But I think it is reasonable and a juror's duty to question the credibility of any witness who seems to have embellished or deceived. You could throw out everything that witness has to say. But if that witness is simply the conveyor of facts that seem inarguable and logical, you should probably believe the winess and act accordingly. The extreme case would be a witness who shows a video of the defendant committing the crime, but then lies about what he just showed on the screen. You can dismiss everything a dubious witness says, but still believe the evidence convicts if it can be believed independent of the witness.
But the juror is in control and the juror is the final arbiter of her responsibility.
On 11/14/06, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> A friend just finished jury duty in Federal court
> and had a difficult time reaching a verdict. It
> was a drug case involving transporting meth. The
> problem she had was that she felt the police lied
> and tampered with some of the evidence to
> strengthen their case but that they did so
> unnecessarily. She believed the defendant was
> shown to be guilty even without the questionable
> evidence. Her question was basically whether it
> was acceptable to find a defendant not guilty, in
> spite of believing in his guilt, in order to
> punish the police for lying and altering evidence?
> I'm curious what others think they would do in a
> similar situation.
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>