It is unusual that excludes this way, because if you are a member of a jury and that we do not agre

The doctor Guy Turcotte, a cardiologist out of his wife, finds so unhappy that knife kills two children in infancy. Many knives. As Caesar. But he supported himself as a great and they are so small ... The so-called Justice intervenes and asks him accountable, but Turcotte tangles columbus ne has the answer must be: "I've lost my mind ... I do not know what took me ... Sorry. It's better now. Can I go home? I feel better when I have forgotten it all ... "
These are not his exact words were lawyers and to say otherwise, but that's what we all understood. So no sooner said than done and Guy Turcotte going home to him. No prison, where inmates could rush him as the worst criminals sometimes pretend to stay in eliminating tangles columbus ne the worst child killers: Turcotte going home ..
Population as now, is unhappy If you believe the reactions in the media, web radio line open through the comments on the blogs, at least 75% of people would love someone loses the head Turcotte tangles columbus ne kill time with cudgel blows or otherwise and do not take in "criminally responsible." She would pay even he has also a skilled lawyer.
Because tangles columbus ne it took the genius lawyer Turcotte. Simple matter of statistics. If 75% of the population believes that Turcotte deserves, if the rope has ruled that - against the advice, emphasize, the majority of the population! - At least life imprisonment, it nya a "chance" on 4194304 for eleven (11) randomly selected to be representative of the population decide unanimously that it should be expanded. This is the order of magnitude of winning the grand prize in the 6/49. Lucky, it Turcotte ....
Luck, or more likely a lawyer who has brilliant that the jury IS NOT a representative sample of the population. A lawyer who came to what is THE jury then perfect combination - to 4,194,304 - that could be persuaded that Turcotte took leave of reality the time it took to kill these children. The children of a woman he wanted to see her suffer as she had hurt the ego of poor Dr. Turcotte.
There is a way quite legitimate for a skilled lawyer to have a jury for his taste. He has the right to question those who may become jurors and to reject those which he or she can guess they will not make the verdict he wants. We must ask the right questions and correctly interpret results. Read their unconscious motivations. Transfer all those who have prejudices. Prejudiced against fathers who kill their children tangles columbus ne to avenge their wives, for example. It is not so easy, there are many ... We must be patient and motivated. It is the role of a good criminal lawyer who is the least, tangles columbus ne should have him, no prejudice against criminals, they are evil.
Turcotte's lawyer did a good job and should be commended. If you think more than ever, seeing the Turcotte case that the current tangles columbus ne role of lawyers is not to uphold the law, but tame injustice - and a judicial system should work otherwise - struggle to the system is changed, but not blame the lawyer Turcotte. It would be as silly as blaming our soldiers who are in business, sometimes kill children, too, in Libya or Afghanistan
All this is perfectly legitimate. In the case Turcotte, however - or rather tangles columbus ne in the Case of the jury Turcotte case - there is a small concern. Is that they were not more than twelve (12), but eleven (11) in this jury. This is unusual. tangles columbus ne Why eleven? ? Because one of the jurors was accused by another not to be impartial, to be prejudiced ... and was excluded. Obviously,

if we can simply exclude the jury with whom you do not agree, it's much easier things to get the verdict we want.
It is unusual that excludes this way, because if you are a member of a jury and that we do not agree with another member of the jury, normally we discussed. We're here for. Life depends and justice itself, such as respect that people tangles columbus ne can keep justice, based on this discussion. This is not nothing. We take the time to discuss it. We should.
The jurors who actually exclude another would not discuss. It should be VERY motivated - at least as a defense attorney - and he himself opposite bias, but at least as strong as he wanted to exclude. It seems that this was the case here, since a juror has indeed been excluded. Then, the other 11 to agree.