Brittany's selective memory, page-190

I doubt anyone would even consider you to be one that would avail themselves to any sort of information in making a decision regarding this .

You have completely written yourself off as being credible to be able sit on a jury . You would have stand in front of the judge and say you cant enter the court as your bias in your opinion on a fair trail .

If you got passed the the first steps you would hold the whole case at random to be thrown out of court and a waste of peoples time .imo

All good you should maybe avail your time sometime to judge as a peer and have an open mind not closed before you see the evidence presented .

Im even of the doubt the fact their are three others will have no bearing on the case as they are trialed as a single crime to you don't get evidence of priors to judge on .

It maybe common knowledge for a kangaroo court system and maybe knowledge to both prosecution judges police you name it but its not finding whether they have committed any other offence your only on trial for the one event !

Myself i have no problem the death penalty and think maybe even have discussed this before on here .

The only problem with the death penalty is the kangaroo court and not being able have your peers with an open mind before the court sits . imo

Of course the other is for those who do choose to serve their peers they just maybe not able to do so .

Careful grasshopper you are making the cases you are accusing others of to be used against you and both of these people while having no evidence than opinion .

Which is fine on a forum .

Held in the strictest of confidence .

Anyway a thought well a cherry pick their is more perhaps if your building your case you have already convicted for . You dont get choose the penalty though just innocent or guilty . You can have your proven on both sides of the equation . Innocent till proven guilty or guilty till proven innocent.

Thats all that matters .

Australian jurisprudence on the law of confidence has long favoured the language of conscience. The duty of confidence is explained as one ‘of conscience arising from the circumstances in or through which the information was communicated or obtained’.1 Third parties are also routinely said to be bound in conscience. In one view, the principle of confidentiality is best developed by reference to what unconscionable behaviour demands.2 However, opinions remain divided on the utility of broad principles of conscience. Thus, some argue that they give the law ‘moral purpose’3 while others deny that they provide any meaningful guidance to a solution.

https://www.law.uwa.edu.au/__data/a...in-Nahan-The-Duty-of-Confidence-Revisited.pdf