2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I'm glad you finally responded to John Foote's comment about why this topic is an important issue. Attacking the messenger (OPB) is only a way of not answering the question. This topic is important to those who have been found guilty and not guilty, and to society in general.

I'm an attorney who has tried hundreds of cases. I have even tried cases against Mr. Foote when he was a deputy prosecutor in Multnomah County. The issues of cost and delay are non issues. Most juries take their responsibilities seriously. They want to come to a conclusion. Hung juries are rare.

I was especially impressed by the first caller. I also see jurors who are racially prejudiced, but do not or cannot admit it. I also believe that few jurors accept the law that accused persons are presumed innocent. A unanimous jury would offer some balance to those problems.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context