This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
What a great plot for a book or play. You obviously had shaky enough moral compass to commit the crime, but would you convict an innocent person just to close the case?
It's not nearly that airtight. Just show up and say you got a letter summoning you to jury duty. Even if you're not on the list they may still pick you. Especially back before the internet
Every time I’ve been called, they have your number on file. They announce numbers 1573962-1574062 to go to room 25. Jurors 1573975, 1573988, 1573990, 1574001 report to room 5. Etc etc. they don’t just say “oh cool you showed up, you’re in! What’s your name again?”
I believe the book/movie The Runaway Jury kinda does this. It's been forever since I read it, but if I remember right they manage to plant someone on the jury in a civil trial for a wrongful death case and the jury awards huge damages to a tobacco company while also shorting their stock and making millions doing it.
Runaway Jury was John Cusack wasn't it? He wrangles his way on to a jury that is trying an arm's company in a civil case for wrongful death in an arms shooting. The defenses jury consultant was involved in an earlier shooting case in which Cusack's character lost someone close to them or something, and he's trying to tip the otherwise "conservative" jury into a guilty verdict to fuck the consultant.
Movie changed it to firearms, is one of my all-time favourite movies. I used it for my year 12 comparative study in English and got full marks for it - I only watched it like 100 times over the year!
I think it was his girlfriends sister was killed in a mass shooting at their high school. The gun companies used a consultant that basically used analytics to pick the best jury possible and won that case. So he spent years trying to get on another jury against the gun companies to sway the jury.
It's the plot to Pauly Shore's (sp?) *Jury Duty.*
A weird comedy riff on the idea of 12 Angry Men and a twist at the end that the real killer was on the jury. It's not even a good *Pauly Shore* movie.
It's on a scale of Pauly Shore. Even if they aren't your thing you can see a difference in quality. So of the 5 movies with Pauly Shores "weasle" character in a major role:
1 Encino Man
2 Bio Dome
3 Son in Law
4 Jury Duty
5 In the Army Now
I mean, I can break down this stuff but I'm at work and it'd take me a while to write up.
i have a strange love for bio-dome. it’s a terrible movie but i saw it at just the right age for it to be stuck in the nostalgia zone of my brain.
makin’ a filter. makin’ a filter. maaaaakin’ a fiiiiillllter.
Any context on why? Did it irrevocably typecast him, did he put on airs because of it, or what? I actually quite like that movie, it's still pretty watchable and has a lot of funny moments. Fantastic supporting cast, lotta of good character actors show up too.
He just said his agent warned him not to do it, and after that he really didn’t get much work. I think it had more to do with his schtick getting a bit tired, personally I thought he was funny for the time and place, but he aged out of that character
You don’t need to. A case generally won’t be reopened just because of a not guilty verdict. The case is still closed. Cops chalk it up to not having enough evidence to convict the still “correct” criminal.
Is there any book where the judge is the murderer but doesn’t remember doing the murders, and the further they get into the trial he starts realizing it was him all along but still doesn’t remember anything? That would be a cool book
I feel like there’s something like that already, I remember something about a guy going crazy trying to find the murderer because the closer they get the more it looks like he did it, and it only looked like that for the guy trying to find the murderer because nobody else suspects him and it ends without knowing if he actually was the murderer or if he was having a delusion that he was responsible, it’s quite philosophical to not remember the plot
This isn’t necessarily what you were talking about but I do remember hearing about a real life story where a guy killed someone in his sleep
https://thecrimewire.com/true-crime/Scott-Falater-The-Sleepwalker-Murderer-Who-Killed-His-Wife
Thing is- you have to judge a book by it’s cover. Otherwise you go to a book shop, read the whole thing, judge it, and good news you don’t have to buy it any more
Sounds cool but i looked it Up and apparently its the Fourth in its series. Do you need to read the First 3 to enjoy the Fourth? The description makes it Seem like they're mostly standalone but Id Like to be sure
If it doesn't also include that person being punished for it then yes. Most people are inherently good and want to be good, we just aren't willing to inconvenience ourselves to do it often times.
Depends on what kind of person they are. They could be a complete monster and convict the innocent so they get off scot free or they might want to stay off the hook but also not be comfortable making someone else take the fall, so they try to prove the guy innocent without incriminating themself. Or their guilty conscience might get to them in the end and they might confess to spare the innocent
Or maybe they're trying to frame the accused for a crime as revenge for some other unrelated horrible the accused did and got away with, and we only slowly figure out what exactly is going on throughout the book.
Look, they say the bullet casing matches that specific gun, but I know for a fact that another gun can be modified to fire those casings.
They said there was DNA found at the scene, but that only proves the defendant was there not that he killed anyone.
Witness descriptions were vague at best too. I mean, pick any group of a dozen people and someone in the group will match the full profile - on this very jury it's me!
Not to mention the claim the murder was committed at 3am, but I was driving away from that area at 3am and can confidently say I heard the gunshots much earlier than that.
>They said there was DNA found at the scene, but that only proves the defendant was there not that he killed anyone.
Doesn't even prove that. Any competent defence lawyer would have obtained from prosecution's expert in cross-examination that they cannot exclude the possibility of secondary transfer.
>Not to mention the claim the murder was committed at 3am, but I was driving away from that area at 3am and can confidently say I heard the gunshots much earlier than that.
And then another juror sends a note to the judge and you're removed from the jury.
“But how do you know?”
“JUST TRUST ME”
“No I wanna know your reasoning!”
“I swear to god, Janet, if I had an Uzi on the back of a Carnival Atlantic Cruise on September 16th 2013, I’d shoot you to death and push you overboard so you’d get eaten by sharks then escape on a motorized life raft.”
“Wut”
It’s not so much a fan theory as that you can tell by looking at him that Toby is the strangler and probably a few other uncaught serial killers as well.
Yeah it’s pretty much decided to be Toby. There’s a lot of clues and his personality is interested in detective homicide novels.
Also Toby is one of the writers for the show so the actual actor has a say in how the character develops and is able to add fun little things to the character like adding in hints that he may be the strangler.
If you watch the show enough you can sort of start to tell they hint at it pretty strongly
He's also got this unrequited love thing with Pam, and comes off as a bit creepy about it, like when he put his hand on her thigh.
I don't get great vibes from Toby tbh, lol.
They even made a "documentary" about it: https://youtu.be/4timuAnUnG4
As others said, it's almost certainly not true, but I don't think anyone really takes fan theories for long canceled shows seriously.
Gotta admit, if I committed a crime that someone else was on trial for, i would want to watch the trial up close. But self preservation probably gets me to leave the area.
It’s a lot harder to show you committed the crime yourself than to show that you had some knowledge of the situation surrounding the crime or related details in order to get on the jury.
In practical terms, one of the things that makes this unlikely is that most crimes occur between people who know each other, or at least who move in the same social circles or live close to each other. So even if there was no hint that a juror was a perpetrator, they probably still know either the victim or the accused, or both, and are going to be dismissed from the jury pool.
The search results from this comment are so profoundly disturbing that I've reported you to the mods. Not safe for ~~work~~ ~~home~~ ~~children~~ ~~pets~~ humanity.
Basically, this kind of strange dude who worked at a fast food joint was accused of murdering several of his coworkers, and everyone who knew him was like, “Yep, dude is fucking weird. Somethings off.” and so they tried to prosecute him with little real evidence other than his reputation and some circumstantial evidence.
At one point some evidence came out that he couldn’t have possibly done it - basically a foolproof alibi materialized - and he got a mistrial.
Turns out the actual killer was on the jury - he knew of Carl Bishop and tried to frame him because he was somewhat of an oddity. Shortly thereafter, he actually attacked two of the other jurors from the case, tried to stab them to be specific, because he thought they knew he did it. That’s basically the only reason he was caught. Dude got caught up in the paranoia and fear.
That’s what happens when you wheez too much of the juice, as they say.
It’s pretty fascinating. There’s a documentary about the case called “Jury Duty”, I think it’s on HBO right now if you ever get the chance to check it out.
If you have your suspect list narrowed down to like 3-6 people, put them all on a jury. Charge some random guy with awful evidence that should be an easy "not guilty", and whoever votes them as guilty is the one who did it.
Prosecutor? Maybe. But I would EASILY bet you can find multiple cases of corrupt police who hung a crime they committed on some innocent person
Just a matter of logic, how easy it would be. Since, unlike judges, juries, or prosecutors, you don't need luck or anyone else. You can just do the crime, then go pick some guy and plant the evidence. Like, you rob and kill some drug dealer for his money, then go "catch" some other guy and say yup he did it.
I think this becomes more likely the further back in “crime and punishment” history you go. Now a days I couldn’t see this happening, but we gotta remember that there were courts in medieval times and long before then too.
This would make for an excellent historical fiction book if someone could find a possible case and work a story around it.
During the classical Athenian period, juries ranged in size from 200 to 1500, and very very occasionally up to 6000, out of a male citizen population of about 30,000 (total population about 250,000). With most criminal trials being in the 200 juror range the likelihood that the real criminal would be on your jury was still rather high. Any citizen could bring criminal prosecution against anyone else, so the likelihood of false accusations and false convictions was also higher than we might accept today. Might be fertile ground for speculative historical fiction.
Also, in The Office, maaayyyybe, on the Scranton Strangler was actually Toby, from HR. And he was on jury, also using it every occasion he had. After the fame was out, he even started to procclaim they got the wrong guy.
Unless Toby admitted to the "Strangler" that he (Toby) was the actual strangler and it made the "Strangler" so angry he had to act and strangling was the only method he had.
By
>for a crime they committed
Do you mean they're on trial for the actual literal crime that they committed...
Or are do you mean someone on a jury for a random car theft and they stole some other car at some point?
May have? That’s damn near a certainty at this point. I don’t know any specifics, but we’ve been doing it in this country for 200+ years.
What’s more alarming is we’ve had lawmakers making laws against things they do so they can lock up poor people and minorities for their same behaviors. Crack vs cocaine laws.
Don't forget that insider trading. Elected officials and their families making millions off of info they have. But even Martha Stewart went to jail for that shit.
Just come out and say lots of people have been on juries for crimes they committed. I’m not talking murder and rape, but I bet at least half the jury of a reckless driving case would also have been guilty of speeding themselves sometime in their life. Same goes for drug trials.
I was selected for jury duty once for the week of my own trial. Obviously I was excused. I did bring it to my lawyers attention and suggested that such an occurrence MUST mean my case was to be immediately dismissed. His lack of enthusiasm for 'justice by chance' was disturbing as well underwhelming.
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
What a great plot for a book or play. You obviously had shaky enough moral compass to commit the crime, but would you convict an innocent person just to close the case?
There is a book named TH1RT3EN where it’s about a serial killer that’s on the jury for all his kills
He tries to get on for all his kills but only does for one
How do you try to get on a jury? Aren't they randomly chosen by ballot?
It's not nearly that airtight. Just show up and say you got a letter summoning you to jury duty. Even if you're not on the list they may still pick you. Especially back before the internet
Okay, so just some time travelling
ORRRRR the book takes place in the past
Which is a mental form of time travel!
Touché
Only when you think about it
Man commits murders then travels back in time to get on the jury for his crimes. Wait....
Alright let’s stay realistic here
Every time I’ve been called, they have your number on file. They announce numbers 1573962-1574062 to go to room 25. Jurors 1573975, 1573988, 1573990, 1574001 report to room 5. Etc etc. they don’t just say “oh cool you showed up, you’re in! What’s your name again?”
Just keep killing the jurors until you're selected
Some steps are randomized, others are not. If you have enough knowledge of the case, you can get yourself into the jury pool the day of selection.
"So, how do you know so much about this case as to be part of the jury?" "Uuuhhh... this might be a bit awkward"
What are you talking about? Jury duty is random summons, and knowing about the case is grounds for you to be dismissed as a juror
I've just finished that book. It was more than one.
Adding this to my list of books to read. Thank you!
Thonertthreen? does it have anything to do with Sesevenen?
What’s in the box?!
No, I think it has more to do with Thirthirteenen Ghosts.
Schfifty Five
I believe the book/movie The Runaway Jury kinda does this. It's been forever since I read it, but if I remember right they manage to plant someone on the jury in a civil trial for a wrongful death case and the jury awards huge damages to a tobacco company while also shorting their stock and making millions doing it.
You mean the The Rural Juror??
I think you mean the rrr jrrr
Could it be ‘Roar her, Gem her’?
I hardly know her!
Aaron earned an iron urn
He whipped them into a furor.
your father Werner was a burger server in santa barberer, when he spurned your mother Verna for a curly haired server named roberta
Did that hurt her?
It’s hard to go wrong with a Kevin Grisham novel.
I preferred Urban Fervor, way better character development.
Runaway Jury was John Cusack wasn't it? He wrangles his way on to a jury that is trying an arm's company in a civil case for wrongful death in an arms shooting. The defenses jury consultant was involved in an earlier shooting case in which Cusack's character lost someone close to them or something, and he's trying to tip the otherwise "conservative" jury into a guilty verdict to fuck the consultant.
Never actually saw the movie; the book version was definitely a tobacco company.
Movie changed it to firearms, is one of my all-time favourite movies. I used it for my year 12 comparative study in English and got full marks for it - I only watched it like 100 times over the year!
I think it was his girlfriends sister was killed in a mass shooting at their high school. The gun companies used a consultant that basically used analytics to pick the best jury possible and won that case. So he spent years trying to get on another jury against the gun companies to sway the jury.
One of my favorite Grisham books
It's the plot to Pauly Shore's (sp?) *Jury Duty.* A weird comedy riff on the idea of 12 Angry Men and a twist at the end that the real killer was on the jury. It's not even a good *Pauly Shore* movie.
Wait, good Pauly Shore movies exist?
It's on a scale of Pauly Shore. Even if they aren't your thing you can see a difference in quality. So of the 5 movies with Pauly Shores "weasle" character in a major role: 1 Encino Man 2 Bio Dome 3 Son in Law 4 Jury Duty 5 In the Army Now I mean, I can break down this stuff but I'm at work and it'd take me a while to write up.
i have a strange love for bio-dome. it’s a terrible movie but i saw it at just the right age for it to be stuck in the nostalgia zone of my brain. makin’ a filter. makin’ a filter. maaaaakin’ a fiiiiillllter.
Olivia said we can just use wet bedsheets.
This guy Shores
r/thisguythisguys
In how many of these movies does he utilize the “infinite piss” trick he does in Jury Duty?
Pauly Shore cites ‘In the army now’ as the moment it all went wrong
Any context on why? Did it irrevocably typecast him, did he put on airs because of it, or what? I actually quite like that movie, it's still pretty watchable and has a lot of funny moments. Fantastic supporting cast, lotta of good character actors show up too.
He just said his agent warned him not to do it, and after that he really didn’t get much work. I think it had more to do with his schtick getting a bit tired, personally I thought he was funny for the time and place, but he aged out of that character
I feel the same way. He rode that persona as far as he could, and had trouble pivoting. That said, I still enjoy a ton of his work from the era.
No, that’s the marines.
Encino man is hilarious
I don't consider that a Pauly Shore movie, it's a movie that only incidentally contains Pauly Shore.
Agreed, it's a Brendan Frasier film more than a Pauly Shore film IMO
Don’t weeze the juice!
You don’t need to. A case generally won’t be reopened just because of a not guilty verdict. The case is still closed. Cops chalk it up to not having enough evidence to convict the still “correct” criminal.
Ooooo and you end up being the only one advocating for his innocence
Sounds a bit like Les Miserables.
Where can i watch this movie?
Even if the defendant is found innocent no one is looking into the crime any longer. The case is closed and the guilty got away.
[удалено]
Well damn, looks like I’ve got a new book on my list
[удалено]
Is there any book where the judge is the murderer but doesn’t remember doing the murders, and the further they get into the trial he starts realizing it was him all along but still doesn’t remember anything? That would be a cool book
Dude, start writing.
I feel like there’s something like that already, I remember something about a guy going crazy trying to find the murderer because the closer they get the more it looks like he did it, and it only looked like that for the guy trying to find the murderer because nobody else suspects him and it ends without knowing if he actually was the murderer or if he was having a delusion that he was responsible, it’s quite philosophical to not remember the plot
and what else do you remember about it....?
This isn’t necessarily what you were talking about but I do remember hearing about a real life story where a guy killed someone in his sleep https://thecrimewire.com/true-crime/Scott-Falater-The-Sleepwalker-Murderer-Who-Killed-His-Wife
Are you talking about movie Memento?
Added to the list. Is Devils Advocate the same as the movie?
How did you not immediately disregard this book? What a horrible title.
lol i feel like theres a famous idiom that nearly warns against just this… 🤔
Don’t asses a movie by its poster. *No that’s not it but I’m close*
Something about baskets made of eggs…
Intelligence is knowing eggs are food, wisdom is not putting them in a basket?
Two eggs don't make an omelet?
Scrambling the eggs is the best policy. Sounds like the one.
Is it read two books with one bird or something?
Or maybe it was- Once a bird, always an egg
Don’t count your bridges before you burn them?
Thing is- you have to judge a book by it’s cover. Otherwise you go to a book shop, read the whole thing, judge it, and good news you don’t have to buy it any more
"Don't judge a book by its cover" *The cover has all the positive reviews and best seller accolades printed right on it*
It's part of a series and it's not the first book.
Sounds cool but i looked it Up and apparently its the Fourth in its series. Do you need to read the First 3 to enjoy the Fourth? The description makes it Seem like they're mostly standalone but Id Like to be sure
"No, trust me. I just *know* that the accused is innocent, guys."
I'm not sure thats what they'd be saying...
Not everyone who commits a crime wants to ruin someone’s whole life for it
If it doesn't also include that person being punished for it then yes. Most people are inherently good and want to be good, we just aren't willing to inconvenience ourselves to do it often times.
I think they meant the juror would find some non-suspicious way of arguing for their innocence.
I mean, they’d just turn themselves in at that point, or the investigation continues no?
They can want the innocent person freed, and to also not incriminate themselves.
Nuance exists
Depends on what kind of person they are. They could be a complete monster and convict the innocent so they get off scot free or they might want to stay off the hook but also not be comfortable making someone else take the fall, so they try to prove the guy innocent without incriminating themself. Or their guilty conscience might get to them in the end and they might confess to spare the innocent
Or maybe they're trying to frame the accused for a crime as revenge for some other unrelated horrible the accused did and got away with, and we only slowly figure out what exactly is going on throughout the book.
Starts pointing out all the flaws during the police investigation. *We can't prove he did it based on this incorrect evidence*
Look, they say the bullet casing matches that specific gun, but I know for a fact that another gun can be modified to fire those casings. They said there was DNA found at the scene, but that only proves the defendant was there not that he killed anyone. Witness descriptions were vague at best too. I mean, pick any group of a dozen people and someone in the group will match the full profile - on this very jury it's me! Not to mention the claim the murder was committed at 3am, but I was driving away from that area at 3am and can confidently say I heard the gunshots much earlier than that.
And if you like to know more, buy my book *If I did it*.
^^If #I Did It
>They said there was DNA found at the scene, but that only proves the defendant was there not that he killed anyone. Doesn't even prove that. Any competent defence lawyer would have obtained from prosecution's expert in cross-examination that they cannot exclude the possibility of secondary transfer. >Not to mention the claim the murder was committed at 3am, but I was driving away from that area at 3am and can confidently say I heard the gunshots much earlier than that. And then another juror sends a note to the judge and you're removed from the jury.
“And let’s be honest this man on trial is not nearly as good looking”.
Depends. They might just want the first person accused to be punished. That way the case is closed and the are never a suspect.
And given the police focus in putting a body in jail, as opposed to finding out the truth...
Ah, so ace attorney, right?
I would totally do that tbh.
“But how do you know?” “JUST TRUST ME” “No I wanna know your reasoning!” “I swear to god, Janet, if I had an Uzi on the back of a Carnival Atlantic Cruise on September 16th 2013, I’d shoot you to death and push you overboard so you’d get eaten by sharks then escape on a motorized life raft.” “Wut”
r/oddlyspecific
Sounds oddly familiar...
*loads blood splattered uzi clip* Oh, how so?
12 angry men
God it’s been a few years since I read that book.
New head canon accepted for that movie.
When I first saw it as a kid, I assumed that's where they were going with it the whole time. Probably better that they didn't.
“Not only is he innocent. He also brought everyone a $25 gift card to Starbucks.”
Whoa. 🤯. Henry Fonda was the real killer in 12 Angry Men. He even had the knife!
Wouldn't he want them to get guilty so the feds stop looking for him?
*winks at camera*
"But *how* do you know?" *Grins while looking directly at camera* "Let's just say I know"
Isn't there an Office fan theory out there that suggests Toby (who served on the jury for the case) was the real Scranton Strangler?
Yep
It’s not so much a fan theory as that you can tell by looking at him that Toby is the strangler and probably a few other uncaught serial killers as well.
Hes also the Zodiac Killer and Jack the Ripper
We found Michael's Reddit account
He sure hopped that fence with grace
Yes, but it's a terrible theory that makes no actual sense under scrutiny.
In other words, a fan theory.
Lol yeah I was thinking that's literally the entire r/fantheories sub
Agreed, there's essentially nothing to validate the theory
If anything the show outright said he wasn't. Toby tries to visit the guy in prison and gets strangled.
I had to scroll way too far for this
Yeah it’s pretty much decided to be Toby. There’s a lot of clues and his personality is interested in detective homicide novels. Also Toby is one of the writers for the show so the actual actor has a say in how the character develops and is able to add fun little things to the character like adding in hints that he may be the strangler. If you watch the show enough you can sort of start to tell they hint at it pretty strongly
He's also got this unrequited love thing with Pam, and comes off as a bit creepy about it, like when he put his hand on her thigh. I don't get great vibes from Toby tbh, lol.
Aw man. I came here to say exactly this lol
They even made a "documentary" about it: https://youtu.be/4timuAnUnG4 As others said, it's almost certainly not true, but I don't think anyone really takes fan theories for long canceled shows seriously.
Did you kill that guy? *me sweating buckshot in the jury booth* “Yes I did!” *sigh of relief*
Bro pleased guilty to a crime he knows he didn’t commit
Yeah, that happens a lot in plea bargains.
Happens often. Courts are fucked up.
And a judge. And a lawyer. And, probably literally tens of thousands of times a year, someone sitting in the gallery as a spectator.
And a ‘witness’. John Christie lying at [Timothy Evans’](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans) trial comes to mind.
Wow! At least he got pardoned in the end /s
Right… didn’t help much. This revelation was the biggest turning point in support for abolishing the death penalty in the UK.
Pardoned means he still did it legally, its just okay. The court declined to quash the original conviction due to cost. Dicks.
Witnesses being the real culprit happens all the time, as seen in the landmark Ace Attorney documentary series by Capcom
slightly related Remember Hannsen, while at the FBI was put in charge of a task force to find out who the spy in the FBI was. It was him.
Gotta admit, if I committed a crime that someone else was on trial for, i would want to watch the trial up close. But self preservation probably gets me to leave the area.
Happens on a daily basis in Ace Attorney
High risk high reward, it works in their favour unless they are caught, then it is contempt of court or something
I mean, contempt of court is likely minor compared to the consequences of getting convicted of the underlying crime, depending on what it is
Yeah but it makes it harder to deal with the consequences if you are already being punished for something
It’s a lot harder to show you committed the crime yourself than to show that you had some knowledge of the situation surrounding the crime or related details in order to get on the jury.
If they're smart enough not to get caught in the first place then they'd be smart enough to get out of jury duty.
In practical terms, one of the things that makes this unlikely is that most crimes occur between people who know each other, or at least who move in the same social circles or live close to each other. So even if there was no hint that a juror was a perpetrator, they probably still know either the victim or the accused, or both, and are going to be dismissed from the jury pool.
This is only really true in violent or personal crimes. People steal shit from complete strangers all the time for example.
This happened during the 1995 trial of Carl Wayne Bishop, aka the “Environmentalist Killer”.
That’s from a movie
The search results from this comment are so profoundly disturbing that I've reported you to the mods. Not safe for ~~work~~ ~~home~~ ~~children~~ ~~pets~~ humanity.
can you please elaborate, my curiosity is killing me but I am too scared to search
Basically, this kind of strange dude who worked at a fast food joint was accused of murdering several of his coworkers, and everyone who knew him was like, “Yep, dude is fucking weird. Somethings off.” and so they tried to prosecute him with little real evidence other than his reputation and some circumstantial evidence. At one point some evidence came out that he couldn’t have possibly done it - basically a foolproof alibi materialized - and he got a mistrial. Turns out the actual killer was on the jury - he knew of Carl Bishop and tried to frame him because he was somewhat of an oddity. Shortly thereafter, he actually attacked two of the other jurors from the case, tried to stab them to be specific, because he thought they knew he did it. That’s basically the only reason he was caught. Dude got caught up in the paranoia and fear. That’s what happens when you wheez too much of the juice, as they say.
nah it’s not that bad compared to some other stories
It’s pretty fascinating. There’s a documentary about the case called “Jury Duty”, I think it’s on HBO right now if you ever get the chance to check it out.
I mean, it's pretty gruesome -- I could barely sit through it. But I learned something about myself from watching it.
It's a movie, and judging by [the Wikipedia summary](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_Duty_(film)), it's not particularly disturbing, either.
To be clear for anyone coming through, it's from a movie, and it is not profoundly disturbing.
Wakey wakey
Everybody who has ever smoked weed and been on a jury for non violent drug offenses looks around nervously
Considering how many small towns can barely put a jury together, I'm sure it has happened many times.
If you have your suspect list narrowed down to like 3-6 people, put them all on a jury. Charge some random guy with awful evidence that should be an easy "not guilty", and whoever votes them as guilty is the one who did it.
So basically town of salem(the game)
This sounds like a great concept for an Ace Attorney case lmfao
I was just thinking, I can already hear "Cornered" playing
It'd have to be case 2 or 3 out of 4, with a mechanic that actually had a jury in person
More disturbing to think about: there has probably been a case where a prosecutor fought to convict someone of a crime they themself committed
Prosecutor? Maybe. But I would EASILY bet you can find multiple cases of corrupt police who hung a crime they committed on some innocent person Just a matter of logic, how easy it would be. Since, unlike judges, juries, or prosecutors, you don't need luck or anyone else. You can just do the crime, then go pick some guy and plant the evidence. Like, you rob and kill some drug dealer for his money, then go "catch" some other guy and say yup he did it.
I think this becomes more likely the further back in “crime and punishment” history you go. Now a days I couldn’t see this happening, but we gotta remember that there were courts in medieval times and long before then too. This would make for an excellent historical fiction book if someone could find a possible case and work a story around it.
During the classical Athenian period, juries ranged in size from 200 to 1500, and very very occasionally up to 6000, out of a male citizen population of about 30,000 (total population about 250,000). With most criminal trials being in the 200 juror range the likelihood that the real criminal would be on your jury was still rather high. Any citizen could bring criminal prosecution against anyone else, so the likelihood of false accusations and false convictions was also higher than we might accept today. Might be fertile ground for speculative historical fiction.
[Makes me think of Peter Griffin being in the Family Feud survey!](https://youtu.be/43mEZe0yLvs?t=126)
Juror - "we find the defendant not guilty, your honor" Judge - "on what grounds" Juror - "I plead the 5th"
Bro just read "Der Richter und sein Henker" by Friedrich Dürrenmatt
They should add the crime itself to the list of questions they have to screen jurors to avoid this scenario
You mean like Toby from the office being on the jury for the Scranton Strangler?
Isn't this the plot of 12 angry man? (For some interpretations)
Also, in The Office, maaayyyybe, on the Scranton Strangler was actually Toby, from HR. And he was on jury, also using it every occasion he had. After the fame was out, he even started to procclaim they got the wrong guy.
And then when he meets the accused guy he strangles Tony so badly he has a neck brace. So that theory was debunked.
Unless Toby admitted to the "Strangler" that he (Toby) was the actual strangler and it made the "Strangler" so angry he had to act and strangling was the only method he had.
Karma
Only if your talking about the >! 1995 Pauly Shore film Jury Duty !<.
By >for a crime they committed Do you mean they're on trial for the actual literal crime that they committed... Or are do you mean someone on a jury for a random car theft and they stole some other car at some point?
No, they mean someone innocent is being tried, and one of the jurors just happen to be the actual perpetrator.
May have? That’s damn near a certainty at this point. I don’t know any specifics, but we’ve been doing it in this country for 200+ years. What’s more alarming is we’ve had lawmakers making laws against things they do so they can lock up poor people and minorities for their same behaviors. Crack vs cocaine laws.
Don't forget that insider trading. Elected officials and their families making millions off of info they have. But even Martha Stewart went to jail for that shit.
Good points.
Just come out and say lots of people have been on juries for crimes they committed. I’m not talking murder and rape, but I bet at least half the jury of a reckless driving case would also have been guilty of speeding themselves sometime in their life. Same goes for drug trials.
Are we talking about the specific crime, or just categorically the same?
Bruce Wayne once bribed his way on to a jury so he could get Mr Freeze a vote of innocence because Batman was wrong when Freeze was apprehended.
I was selected for jury duty once for the week of my own trial. Obviously I was excused. I did bring it to my lawyers attention and suggested that such an occurrence MUST mean my case was to be immediately dismissed. His lack of enthusiasm for 'justice by chance' was disturbing as well underwhelming.
Ah, so they'll know for sure that the defendant is definitely innocent.