Jury Quotations | Page 5

It's a victory for the system that the jury is carefully studying the evidence and weighing the decision -- the important decision they have to make.

It's a difficult task, but I'm confident that the jury can pick a memorial that both reflects back and appreciates the sense of loss we all feel and will feel for our entire lives, and yet at the same time shows the confidence and the belief in the future that came from the courage and sacrifice of September 11,

It's a fair outcome to a very difficult trial. The jury was attentive and took their duties very seriously. This is a tragedy for both families.

I told the jury if they couldn't show mercy for John Moxley, then they could show mercy for themselves, that it would make them better people. By showing mercy, they had a quality John Moxley didn't.

It's merely a step in an investigation, not an indication an indictment would ever be approved by a grand jury or even presented to the grand jury.

It's very comforting to a jury that there's a corroborative document that was created at the time the crime was committed that fits the testimony. It makes the defense case more difficult.

For a jury to award half a million dollars for emotional distress means they evaluated the evidence as reflecting severe and serious harassment and discrimination.

for a new grand jury to indict DeLay on a day's notice suggests the evidence of his participation is convincing.

It's one thing to know Michael and Sammy were hotheaded, and it's another thing to know the things that Sammy did, ... I think this evidence was so important because a jury has to evaluate how Sammy said the fight unfolded -- and what he said doesn't make sense.

It's only about 500 yards from the federal courthouse down there, which makes it very close if he wishes to use the grand jury or should an indictment be returned in Alexandria.

It's the only Wisconsin feature film selected by the Wisconsin's Own jury this year. We're expecting a huge turnout for it, because we expect everyone from Stevens Point to come down. And the weekend after the festival is this year's trivia contest, so the timing worked out well.

It's like a preliminary hearing. All the grand jury hears is one side. There's no cross-examination and the prosecution brings out what they want to bring out, so it's very one-sided.

It's more likely that you can lose a case in jury selection than win the case.

It is very unusual for a jury to be out nine days without it being a mistrial. You reach a stage in really long deliberations where it becomes coercive for the minority.

It is very unclear to me what his intentions are other than he intends to charge someone. Based on his public comments I am assuming that he is submitting this case to the grand jury as quickly as he can and seeking one or more indictments when he does.

It's hard to say what the jury is thinking, but I have liked both Clooney and Ang Lee, different films but both incredibly striking. Though sometimes they say there is no point in giving the prize to a U.S. film and in that case it might be 'Sympathy'.

It's hard to understand, but I can only speculate that the jury compromised. Still, how can you find someone guilty of possessing something and not storing it?

It's been a very successful Act I. This trial is being run by a skilled and experienced judge. Given what can go wrong in a trial, nothing has gone wrong. The trains are running on time. From a prosecution standpoint, you need the trains to run on time. The moment a jury begins to not understand things, they become suspicious and resentful.

Describe for the jury what steps you took to find the killer of your wife,

The next jury will hear the entire story, which will include our evidence. We're confident that these young men will be found innocent.

Even with a lot of the accounting stuff out, they've still got to make the jury understand the underlying fraud, and that's where I think Sean will shine.

That's pretty unusual. They'd have to litigate the substance of the shelter before a jury in a criminal trial. It's hard to imagine that the government could pull that off. It's too complicated.

That is a great victory for us. Because it was clear that the government and they showed in their closing argument they really wanted to equate us with violent change. And it is clear that the jury understood our message of non-violence.

It's not a good sign when what a prosecutor does, in the three days before his grand jury expires, is to create a Web site and announces the vehicle to announce something. I think people better be ready for charges, ... FOX News Sunday.

The biggest thing is a lot of it was dealt with in the grand jury testimony. ... So I don't know how much you can talk about from there anyway. I guess I have to sit back, wait and see, but like I said, I'm not really worried about it.

The basis is that he's been tried once already, and it's unlikely any jury will convict him.

The better course of action, given the media attention and his former status, there is a cause to select a jury from another county.

It's clear that this jury is sending a message to the business insurance industry that the American public, including the business community, is sick and tired of insurance companies deceptively handling and denying legitimate claims.

It's clear that the jury saw through Peter Daniel. He lied 12, 15, 20 times on the stand.

It's disappointing when a jury comes back 11-1 to acquit and then a different jury hears the same evidence and comes back unanimously guilty,

I've heard through the grapevine that it is going to be difficult to put a jury pool together, and I don't know if they're going to be able to get one.

No jury can undo the outcome of Texas's 2002 elections, ... But the justice system must punish those who criminally conspire to undermine democracy - no matter how powerful they may be. If we are to be a 'democracy,' then powerful politicians cannot flout such laws with impunity.

No jury can undo the outcome of Texas' 2002 elections, but the justice system must punish those who criminally conspire to undermine democracy,

No jury can undo the outcome of Texas' 2002 elections, ... but the justice system must punish those who criminally conspire to undermine democracy, no matter how powerful they may be.

It's what we've been waiting for. And if this jury comes back with a guilty verdict, what are we going to do? We continue to fight.

It's virtually impossible for us to predict what a jury would have done with this case had it gone to trial.

It's tough for the jury to come to a conclusion. I think they will come to one, but it's going to take awhile.

I still believe she was raped, ... But the jury obviously didn't agree with us.

Is the retail investor better off in a money market or an insured account? The jury is still out.

I try to block it out of my mind. I have not been thinking about it, just, you know, sitting up there on the jury stand.

It upsets me a lot that the jury doesn't get to hear a lot of things because the judge has to rule on certain things.

It took three years for this to get to trial, the trial took two weeks and the jury turned in the verdict at about 5 p.m. on Tuesday.

It takes time for these types of projects. We couldn't move forward without certain things happening with the government and banks. I appreciate Whitney Bank, the city of Lake Charles, the Police Jury and local officials for being patient with us.

It won't escape the jury that this guy is not all there. I'm not sure that makes a huge difference in the guilt phase except for softening up the jury for the penalty phase.

They convicted an innocent man. The jury made the wrong decision. It's a human system, and the human system has let us down.

The verdict reflects the context in which these events took place. The jury recognized confusion about the rules that govern interrogation.

They wouldn't go in front of the grand jury unless they had something to go after.

They hear one side of the story and they almost always indict. The next jury will hear the entire story ... We're surprised that anybody got indicted, quite frankly.

They heard one side of the story. The next jury will hear the entire story.

It was just a matter to get the jury to see all the facts.

They've got to make this case clear-cut for the jury and keep them awake and involved. Otherwise, they play right into the defense's hands.

These twelve people who decide guilt or innocence are not legal scholars. The only law they take into the jury room is the law Judge Lake gives them.

Once again we see that once you cut through the nonsense, the jury got it right.

Nothing presented to the grand jury established that Mr. Jackson had the intent to commit the elements of the alleged conspiracy's three target crimes of false imprisonment, child abduction and extortion.

The New Jersey procedure challenged in this case is an unacceptable departure from the jury tradition that is an indispensable part of our criminal justice system.

The need to get to the bottom of what happened -- and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness -- is extremely important, ... Anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

The nature of the allegations could contaminate any jury pool in this somewhat limited community.

It's rather unlikely that potential jurors either didn't have family members or didn't know people that were directly affected by Enron. My greatest concern isn't the jurors who are speaking to the court honestly but those that want to get on the jury either to make a point to right the wrong of Enron...or to make sure that they can make the round of talk shows.

She'll be served. She hasn't been because there is no grand jury yet hearing the case.

At this stage in this particular investigation it would be highly unlikely for a new grand jury to receive any new information that had not already been considered at length by Starr, the United States Congress and the prior grand jury.

That's astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list.

Arlen went on to be a really wonderful trial lawyer, yet I never tried a case in front of a jury again. ... He was a wonderful guy then, we hit it off, and we were quite proud of each other.

The judge, her honor, up until now, has done her job. She has done it well. I just hope that the jury will decide and act in accordance with their conscience.

The issue in this case is her criminal responsibility. We feel she is criminally responsible. That's what all the evidence shows us, and that's what the first jury believed.

The issuance of a subpoena is obviously a cover for collusion, and the leaking of the subpoena makes a mockery of grand jury secrecy.

The FCC has now appointed itself as judge and jury as to who will be able to offer next generation services. In an industry as wildly competitive as wireless, this is unnecessary regulatory micro-management.

I'm not going to speculate about the sentence here at all. We gotta go to trial, and we're going to let a jury decide what the truth in this case is.

I hope the jury has been educated enough through the trial to realize just because there's no paperwork doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing.

I never believed this was a federal offense. Whatever he did, and let's assume he did what the jury said he did, this was not a federal crime.

In Baltimore, I was walking with a friend who was playing at a pub he kept referring to as the Horse. But when I saw the sign 'The Horse You Came In On' - I thought, 'My God.' I had no intention of ever setting a Jury novel in the U.S., but when I saw that, I thought, 'That's it.' The names are very important.

In my experience I have never seen the type of vituperative responses and opinions expressed by 80 percent of the large jury panel as are present in this case.

I have never seen a jury panel like this. Eighty percent gave negative answers, heated or emotional to their perception on Enron. We have to fight not only the indictment on the case but the perception.

I'm very shook up, and surprised, and disappointed that the jury didn't see what we saw,

I'm telling you now, if the facts don't change, it is the most overwhelming case for grand jury perjury I have ever seen in my life. And what am I going to do?

If there's a perception from the jury that they were going to present evidence, then they might think that they caved.

If we went to trial and the jury believed the plaintiff, I am sure the award would be in seven figures. I don't think the jury would believe that, but you never know what a jury is going to do.

I fully expect that I will be indicted by a grand jury who will indict a bottle of beer if the Republican U.S. attorney told them to do it.

In those cases, the victims were shot. They died without being tortured. Terri, she was kidnapped and strangled and beat on the head. She was dragged across the road. While she was unconscious, she was raped and probably beat some more. He then went back and stabbed her four times. It's one of the most brutal crimes, and the jury found she suffered extreme torture.

in the studio that went unnoticed for the full hour... Like Matt Cooper, Russert had testified to the grand jury on the Plame affair, yet at no point during the interview did the salient fact sally forth to the viewer. The pretense was uninvolved journalist interviewing involved participant: the reality was one pea in the pod interviewing a fellow pea.

In the world of insurance, $20 million in punitive damages is considered a very substantial jury award.

In the end, the evidence that was presented really convinced the jury to the standard that we were set to.

In my opinion that is a monstrous thing. Are we living in a free British colony, or under some petty local despot? Will the people of New Zealand allow any man, even though he hold the rank of Native Minister, to ride rough-shod over the Constitution? Will they allow any man, even though he be a Minister of the Crown, to suspend trial by jury if it so pleases him?

In our judgment, had the jury heard the fresh evidence they would have inevitably reached the same conclusion. The conviction is safe and the appeal must be dismissed.

In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts, ... Mr. Libby is entitled to that opportunity.

I looked at it as an opportunity to present the evidence to a jury of twelve people and prove my innocence.

I'll make a plea offer to him. He can take it. If he doesn't, then there might be more grand jury investigation,

I just, legally, from a lawyer's standpoint, do not understand how this jury could have reached this verdict.

I hesitate to call it landmark. Other people have called it landmark ... but it is one of the first times that a jury has found in favor of a morbidly obese person based on disability and awarded significant compensation.

I hope if he does that, the grand jury will carefully evaluate his case and come to the conclusion that he has none.

I obviously have great regrets that the jury found me guilty of anything. ... I know that I'm innocent.

In the public imagery, jury trials are very emblematic to people of what the law is.

In my state, from the time ... the most hardened criminals are convicted of the most heinous crimes ... their case is reviewed by not only a jury of 12 of their peers but up to 23 different judges ... perhaps even more.

It has happened before but it's quite uncommon. It's basically saying that there wasn't enough evidence to go forward in this case and obviously the prosecution was wrong and the jury was wrong. This should not have led to a conviction.

By law, no judge or defense lawyer was allowed to be present in the grand jury room. Furthermore, the defense had no opportunity to call its own witnesses to rebut or criticize this one-sided proceeding.

Clearly, these compelling stories along with the quality of filmmaking have resonated with audiences and jury members alike.

Clearly, there is more to this story than what has been made public; than what defense attorneys or the prosecutor have disclosed. There has to be because what has been talked about publicly is a terribly weak case; one that even an eager grand jury would not have embraced the way this one did.

Clearly the question is how to participate in young people's fascination with video games. But the jury is still out as to whether a company needs to own a video game business.

Clearly the economic news we're getting at the moment is better than expected, part from the States but also from Europe with ZEW survey today. Nine days in a row is a very strong run, but the jury is still out as to whether economic recovery can become established.

His defense was concerned that it could bias the jury when he gives his testimony.

How can we decide on the fairness of the process without determining what is in the interviews, grand jury testimony and boxes of documents that, for totally unexplained reasons, the Independent Counsel withheld?