OK, so I have recently been watching the television show Shark. Basically all you need to know is that it is about lawyers that try to prosecute high profile cases, such as murder and the like. Now not a few times has the event occured where although they have (in my opinion at least) proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty but due to some techincality or law, some of the most incriminating evidence is discareded from the trial.
For example in one of the episodes they find a gun that is matched as a murder weapon with the defendants finger prints all over it, as well as a wad of cash and a suitcase packed in preparation for running. However as it is found on the defendants boat, which due to his current financial situation he was currently living in and so was clasified as his legal home, the evidnece was obtained illegally from his place of residance.
Now I know that this show is obviously going to exagerate occurances like this for dramatisation but for curiosities sake I want to ask a few questions. First of for all you escapists out there who do work somewhere in the legal system, how often would something like this actually happen in real life? And to everyone, if you were in the position of one of the jury members, and although you had seen evidence that proved to you beyond reasonable doubt that a person was guilty, would you be able to ignore it in your final verdict if you were told you were legally obligated to do so?
I honestly don't know what I'd do. I don't think I could possibly ignore such evidence and would probably find them guilty anyway, and just try to justify it with some other reason no matter how hard it was to find one. What would you do?
For example in one of the episodes they find a gun that is matched as a murder weapon with the defendants finger prints all over it, as well as a wad of cash and a suitcase packed in preparation for running. However as it is found on the defendants boat, which due to his current financial situation he was currently living in and so was clasified as his legal home, the evidnece was obtained illegally from his place of residance.
Now I know that this show is obviously going to exagerate occurances like this for dramatisation but for curiosities sake I want to ask a few questions. First of for all you escapists out there who do work somewhere in the legal system, how often would something like this actually happen in real life? And to everyone, if you were in the position of one of the jury members, and although you had seen evidence that proved to you beyond reasonable doubt that a person was guilty, would you be able to ignore it in your final verdict if you were told you were legally obligated to do so?
I honestly don't know what I'd do. I don't think I could possibly ignore such evidence and would probably find them guilty anyway, and just try to justify it with some other reason no matter how hard it was to find one. What would you do?
