Before I start let me state that this w/u is Americentric in nature and deals mostly with cases heard in a criminal court. I’m pretty sure that in proceedings before a civil court, there’s a whole ‘nuther set of circumstances to deal with. I’m also sure other noders from other parts of the globe have their own means and methods for dealing with criminal and civil cases that play by an entirely different set of rules.

I’m sure most of us have the seen the movie 12 Angry Men at some point in our lives. If not, most of us are probably familiar with the premise. For those of you who might have been living under a rock or just haven’t been exposed to the storyline, let me give a very brief synopsis.

In short it’s one of those courtroom dramas in which Henry Fonda plays the lone juror who is unwilling to vote to convict a person charged with a crime even though the evidence is seemingly overwhelming. The other jurors have cast their vote and it’s eleven to one against the defendant. Fonda explains to them that another person’s life is on the line and they need more time to re-hash the facts of the case. At first, the other members of the jury pool express their hostility at Fonda for his unwillingness to convict but as the story line progresses, he slowly convinces them that the facts, as stated are wrong, and after each ballot is cast, more and more jurors are seeing things through his eyes. Finally, at the end, he convinces them that there is indeed enough of a “shadow of a doubt” and the defendant's innocence is eventually proclaimed.

Just imagine however if Fonda or one of the eleven other jurors had stuck to their guns and couldn’t be persuaded to change their vote. What if after hours or days or possibly even weeks of deliberation the jury remained deadlocked and wouldn’t budge from their positions?

Most likely, they would inform the bailiff of their plight and he/she would relate that information back to the judge presiding over the case. In most cases, the judge in turn might then further instruct the jury about the rules of evidence and ask that they deliberate further until they reached a conclusion.

If no conclusion is forthcoming, the judge would have no choice but to declare the jury “hung” and order the case a mistrial. Usually, this action is seen as a “verdict” in favor of the defense however the prosecution does have the right to retry the case in front of another jury. This all comes at the expense of the taxpayer and the prosecution will usually think long and hard about going forward with a new trial even though the double jeopardy rule doesn't apply.

Naturally prosecutors and the like aren’t too pleased with the whole “unanimous verdict” scenario and certain changes in the law have taken place over the years that make the likelihood of a hung jury less and less.

For instance, instead of the traditional panel of twelve jurors, many states have gone to smaller ones. After all, it’s easier to convince six people of a certain situation than it is twelve. Some states have even gone to a “majority rules” scenario in order to gain a conviction thereby almost eliminating the possibility of jury being hung.

I’m on the fence as to whether this is good or bad. On one hand, you have the definite possibility of an outcome and on the other, innocent people can be sent to jail. I guess I’m still leaning towards the unanimous side of the coin since I just couldn’t imagine being sent to prison for a crime I didn’t commit.

Last but not least, for what it’s worth – even you haven’t seen 12 Angry Men or even if you have and it’s been a while – make a point to see it again. In my limited opinion, Fonda’s performance ranks right up there with Gregory Peck’s in To Kill a Mockingbird.

I don't remember if I told you (my friends) or not but I am serving as the jury foreman in the Paul Manafort trial. He is being railroaded on charges made up by the Deep State as revenge for alien life form Hillary's failed run for the presidency. It is good that I am placed on this jury as the foreman because I am very good at convincing people to do what I want them to do. I either use torture or sexual pleasuring to convince them to join with my point of view. I was going to play an important role in American history.

There were eleven other men on the jury and no broads which was odd but this was a serious trial and not some housewives shit. This was men's work and if I was going to have to give handjobs to eleven men to get our beloved president cleared of all current and future charges I was going to have to purchase some hand cream. I found a boutique down the street and purchased some mango scented hand cream (a very large bottle) and went back into the courthouse with my plan ready to be hatched.

Being of sound mind and body I was able to work my way through all the questions they asked me prior to allowing me to be on the jury. When I took control of these men, it began when I followed one into the men's room. He went into a stall and sat down, so I kicked open the stall door, knelt down, crawled towards him, and took his very large penis in my hand. It was so large and hardened up so quickly (and nicely).

Once he was recovering from this unscheduled midday climax I went back to the room where we were waiting to be anal probed (which never actually happened). Another man went into the men's room and I followed him. I reached over from the urinal next to his and took hold of his penis while he was still urinating. His piss (or "friendly fire" as they call it on the internet) was going elsewhere but he was hardening up nicely. It didn't take long to get him off.

"Manafort is innocent," I told him with a smile.

"Sure, whatever, that was just such a welcome surprise in the early afternoon."

"You betcha," I told him with a wink much like you might have seen in a 1950s era television commercial.

It wasn't long before another man tapped me on the shoulder. I leaned towards him and he said, "I heard you're giving out handies."

"And then some," I told him with another whimsicle style wink. It was off to the bathroom again.

By the time I was done with juror number three, they were calling us back into court. The judge was muttering some inane crap about not talking to anyone about the case or telling anyone you were on the jury but that was mostly for the novices. This is the fourth jury I have served on. I'm on speed dial for cases involving cops accused of excessive force violations. They call me "the ringer" in certain circles.

As we sat down, a fourth juror, seating to my left, nudged me. "Handy?" he asked. I nodded. "Manafort innocent?" He smiled and nodded.

Each of these jurors had an enormous cock, which was quite something to behold. I was using a lot of hand lotion and my hands were still cramping. I had to get the fourth juror off with my left hand, which I've used infrequently while satisfying myself (due to dates not working out). I needed a little bit of a break.

That all changed when juror number five cornered me in the hallway during lunch. He pushed me into a closet and took down his pants. I reached down for his enormous penis and balls and instead he pushed my head down. He wanted mouth action! It had been so long and I wasn't sure this was right. Yes, men taking care of each other is good for the environment and as long as you don't wear pastel colors or rainbows it isn't gay, so we're okay on that front, but was it not worth this indignity to get our beloved president cleared? How else do you think American justice works? There are many others like me devoted to the righteous cause.

The rest of day one on the jury was pretty much like that the whole way through. Apparently this will be a long affair and the guys are already saying they are looking forward to seeing me tomorrow.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.