This was just pointed out to me.... The New York Court of Appeals — the state's highest court — ruled in a 1987 case that a judge cannot provide a copy of their written instructions to the jury
Plus, when I was on Jury duty 20 years ago that was the exact same analogy the judge gave us as we were going in to deliberate. It's commonly used as an example of what constitutes circumstantial evidence.
No,as a juror, I woke up dry as a bone and looked out the window. The people on the street- the ones with umbrellas and galoshes- would be the people who could possibly have gotten pissed on. If someone claimed it was piss, my job as a juror would be to determine whether it was more likely that everything was covered in piss than the likelihood that it rained. In a civil trial (like I was involved with) I would have to merely decide whether the preponderance of the evidence (including the circumstantial evidence I saw) pointed toward rain or urine. As a criminal juror, the burden is much higher. It's not merely a preponderance of evidence. I would have to decide whether a reasonable person would believe beyond a REASONABLE doubt that it was actually urine. Knowing what I know about weather, and having 59 years of pissing experience would make me comfortable making a decision about which was more likely, even beyond a reasonable doubt..
Nope , the wet sheep would all agree it was rain. You would never be presented with the Truth.
In the age of insanity it is incumbent of those with what remains of
Common sense , which is "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument" , to apply it.
This was just pointed out to me.... The New York Court of Appeals — the state's highest court — ruled in a 1987 case that a judge cannot provide a copy of their written instructions to the jury
Plus, when I was on Jury duty 20 years ago that was the exact same analogy the judge gave us as we were going in to deliberate. It's commonly used as an example of what constitutes circumstantial evidence.
So you get the point of them pissing all over you but telling you it's raining ?
No,as a juror, I woke up dry as a bone and looked out the window. The people on the street- the ones with umbrellas and galoshes- would be the people who could possibly have gotten pissed on. If someone claimed it was piss, my job as a juror would be to determine whether it was more likely that everything was covered in piss than the likelihood that it rained. In a civil trial (like I was involved with) I would have to merely decide whether the preponderance of the evidence (including the circumstantial evidence I saw) pointed toward rain or urine. As a criminal juror, the burden is much higher. It's not merely a preponderance of evidence. I would have to decide whether a reasonable person would believe beyond a REASONABLE doubt that it was actually urine. Knowing what I know about weather, and having 59 years of pissing experience would make me comfortable making a decision about which was more likely, even beyond a reasonable doubt..
Nope , the wet sheep would all agree it was rain. You would never be presented with the Truth.
In the age of insanity it is incumbent of those with what remains of Common sense , which is "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument" , to apply it.
As others have : https://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/