ALLEGEDLY the ONLY SENATOR NOT TAKING ANY NOTES is mitch the son of an itch. Already made up his head? Or is he dead?

Touche. I did not think of that Walt. Dumb me! So of course they are playing for an audience of one who will avidly be watching their every move. Gotta pretend playact for the camera. Photo ops. Dam*. See how naive I am? I really thought maybe some of them gave a dam*! :( Thank you for the ice water in my face! You had to do it. I get it! :) No offense taken.

I've seen regular jury members do it, so I figured Senators wouldn't be any different.  lol

So regular ordinary typical standard-issue juror pretend to take notes for appearance sake? I've never actually served on a jury. Been called up a few times and waiting in a selection room but never got chosen so I have no idea what it's like. Have you served on a jury? If so did you enjoy the experience? I'm gonna ask. Thank you for your reply! :)

I tend not to get chosen from the "pool", after I reveal I believe in the Right of Jury Nullification.
IE: If the law is unjust, the Jury has a duty to nullify it by finding the individual innocent.

But I have served on a couple juries.  Both drunk driving cases.
Both ended with "hung juries" because 1 or 2 jurors had alcoholic relatives, and saw nothing wrong with drunk driving.

I'm with you. What kind of idiot wouldn't want it nullified if the law is unjust? Geez are all lawyers that cold uncaring? What you write about your experiences serving on those juries SHOCKS THE HE** outta me Walt. Drunk drivers "murder" people. I say murder because they didn't have to drink and get behind the wheel. It may not have been premeditated but it was preventable and therefore willful. They see nothing wrong with drunk driving? You know writing that sentence was really hard for me. It's just so weird and odd and awful. Even if they believe that why would they say that and let everyone know what kind of people they are? It's like saying they see nothing wrong with pedophilia...they have relatives who are. Sheesh. Thank you for the info. I'd be honest too and so I'd probably talk myself off any jury. I think I'm too old now. Haven't gotten a summons since I turned 70!  You know I don't know. I shall ask:)

Unfortunately, those views weren't discovered during pre-trial jury selection.
You'd think that would be a question the lawyers would ask, but for some reason they didn't.
They asked if anyone was related to police officers, though that didn't automatically disqualify a person from the jury.
But they didn't ask if anyone was related to an alcoholic.  And it was before it was viewed as a "disease".

Isn't there a checklist of something or appropriate questions that SHOULD BE ASKED pertaining to specific situations? Sounds to me as if the questioning was far from thorough. So the person gets off and goes out and does it again. This time murdering someone. What lesson is learned from an acquittal? Isn't that like saying "you really did nothing wrong"? Thank you for informative reply. Sad though it is! :)

Since it was a "hung jury" ... they had to retry the case with another jury.
Hopefully, the lawyers learned their lesson, and did a better job screening that jury pool.

Did you ever see that movie "12 Angry Men"? It was very good. It was also very scary. I'm sure the nature of juries vary from situation to situation. Gettin 12 people to agree on anything is well nigh impossible. I wonder why they ALL have to agree and not merely go with the majority? I'm gonna ask. Thank you for your reply Walt and Happy Saturday! :)

I like that movie.
Though I always wonder if they person WAS innocent or guilty.
After all, evidence was introduced in the jury room that wasn't introduced in the actual trial (the duplicate knife).

Nowadays, it would be almost impossible for that to happen due to the security of court houses (the knife would have been confiscated from the juror).