So here is a much more interesting game than what TQM proposed on another thread...
Will Lord Black be found guilty or not?
If you have followed the trial at all, here’s an opportunity to show how astute you are in the artistry of prediction...
For my part, I think that it is impossible to rationally or logically analyze and predict what will happen unless, like the jury, you have followed the case very closely -- which means every minute in the court room. So all that follows is guess work rather than science...
That being said, having had my fair share of jury trials I know one thing for sure: you cannot hoodwink a jury... you cannot deceive it – not easily, in any event, and hardly at all with competent counsel on both sides.
So here are three possible scenarios to begin with:
The jurors are going to ask themselves: How can Black’s right hand man and partner, Radler, plead guilty to something that they both did together if it was totally innocent? He is not a fool, whatever his shortcomings as a witness... and who does not have those shortcomings when put under a microscope by several competent defence lawyers? How do they make sense of that?
Or, they will be troubled by something that jurors always take very seriously: aside from what they may or may not believe happened using their own common sense, what is the law? Does the evidence establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt? There is no place in our system for what is called a “Scotch verdict,” namely, “Not Proved.”
In other words, even if they believe that, in fact, Black did what the prosecution says he did, does the evidence support it beyond reasonable doubt? If the answer is “no,” then the verdict must be acquittal.
In my view, if I were sitting as a juror I would be thinking along these lines: (i) nobody denies that the payments were made and taken by Black; (ii) the defence is that Black disclosed it and filed all the necessary documents, etc.; (iii) if the money did not rightfully belong to the defendants and they robbed the company and the shareholders, what difference does it make whether the robbery took place openly, in broad daylight, so to speak, rather than surreptitiously? On that basis I might well be inclined to vote for a guilty verdict.
OK. The floor is open... and the "real" answer will be known shortly!
Perry
Will Lord Black be found guilty or not?
If you have followed the trial at all, here’s an opportunity to show how astute you are in the artistry of prediction...
For my part, I think that it is impossible to rationally or logically analyze and predict what will happen unless, like the jury, you have followed the case very closely -- which means every minute in the court room. So all that follows is guess work rather than science...
That being said, having had my fair share of jury trials I know one thing for sure: you cannot hoodwink a jury... you cannot deceive it – not easily, in any event, and hardly at all with competent counsel on both sides.
So here are three possible scenarios to begin with:
The jurors are going to ask themselves: How can Black’s right hand man and partner, Radler, plead guilty to something that they both did together if it was totally innocent? He is not a fool, whatever his shortcomings as a witness... and who does not have those shortcomings when put under a microscope by several competent defence lawyers? How do they make sense of that?
Or, they will be troubled by something that jurors always take very seriously: aside from what they may or may not believe happened using their own common sense, what is the law? Does the evidence establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt? There is no place in our system for what is called a “Scotch verdict,” namely, “Not Proved.”
In other words, even if they believe that, in fact, Black did what the prosecution says he did, does the evidence support it beyond reasonable doubt? If the answer is “no,” then the verdict must be acquittal.
In my view, if I were sitting as a juror I would be thinking along these lines: (i) nobody denies that the payments were made and taken by Black; (ii) the defence is that Black disclosed it and filed all the necessary documents, etc.; (iii) if the money did not rightfully belong to the defendants and they robbed the company and the shareholders, what difference does it make whether the robbery took place openly, in broad daylight, so to speak, rather than surreptitiously? On that basis I might well be inclined to vote for a guilty verdict.
OK. The floor is open... and the "real" answer will be known shortly!
Perry
