Au Pair Trial

PapaPaul febboy at IX.NETCOM.COM
Wed Nov 19 04:20:42 MST 1997

I'm wondering  if it  really  makes a difference?
Maybe  it does,  maybe it doesn't,  but  is there
evidence one wayc or the other?  I'd trust myself
to listen  to only the evidence in a trial, and I
think most other people trust themselves as well.
Sequestering  means that the  court doesn't trust
the population,  doesn't it?  And  does that also
mean  that if  they had  their d ruthers,  judges
alone would do the trying and the sentencing?

Damn,,,,,  3:18 a.m., already?   I'm getting as
bad as Helen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,    PapaPaul

At 12:29 PM 11/18/97 -0600, Richard Swerdlin wrote:
>Papa Paul:
>        Non-sequestering probably reflects a cheaper situation.  It also
>means more convenience for jurors.
>        Considering the wide use of TV, it is unlikely that jurors have
>heard or seen nothing about allegations of crime.
>Richard Swerdlin
>(swerdlin at
>> From: PapaPaul <febboy at IX.NETCOM.COM>
>> To: RUSHTALK at
>> Subject: Re: Au Pair Trial
>> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 04:02
>> At 07:22 AM 11/17/97 -0800, Jack Tomsky wrote:
>> >During trials in which there is a great deal of publicity, the jury
>> >is often sequestered. They are kept
>> >          as prisoners in a hotel and aren't allowed to read the
>> >newspapers or watch television, except in
>> >          censored form. I think the judge was highly influenced by
>> >public opinion. Maybe he should have
>> >          sequestered himself.
>> >
>> >   Jack
>>         I like what you say, Jack.  I like it a lot.
>>         What is the rationale they now use for not
>>         sequestering themselves?  That they are far
>>         superior to us common folk and therefore immune
>>         to influence?
>>         Regards, PapaPaul

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list