Study: an AR might send you to jail in SD case.

[Styx]

Not saying they do/will. Just saying that it's hardly surprising that jurors chosen from among the typical Motoring Public (old reference) may bring their conscious or subconscious bias with them to the jury box, and America's Rifle (AR) may, or may not, be something that in their minds has been shown to be good, bad or indifferent. The same might be said for a bolt gun, or a lever gun, or a 12GA used for birding, skeet or clays, compared to one tricked out for a Zombie Apocalypse. Naturally, the area of the country in which a jury might be chosen may have different factors at work in this regard.

Like with everything else in life, the freedom of choice doesn't mean a free pass from having to choose wisely for any particular circumstance that may come along. Also, good attorneys can do good things, but if they're required to put in extra billable hours to try and deal with the consequences of 'predictable is preventable' decisions made by their client, don't be surprised if it takes more work, and more money ... and there's no guarantee they may change the minds of someone who sees black rifles as evil, or indicating something about the mindset of someone. People. It's what they do.

I keep seeing these assertion made, but what is lacking in the real world cases and examples of this happening in practice. I took an hour of my time yesterday and searched everywhere I could online and even locally. I even went though some published and unpublished state level Appeals and Supreme Court rulings. What I have found is the opposite than what's being asserted in this thread to be true when the cases are real and lives and futures are on the line. I haven't found, and no one who has asserted that this should be a major or serious concern has supplied any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Kleanbore]

I keep seeing these assertion made, but what is lacking in the real world cases and examples of this happening in practice. I took an hour of my time yesterday and searched everywhere I could online and even locally.

How is it that you believe that any knowledge about what has influenced the judgments of individual jurors who made their decisions in closed rooms might ever be gleaned by someone like you in an hour search on the web? In a year?

Get real. It ain't gonna happen. Things do not work that way.

 

[GEM]

Lawyers have looked at the issue. Appeals and rulings do not mention whether XY or Z is shown or said at a trial. Such a search is useless. Funny, an auditorium full of continuing ed lawyers in TX didn't think the concern wasn't realisitic. What do they know? You don't appeal because a weapon is on the Prosecution table or shown to a jury.

 

[Kleanbore]

The question is not one of what kind of court decisions have been made--there are far, far too many variables.

The question is simple: How, and to what extent, might the appearance of a weapon influence the judgment of the finders of fact, particularly if all other things are equal, when the evidence is incomplete and the case is not open and shut. Period.

There are two ways to investigate that.

1. Attend a very large number of trials, select which ones might seem to have underlying characteristics that are relevant--and then, if one can find some, see if one can persuade the jurors to answer some questions. That's a fool's errand.
2. Conduct a rigorous scientific study using jury simulation.

Regarding appellate cases, those do not address the facts of a case. They have to do with legal issues--with what evidence was admitted and what was not, and with the law and the jury instructions. That's it. I cannot imagine how factors involving the appearance of a weapon could ever make their way into an appeal, and if they do not, they will not be mentioned in the appellate ruling.

 

[fastbolt]

This is one of the many sorts of issues about which if you wonder if it may become involved in self defense incident, and it concerns you, you might ask the attorney(law firm) who is going to represent you in a possible criminal and/or civil court.

If you're buying self defense insurance or legal defense coverage, perhaps check with the vendor company and see if they offer training or informational presentations about this particular subject.

If you listen/read training from sources who have opinions on the subject, even if they're attorneys (but aren't YOUR attorney), ask yourself whether they will be appearing on your behalf in any future court appearance(s)?

Jury (litigation) consultants ... and the jury pool wherever you may find yourself facing a jury. Predictable isn't the word that comes to my mind when it comes to who ends up on a jury.

 

[Kleanbore]

you might ask the attorney(law firm) who is going to represent you in a possible criminal and/or civil court.

Yes, and if they choose to offer competent advice, they can either refer to existing research such as that citied in the OP. or conduct their own research using the same method.

 

[GEM]

And all this will be extremely expensive. Unless you have insurance, personal in with experts, they can charge $1k to $10 per trial OR day. Thus, trying to mitigate the risks reasonably is a good idea.

 

[fastbolt]

And all this will be extremely expensive. Unless you have insurance, personal in with experts, they can charge $1k to $10 per trial OR day. Thus, trying to mitigate the risks reasonably is a good idea.

The philosophies behind the Rule of the Seven P's, Predictable is Preventable and TANSTAAFL might be in the ballpark, too.

It's sometimes a bit dismaying how some folks may give a lot of lip service to the importance of risk assessment when it comes to "Have a Gun", but then give short shrift to applying the same philosophy to trying to mitigate unnecessary exposure to criminal and/or civil liability by giving a little consideration to some of their decisions and choices ahead of time.

 

[JTHunter]

So in other words, you have no idea who actually ends up serving on a jury and you're just blowing smoke based on your own uninformed supposition.

Most of the "potential" jurors are welfare recipeints from East St. Louis. Most of them are only in it for the money. As you can imagine, their "conviction rates" are higher for non-PoCs than PoCs.

 

[Kleanbore]

Most of the "potential" jurors are welfare recipeints from East St. Louis. Most of them are only in it for the money. As you can imagine, their "conviction rates" are higher for non-PoCs than PoCs.

The potential jurors are all of the registered voters who reside in the county in which the incident occurred.

 

[JTHunter]

The potential jurors are all of the registered voters who reside in the county in which the incident occurred.

AND, most of the better educated residents are working people and figure out ways to avoid jury duty. The majority of the people that get picked aren't employed.

 

[Kleanbore]

AND, most of the better educated residents are working people and figure out ways to avoid jury duty. The majority of the people that get picked aren't employed.

That has not been my experience.

 

[tarosean]

Most of them are only in it for the money.

What does your state pay for Jury Duty?
Cannot even get a decent lunch with the $$ here.

AND, most of the better educated residents are working people and figure out ways to avoid jury duty. The majority of the people that get picked aren't employed.

"Educated" more often than not means salaried. They will get paid the same whether on Jury Duty or at work.

 

[Robert]

We are down to quibbling about lawyer fees, jury selection, and jury pay. None of which are on topic for THR. Time to call it a day.