#juror 5

[yokopedia]

Hello to the 12 people in this fandom (/e waves)

will probably post more if i feel like it

[bttf-dork]

I am once again thinking about 12 Angry Men

[magentasky234]

Umm... meow?

[peaceowatermeln]

you wanna know what my thing is about the jury? well too bad, i’m gonna tell you anyway.

two words: elitism and subjectivity

so, the point of the jury is that they (supposedly) have more music knowledge and therefore are better and more impartial judges of music, right? (i mean… we know that’s bullshit but that’s the design)

well here’s the thing. like most art forms, music is subjective, meaning what someone thinks about a song is influenced by their own taste, opinions, and feelings. this doesn’t magically disappear once you learn… i dunno, how time signatures work, for example. someone with music knowledge would be able to hear a song with something musically neat in it and go “hey, that’s neat” but ultimately that doesn’t change if the sound of the song lines up with their own taste.

(and as someone with a music degree, lemme tell you, having music knowledge doesn’t make a listening experience any more helpful or enjoyable.)

so, in our eurovision setting, where the entire point of the contest is to rank songs and crown a winner based on what is the most universally liked, and everybody voting (including our beloved juries) has their own opinions and biases about music and what is appealing to them, why are juries held as these objective elites with The Facts of what good music is? why are the opinions of 5 people who can maybe acknowledge a cool drum pattern worth the same as the opinions of the rest of a country’s over-18 population?

because they’re more impartial? sure jan.

[ace-attorney-smash-or-pass]

[justalitlecreacher]

Hate to always be that guy but the original “Cloudy With A Chance of Murder” was better

[crimson-aureus]

I've had to wake up way earlier than I'm used to every day this week and I am beyond tired at this point. I think I need to sleep for a good 24 hours straight now.

Unfortunately I didn't have a choice in all this. I got called in for jury duty last Thursday and ended up having to actually serve on a jury this week. It was my first time having to do any of that so it was an interesting and somewhat enjoyable experience, but that doesn't change the fact that the disruption to my sleep schedule has destroyed me.

Didn't have any nightmares this week though which is nice, but that was honestly just because I didn't get enough sleep to actually dream most of the days. did have a couple weird kinda unsettling dreams last night though.

[wugblogs]

the dialogue when you press mr bolshevik during the summation examination...

[shinobicyrus]

This week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel "goes on expensive fishing trips with republican megadonors" Alito decided to use an official Supreme Court order to once again rail against same-sex marriage and the entire concept of safeguarding queer rights.

It was all in response to a case the Supreme Court declined to hear involving the dismissal of 3 potential jurors who claimed that they had been unfairly passed over (yes they're complaining about not being selected for jury duty) due to their religious beliefs. The case involved a woman who was suing her employer for sexual discrimination and retaliation after she started dating the ex-girlfriend of a male coworker. The 3 potential jurors that had not been selected had stated a belief to the court that homosexuality is a sin.

Rather than commenting on the obvious bias three potential jurors had against a party in the case, Alito instead spent five pages ranting about the sheer injustice that had been done to them. The case, he said, fully exemplified the "danger" that he'd predicted back in 2015, when the Supreme Court had legalized same sex marriage nationwide (in a slim 5-4 vote, I will remind):

"Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homo-sexual conduct will be labeled as bigots and treated as such by the government."

Again this was a case in which a court ultimately decided that maybe people who believed that homosexuals were sinful shouldn't sit on a case in which one of the parties was one such "sinner." That sounds pretty fair to me; they didn't call them bigots, or evil, or throw them in jail. The court just decided that maybe they weren't a good fit for that particular case. For that particular plaintiff.

But no, a Supreme Court Justice, someone who is supposed to be a scholar of law, turned it in his mind into a government assault against "people of good will."

Never forget how narrow that marriage equality decision had been. Never forget Alito and Thomas are still salty about it 9 years later and have stated in public multiple times they want to revisit this decision. Just like Roe, just like Miranda Rights, just like the Voting Rights Act - they will gut civil rights and established precedent on the altar of their Originalism and make us beholden to the tenets of their personal Gods.

And they're doing it in public too, so they can signal to everyone who thinks like them to keep trying, you have friends here. You have a sure chance of victory.

At the very least, the lesbian with mad game won her case.

[k9mark69]

“Smith's drama teacher introduced him to acting by signing him up for theatrical productions without his consent. After failing to participate on the first two occasions,[5] his teacher arranged for him to play the tenth juror in an adaptation of Twelve Angry Men. Although he took part, he refused to attend a drama festival for which his teacher had also signed him up, as he saw himself as a football player and believed acting would damage his social life.[7] His teacher persisted, eventually persuading him to join the National Youth Theatre in London.”

hey team why did not one tell me that Matt Smith lived through real life high school musical

[bizarre-blorbo-bracket]

FINAL for real this time: Davis (Juror 8) from Twelve Angry Men vs the Bimodal Distribution from statistics

Propaganda under the cut, and it's REALLY worth it:

Davis (Juror 8) (these are all from the single submitter)

a quick lil list babes, and I apologise for all of this in advance:

He's from the fucking film 12 angry men. like, aside from letterbox bootlickers and middle school hass students NO ONE has watched this film let alone care about it, it was made in 1957, is shot almost exclusively in one room and the entire film is just middle aged white men yelling at each other over whether some not white poor kid should be sent to the electric chair. what the fuck.

Henry Fonda, the actor, was 52 years old at the time of filming

Henry Fonda is the father of Jane Fonda, the woman who would revolutionise the 80's with her home workouts and her blindingly neon leg warmers.

His name wasn't revealed until the very end of the film and even then it's just "Davis."

I could honestly give him a lil smooch

He's absolutely not girlypop but he's the ally-iest ally who's ever allied

He's categorised as a "Benevolent Leader" on the Heroes Wiki

instead of the overwhelming urge for me to coddle him like most all other blorbos, i would appreciate it switched

I have a photo of him inside my saxophone case and sometimes i forget he's in there, then he creeps into my saxophone bell and when I play it he shoots out like a ballistic missile

Dude, on ao3 there's more fanfiction about the real life 80's British punk band The Clash than the entire film of 12 angry men, let alone Davis (80 fics come up under the clash, while 10 come up for 12 angry men)

I have a counter, and I've watched 12 Angry men a total of 145 times. The figure is up on my wall in tallies. whenever the number goes up, I like to watch it in 5's so then I can put another full group of tallies on my wall.

I have incredibly detailed stories about how Davis would boogie down to ringo starr's solo career, and they're written within the margins of a book called Tobruk written by Peter Fitzsimons. The only reason I reread that book is to wonder at my elaborate works of fiction

My HASS teacher was the one to introduce me to 12 Angry Men as he played it for the entire class. He gave us a set of questions to complete on the film and a few Law based questions as a little treat, and he expected it to be handed in the next day. What he didn't expect was an 11 page monster of a response that included social commentary, 4 paragraphs dissecting the character of Davis alone, deeply discussed comparisons between the landscapes of politics and law in the 50's to the present, and basically an entire point-for-point summarisation of the film, completed with obscure quotes from Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon and Presley (Elvis). He presented the printed masterpiece in front of the entire class to shame me.

After class he explained how his favourite Juror would either be 6 or 5, because 6 seems like a big dumb teddybear and he just liked 5. I explained how I liked Davis because he didn't want to send a kid to die, then he told me how Davis would make a good cowboy (at this point in time I was unaware of Henry Fonda's role in Once Upon A Time in The West) and I proceeded to go home and write a 3 part orchestral composition that I could pretend would play as the soundtrack to Juror 8: A Cowboy's Tale or something like that

I had started to make an animation meme starring Davis but only gave up when photoshop literally deleted itself from my laptop

I didn't even hear that Juror 8's name was Davis when I first watched it in class, somehow I only heard it on my 6th rewatch but when I did I literally got so excited I literally got winded and cried a little bit, I had to take a panadol because I got so lightheaded

I have learned the musical motif that plays throughout the film on saxophone, clarinet, recorder, guitar, bass, ukulele, piano and trumpet

I have visions of him

One of Davis' 3 children HAS to be gay and nothing can convince me otherwise

honest to god I'd be a home wrecker if it came to him

I quote not only Davis but the film a lot, and sometimes in the dead silence of all my friends I go on about how the old man couldn't have possibly made it to the door in such a short amount of time to see the kid running down the stairs (because the old man has a limp, and Davis proved it my limping around the room, which I have to say was incredibly attractive of him)

He's literally an architect

I once had a dream where Davis was in my bass guitar case when I opened it, and i literally just picked him up and started picking him like a bass guitar until I tried to play a full chord and he bit the hand that was meant to be on the fretboard. I dropped him and he fell on his ass, and when I said "what the hell dude what was that for" he said bass chords are lowkey ugly to listen to, and since then i don't like playing bass chords because now they're lowkey ugly to listen to. before this ordeal, i enjoyed them, but alas

i once got my romantic partner to write me a davis x reader fanfiction as a birthday present

my parents believe that Davis is my first celebrity crush, and while they're actually wrong it's still actually so embarrassing they believe that because OH MY GOD it's literally JUROR 8 FROM 12 ANGRY MEN

I've attempted slam poetry about him

I've eaten a paper printed full a4 size photo of his hand

I would also not mind him to be literally my father, but given the rest of the things I've just said about him that's really weird and I recognise that

the Bimodal Distribution

First of all, it's a math concept. that is already pretty bizarre of a thing to be blorbo-ifying. Second of all, I don't know any calculus, and I don't consider myself a math person (because I hate arithmetic), but I really like this guy for some reason. I mean this graph clearly holds the secrets of the universe. don't you just want to l o o k at it . like you could solve everything in the world with that boy

[simply-ivanka]

Now the Trump Jurors Can Be Told

Without the limits placed on witness testimony, they can now learn why the case was faulty.

Wall Street Journal - James Freeman

In the Manhattan trial of former President Donald Trump, it seems that partisan judge Juan Merchan insisted on so many limits on the potential testimony of former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith that the defense decided it was pointless to put him on the stand. But now the jurors can learn what Journal readers have known for more than a year—hush-money payments to alleged mistresses are not campaign contributions.

This weekend Mr. Smith noted this again on X and also explained in a series of posts why there was a big chronological hole in the claim that a 2016 payment to alleged mistress Stormy Daniels was improperly reported to avoid damaging news prior to that year’s election:

The payment to Daniels was made on Oct. 27. So the payment would not have been reported on the Pre-election report… The next report is the Post-Election Report…

In 2016, the Post-Election Report was required to be filed on December 8, one month after the election. So the prosecution’s theory, that Trump wanted to hide the expenditure until after the election, makes no sense at all…

Even if we assume, incorrectly, that it was a campaign expenditure, it wouldn’t have been reported until 30 days after the election. But again, none of this got to the jury, either through testimony or the judge’s instructions…

Merchan was rather obviously biased here, but I’ll give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just thoroughly ignorant of campaign finance law, and had no interest in boning up on it to properly instruct the jury.

Mr. Smith sums up the issue under relevant federal law:

There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure. And even if we assume otherwise, the prosecution’s theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent.

Could this case look any worse? It seems that even if one made the error of regarding the hush-money payment as a campaign contribution, there would still be ample reason to question the constitutionality of the verdict. Steven Calabresi, who teaches law at Northwestern and Yale, writes for Reason magazine:

In 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, the Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by closely allied corporations and groups like The Trump Organization. Under Citizens United, it was perfectly legal for The Trump Organization to pay Daniels $130,000 in hush money to conceal her alleged affair with Donald Trump…

Groups contributing to election campaigns can pay for advertising to promote candidates, and they can also pay hush money to keep bad or false stories out of the news. The effect either way is to help the candidate. You can contribute money to generate good publicity.  And, you can contribute money to avoid bad publicity.  The First Amendment protects freedom of speech in both cases.

Mr. Calabresi adds:

The U.S. Supreme Court needs to hear this case as soon as possible because of its impact on the 2024 presidential election between President Trump and President Biden. Voters need to know that the Constitution protected everything Trump is alleged to have done with respect to allegedly paying hush money to Stormy Daniels. This is especially the case because the trial judge in Trump’s Manhattan case wrongly allowed Stormy Daniels to testify in graphic detail about the sexual aspects of her alleged affair with Trump. This testimony tainted the jury and the 2024 national presidential electorate, impermissibly, and was irrelevant to the question of whether President Trump altered business records to conceal a crime. The federal Supreme Court needs to make clear what are the legal rules in matters of great consequence to an election to a federal office like the presidency.  A highly partisan borough, Manhattan, of a highly partisan city, New York City, in a highly partisan state, like New York State, cannot be allowed to criminalize the conduct of presidential candidates in ways that violate the federal constitution.

The Roman Republic fell when politicians began criminalizing politics. I am gravely worried that we are seeing that pattern repeat itself in the present-day United States. It is quite simply wrong to criminalize political differences.

Some readers were disappointed in your humble correspondent for suggesting on Friday that Gov. Kathy Hochul (D., N.Y.) should pardon Mr. Trump. Given the logical and constitutional flaws in the case, these disgruntled readers think it would be better to have this outrage exposed in the appeals process and completely repudiated, whereas a pardon might appear to some to be a merciful response to a legitimate prosecution for the sake of political comity. Perhaps such readers needn’t worry. Jon Levine reports for the New York Post:

A person close to Hochul said a pardon was “unlikely.” 

“I cannot image a world where she would consider doing this, this makes no sense,” said the insider.

[ace-attorney-smash-or-pass]

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Trump supporters call for riots and violent retribution after verdict | Reuters

By Joseph Tanfani, Ned Parker & Peter Eisler

Supporters of former President Donald Trump, enraged by his conviction on 34 felony counts by a New York jury, flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retribution.

After Trump became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, his supporters responded with dozens of violent online posts, according to a Reuters review of comments on three Trump-aligned websites: the former president's own Truth Social platform, Patriots.Win and the Gateway Pundit.

Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection.

“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.

On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting."

Threats of violence and intimidating rhetoric soared after Trump lost the 2020 election and falsely claimed the vote was stolen. As he campaigns for a second White House term, Trump has baselessly cast the judges and prosecutors in his trials as corrupt tools of the Biden administration, intent on sabotaging his White House bid. His loyalists have responded with a campaign of threats and intimidation targeting judges and court officials.

“This was a disgrace, this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt,” Trump told reporters afterwards, echoing comments he often made during the trial.

A 12-member jury found Trump guilty on Thursday of falsifying documents to cover up a payment to silence a porn star’s account of a sexual encounter ahead of the 2016 election. Sentencing is set for July 11, days before the Republican Party is scheduled to formally nominate Trump for president ahead of the Nov. 5 election. Trump has denied wrongdoing and is expected to appeal.

Trump continued his attacks online after the verdict.

On Truth Social, he called Merchan “HIGHLY CONFLICTED” and criticized his jury instructions as unfair. One commentator responded by posting a picture of a hangman's platform and a noose with the caption: “TREASONOUS MOBSTER OF THE JUSTICES SYSTEM!!”

Jacob Ware, a co-author of the book “God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America”, said the violent language used by Trump’s followers was testament to the former president’s “ironclad ability to mobilize more extreme supporters to action, both at the ballot box and through violence.”

“Until and unless he accepts the process, the extremist reaction to his legal troubles will be militant,” said Ware, a research fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A spokesperson for Truth Social said, “It’s hard to believe that Reuters, once a respected news service, has fallen so low as to publish such a manipulative, false, defamatory and transparently stupid article as this one purely out of political spite.”

All three sites have policies against violent language, and some of the posts were later removed. Representatives of Patriots.Win and Gateway Pundit did not immediately return requests for comment. A Trump spokesperson also did not respond to an email seeking comment.

“HANG EVERYONE”

After Thursday's verdict, many of his supporters also said that his conviction was proof that the American political system was broken and that only violent action could save the country.

“1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to Washington and hang everyone. That's the only solution,” said one poster on Patriots.win. Another added: “Trump should already know he has an army willing to fight and die for him if he says the words...I’ll take up arms if he asks.”

Other posts specifically urged targeting Democrats, in some cases suggesting they be shot. “AMERICA FULLY DESTROYED BY DEMOCRATS. LOCK AND LOAD,” wrote a commentator on Gateway Pundit.

While the posts identified by Reuters all called for violence or insurrection, most fell short of the legal standard for a prosecutable threat, which typically requires evidence that the comment reflects a clear intent to act or instill fear, rather than simply suggesting a frightening outcome.

Still, one researcher who studies extremist militias said the guilty verdict could inspire violence by reinforcing a conviction among some of Trump's supporters that he's a victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by his enemies.

“I do think a lot of these folks have been looking for an excuse to maybe mobilize for a while,” said Amy Cooter of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies’ Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism. “I hope I’m wrong. I’ve said for a long time, though, that I would not be shocked to see violence result from a guilty verdict, either directed toward the jurors” or others connected to the case.

[trialsinthelateromanrepublic]

trial of Titus Annius Milo

date: 52 BCE, Milo charged on March 26, trial on April 4-7/[8]) charge: lex Pompeia de vi (murder of Clodius) defendant: T. Annius Milo pr. 55 advocates: M. Claudius Marcellus cos. 51 M. Tullius Cicero cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 72)  prosecutors: M. Antonius q. 51, cos. 44, 34 (subscr.) Ap. Claudius Pulcher cos. 38 (nom. del.) Ap. Claudius Pulcher sen.? (subscr.) P. Valerius Nepos (subscr.)  quaesitor: L. Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. 54 jurors: Q. Petilius M. Porcius Cato pr. 54 (voted A) P. Varius witnesses: Q. Arrius pr. before 63 = ? Q. Arrius pr. 73 C. Causinius Schola of Interamna C. Clodius Fulvia M. Porcius Cato pr. 54 Sempronia residents of Bovillae virgines Albanae 

Cic. Mil.; Liv. Per. 107; Vell. 2.47.4-5; Asc. 30-56; Quint. Inst. 3.6.93, 3.11.15 and 17; 4.1.20; 4.2.25, 4.3.17, 6.3.49, 10.1.23; Plut. Cic. 35; App. BCiv. 2.21-22, 24; Dio 40.54-55.1; Schol. Bob. 111-125St; Schol. Gronov. D 322-323St; see also Cic. Att. 5.8.2-3, 6.4.3, 6.5.1-2

[cartermagazine]

Today In History

Long after the Mississippi justice system gave up on the murder prosecution of Medgar Evers, Myrlie Evers kept the case alive.

When Myrlie Evers was told in 1989 that new information in her late husband’s decades-old murder case was unlikely to move the gears of justice, she did not react in anger.

Instead, she listened carefully as Mississippi prosecutor Bobby DeLaughter explained that the state couldn’t find any of the evidence from a past prosecution. Then, Myrlie calmly asked that his team “Just try.“

Faced with the overwhelming odds of a case with few surviving jurors, and a public that had long since seemed to move on from the tragedy, others might have backed down. Instead, Myrlie Evers fought to have the murder case reopened—a battle she had waged for 30 years.

On February 5, 1994, white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith faced a more racially diverse jury, in the third trial for the murder of Medgar Evers. When the guilty verdict was read, Myrlie Evers-Williams wept.

Afterwards, reported the Los Angeles Times, she jumped for joy, then looked up to the sky, saying “Medgar, I’ve gone the last mile of the way.”

Joy Ann-Reid @joyannreid MSNBC national correspondent and best-selling author, chronicles the lives of civil rights icons Medgar and Myrlie Evers in her new book: “Medgar and Myrlie: Medgar Evers and the Love Story That Awakened America.”

CARTER™️ Magazine