Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sheeeeeit Clay

  • 08-09-2009 1:35am
    #1
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭


    Just on season 5 again and wondering if judges in the US aren't allowed to direct juries to verdicts. I mean Clay getting off has to be pushing the whole realism thing just a little.


Comments

  • #2
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    amacachi wrote: »
    Just on season 5 again and wondering if judges in the US aren't allowed to direct juries to verdicts. I mean Clay getting off has to be pushing the whole realism thing just a little.
    I don't know the legalities/technicalities of that, but I've no problem with the way it played out.
    It was obviously to highlight that the politically corrupt are always likely to escape punishment, and reinforced the theme that it's hard to distinguish between the good and bad guys in society. Clay Davis getting done might actually have been more unrealistic, in fact.


  • #3
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Hitman Actual wrote: »
    Clay Davis getting done might actually have been more unrealistic, in fact.

    Really? Even with the clear-cut evidence? Politicians do sometimes go to jail in America, unlike here.


  • #4
    tvnutz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,788 ✭✭✭tvnutz


    amacachi wrote: »
    Really? Even with the clear-cut evidence? Politicians do sometimes go to jail in America, unlike here.

    Its about the jury. Bond took it to a city jury because he thought if he could convict a corrupt politician he could get elected mayor.In the pre trial hearing thingys you could see members of the public and jury being bored off their head with all the accounts and money links and to them it was all boring blah blah blah about numbers and different accounts. Clay used his charisma and the race card to win over the jury,make it seem like he was a victim,and it is not unrealistic at all that they bought into it.

    Bond left out the "headshot" that in a federal court would have sunk Clay. Lestor brings it to the feds later but they refuse to take the case because a white federal jury could not convict him after the city boys made him the new martin luther king jr.


  • #5
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    tvnutz wrote: »
    Its about the jury. Bond took it to a city jury because he thought if he could convict a corrupt politician he could get elected mayor.In the pre trial hearing thingys you could see members of the public and jury being bored off their head with all the accounts and money links and to them it was all boring blah blah blah about numbers and different accounts. Clay used his charisma and the race card to win over the jury,make it seem like he was a victim,and it is not unrealistic at all that they bought into it.

    Bond left out the "headshot" that in a federal court would have sunk Clay. Lestor brings it to the feds later but they refuse to take the case because a white federal jury could not convict him after the city boys made him the new martin luther king jr.

    Yeah but surely the judge could direct them to a guilty verdict?


  • #6
    tvnutz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,788 ✭✭✭tvnutz


    amacachi wrote: »
    Yeah but surely the judge could direct them to a guilty verdict?

    A jury "of your peers" decides the verdict,a judge cannot direct a jury to make a verdict either way,they control certain things in the trial and they can say that it must be a unanimous verdict or they will accept different types of verdicts but no,they cannot direct a jury.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    redfacedbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 891 ✭✭✭redfacedbear


    amacachi wrote: »
    Yeah but surely the judge could direct them to a guilty verdict?

    As I understand it, over here, a judge can direct a not guilty verdict if he thinks a prosecution case is particularly weak but he can't direct a guilty verdict if the defences case is weak.

    I would assume it's much the same in the US


  • #8
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    I may have missed an episode but up to where I saw I thought it was handled quite well. Showing how one skillful politician can accuse others of playing the race card while actually doing so himself and in the process manipulating his voter base and achieving an acquittal. It didn't strike me as unrealistic at all.

    On a side note everytime he says 'sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit' it takes me right out of the show and back to the reality of knowing you are watching an actor in front of a camera. He holds the word just a fraction too long for it to be natural/believeble.


Advertisement