Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowperson
I see your logic . . . . . . and that's a sad indictment of the system. 
BUT (and I can't find this right now) I did read only a few days ago in a news story an incident that was race-related. A black man said he was at a meeting of some sort and a frumpy white woman chairing the meeting was bowled over to learn he was a dog owner. "I didn't think you people owned dogs!!!" He said she wasn't being a deliberate idiot . . . . there is just a stereotype out there that black's aren't pet owners.
Vick might be surprised.
Cowperson |
That article was posted earlier in the thread
The jury thing makes sense if you can control the jury. If they can move the trial to a neighbourhood thats predominently black, and dosen't trust whites, then this trial becomes less about animal cruelty, and more about why the indictment was issued in and itself. The defence will stir up mistrust of the investigative measures. God forbid that any of the investigating officers is white, or any of the witness.
Some of the top names in the black community will be used to testify that Michael Vick is a humble, god fearing charitible man of the community, and there's no way that he knew what was going on in that house.
I'd also say that they might use the Dan Quinn defence as well.
The ideal juror for the prosecution is older, well educated, not a sports fan, and a pet owner, or a mother with children.
The ideal juror for the defense is black, young, a sportfan, poor, militant, can't afford a pet.
Look all the defence has to do is drag this trial on and muddy the waters to create even the smallest bit of doubt, then they inflame the jury with race in the end, and the Jury either hangs itself, or outright dismisses.
I'm sorry if this sounds terrible in some way, but I'm jaded by a legal system that allows itself to get side tracked from the true pursuit of justice, by slick trial lawyers who don't fight the facts, but they turn the process on its ear by introducing racial elements.