12 cookies. Sat, 5 Mar 2011 04:42:32 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/04/is-jon-stewart-spreading-misinformation-about-teachers-pay-and-fox-news/#IDComment132543934 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/04/is-jon-stewart-spreading-misinformation-about-teachers-pay-and-fox-news/#IDComment132542995 Israel, the country, is a "foreign terror group"? It's always nice when bigotry outs itself early. Sat, 5 Mar 2011 04:35:19 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/04/is-jon-stewart-spreading-misinformation-about-teachers-pay-and-fox-news/#IDComment132542995 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/02/19/smacking-down-tavis-smiley-why-unlike-jon-stewart-i-have-some-respect-for-bill-maher/#IDComment129305754 First you say "[f]inding reasons to agree with a lefty is in the area of McCainism." I rebut. Then, "[t]his is praising a lefty and not just acknowledging area of agreement." You need to make up your mind what you're arguing about. Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:16:01 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/02/19/smacking-down-tavis-smiley-why-unlike-jon-stewart-i-have-some-respect-for-bill-maher/#IDComment129305754 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/02/19/smacking-down-tavis-smiley-why-unlike-jon-stewart-i-have-some-respect-for-bill-maher/#IDComment129302703 This isn't agreeing with a lefty. This is recognizing when a lefty is agreeing with us. There's a big distinction. Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:52:27 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/02/19/smacking-down-tavis-smiley-why-unlike-jon-stewart-i-have-some-respect-for-bill-maher/#IDComment129302703