Season 3 Discussion

[needschocolate]

20 hours ago, Dee said:

Earl is also living there job-less, able-bodied and rent free too. Why isn't he expected to contribute to the household?

I would expect him to help out too.  I figured it wasn't discussed in the posts because this week's episode had a plot where Ruby is doing "mom stuff" and Bow feels bad because of it.  If there were a similar plot where Dre or Bow was being put down because Pops did something instead of them, then I would think posters would be complaining that he was abled bodied and should be expected to contribute.

[Michel]

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 2:37 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

ITA that Diane getting stuck with a poo-tato costume is partly her fault for waiting until the night before to tell anyone that she needed it.

Not to defend Diane in any way, but she was obviously about to ask Ruby to do it since she knew she could do it quickly.  She wasn't expecting Bow to want to do it so badly.

[LydiaMoon1]

On 2/18/2017 at 2:13 AM, Jade Foxx said:

The proper ranking begins New Edition, Boys II Men, etc etc!!!

Nope!  At least as far as B II M are concerned.  NE probably is #1 though. 

[Dee]

NE isn't really a 90's group.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

Just now, Winston9-DT3 said:

This wasn't my favorite episode.  One of my nits is I don't like it when shows act like anyone that's comfortable financially has virtually unlimited resources.  It's a comedy and it's hyperbole, though, so no great offense here.  But sometimes they write Andre more like he's an internet billionaire than a successful ad exec with a houseful of dependents.  

The sneakers alone. . . .

[RedHawk]

On 2/10/2017 at 5:00 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Yup, they NEVER had anything with my name. Not souvenir license plates, not stationery, not shot glasses, nothing.

But if you had grown up going to the Gay Dolphin Gift Shop in Myrtle Beach, SC, you could have gotten a free admission to their rooftop observation tower! Cost for us folks with "typical" names who could easily find ours on their giant wall of souvenir license plates? Fifty cents. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by RedHawk

[Ina123]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 5:00 AM, paulvdb said:

That must be an American thing. Here in The Netherlands I can't think of any black people named Andre. Off the top of my head the most famous ones here are Andre Rieu, Andre Hazes and Andre van Duin. They are all white.

Agassi.

[OnceSane]

Quote

Bow's shocked to see the lack of black dolls available after Diane receives a white doll as a birthday present. Dre blames lack of media representation, but he soon realizes his own prejudices. Meanwhile, Ruby enlists Junior to be her Spades partner.

[Dee]

Between 'Church Hat Magazine' and Charlie telling everyone not to button shirts worn as pants to get out of jury duty because you'll choke your booty out, I laughed through this whole episode.

But Ruby chasing Jack with a crab hammer had me on the floor.

[Ina123]

Loved the Microsoft Surface commercial.

oh...and the show was good, too. Loved Jack's attempts at cursing.

[Michel]

Bow and Ruby's reactions to the kids cursing made me laugh so hard.

But, uh, Bow?  You've cursed before, too, remember?  That Halloween vandal who blasted you when you tried to protect Jack and Diane from him?  And, as a reaction to you doing it, Jack shouted, "My God, Mommy!"  Remember?

Was surprised that Janine actually has a kid.  And that she actually recorded Junior.

Poor Dre.  He went to bat for Antoine and didn't get the thanks he deserved from it.

How do you like that?  The foreman of the jury was none other than Bill Fagerbakke, aka Patrick Star from SpongeBob Squarepants and Broadway from Gargoyles.  Nice to see him doing some live acting rather than voice acting.

Hilarious episode.

Oh, and the Microsoft Surface commercial was funny, too.  Nice to see that all of those mentions of it on the show have finally paid off.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Michel

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Oh, Jack. I'm with Diane. B-hole isn't a swear word!

[Driad]

In the jury discussion there was a bit about walking in someone else's shoes. I doubt the defendant could afford Dre's shoes.

[BoogieBurns]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Oh, Jack. I'm with Diane. B-hole isn't a swear word!

Jack swears just like I do. I like to say, "Excuse my French, but that is just a dang good song!" Or something equally lame.

[Traveller519]

Oh man Junior was killing it for me this episode. Right from the start with his sly trolling of Dre "accidentally" shredding his summons, culminating woth "I have copies!" to let us know this wasn't just a happy accident. 

Then the excitement at "somebody watched a documentary" and right through the swearing stuff and "just top stuff." Great episode across both plots for him!

[joanne3482]

5 hours ago, Michel said:

How do you like that?  The foreman of the jury was none other than Bill Fagerbakke, aka Patrick Star from SpongeBob Squarepants and Broadway from Gargoyles.  Nice to see him doing some live acting rather than voice acting.

The whole time I thought he was the 'dumb' guy from Coach so I go to his Wikipedia page and they don't mention it. So I figure I'm wrong but go to Coach to find out who it was and he was  the 'dumb' guy from Coach. 

I'm like Junior in my optimistic view on Jury Duty. But I've also never been on an actual trial (and only called twice in my life). 

[tennisgurl]

"If your gonna commit a crime, at least be smart enough to make your profile private!"

Poor Dre. He actually tried to do the right thing and doesn't get the credit. Still got what he wanted though, so its kind of a win, right? And we got a funny office scene, without Stevens stupid son! "We weren't floundering without you..."

I pretty much saw exactly how it was going to go as soon as Dre got jury duty (Dre ends up being the only black person on the jury, with a black defendant, and he's the only one who wants to give him a chance) but it was still a good story and got a lot of good laughs.

Poor Bow. My mom still has no idea that I swear, even though I'm in my 20s, thinks I didn't have a sip of alcohol until I was 21, and that I slept on the couch every time I stayed with my boyfriend at his apartment when I was in grad school. We`re both happier that way. And Bow even got to sass Ruby back a bit, which makes her scenes much more tolerable. "You don't treat your man right! "Yeah, where's your man?"

Junior was on fire this episode! "Normally I would tell you I was going to Seth's house, but I'm actually going to Megan's to fool around! Don't worry, just top stuff!" Apparently Megan forgave him for his weird attempted threesome date thing.

Edited February 23, 2017 by tennisgurl

[GHScorpiosRule]

This was pretty funny, but as someone who has had jury duty before (and been passed over since because I now work in the legal field and apparently that means I can't be trusted to render a verdict honestly), I had to ??at that one juror going online to research the hoodie, and Dre even talking about the case while still on the jury, because the first you are FORBIDDEN/PROHIBITED from doing, and the latter as well.

And I really miss Pops. Would love to have seen his reaction to the kids cursing.

[Happytobehere]

I loved the episode and the commentary on the behaviors of white people.  All assumed he was guilty, harassed the one black person advocating on his behalf and when a white person decides the defendant is innocent , she is given he heroic white savior treatment even when stealing the very words the black person trying to do the same used.  It was about white people's ability to center themselves in everything in order for it to be validated.

Junior was clearly tormenting Dre and while I am among the many who have slammed Dre's treatment of Junior, this behavior should have Dre more worried about Junior than Diane.  It shows a mean streak, a barely hidden desire to punish Dre and a propensity to act on those feelings (we've seen this to lesser extents with Junior going off on Dre, but the pattern is clearly there and escalating).  Dre better hope Zoe is around to take care of him in his old age, cause I don't think he will be happy with the treatment he would get at Junior's hands.

The whole cursing thing was hilarious. Bow is understandably desperate to connect with her growing children, especially as she is on the verge of having  another child who will take time away from her existing children.  Ruby just stays ready to pounce on Bow and it continues to be funny as hell.

[Ireland77]

33 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

This was pretty funny, but as someone who has had jury duty before (and been passed over since because I now work in the legal field and apparently that means I can't be trusted to render a verdict honestly), I had to ??at that one juror going online to research the hoodie, and Dre even talking about the case while still on the jury, because the first you are FORBIDDEN/PROHIBITED from doing, and the latter as well.

5

Ugh.  I wanted to like the episode because I appreciated what they tried to do in showing the inherent bias in our legal justice system.  But damn, if you are going to do a courtroom episode, get a legal consultant.  Researching the hoodie online - NOT ALLOWED.  Discussing the case - NOT ALLOWED. At least try and make it realistic. 

[monakane]

I kept thinking I could not find the defendant guilty because his lawyer was so terrible and did not present a case.  

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, Happytobehere said:

I loved the episode and the commentary on the behaviors of white people.  All assumed he was guilty, harassed the one black person advocating on his behalf and when a white person decides the defendant is innocent , she is given he heroic white savior treatment even when stealing the very words the black person trying to do the same used.  It was about white people's ability to center themselves in everything in order for it to be validated.

Brilliantly stated.  The meta-commentary of the whole jury scene was so blatant.  LOL. 

Cute episode.  I think Junior was the MVP and I loved Jack's inability to curse.  And for once Ruby and Bow made a good team up.

[Dee]

Junior's had a mean streak for quite awhile, which is not surprising given both his parents.

What rabbit hole has Earl disappeared into? The last time he was absent this long he'd been abducted.

[StatisticalOutlier]

54 minutes ago, Ireland77 said:

Ugh.  I wanted to like the episode because I appreciated what they tried to do in showing the inherent bias in our legal justice system.  But damn, if you are going to do a courtroom episode, get a legal consultant.  Researching the hoodie online - NOT ALLOWED.  Discussing the case - NOT ALLOWED. At least try and make it realistic. 

Normally I give pretty wide latitude to shows that portray legal proceedings or medical stuff in a more dramatic or more condensed way than they actually occur.  They're not documentaries, after all.

However, I was shocked at how they did the jury stuff in this one.  If jury sequences are just a set piece for hilarity, then who cares?  But they used the jury sequences to make their bigger social point, and I think that's a different situation, and that what they did was irresponsible.

Researching the hoodie was clearly juror misconduct.  But the bit about the defendant's profile photo--it wasn't clear to me how they even knew about that, but they were looking at it on their phones, which means they weren't looking at evidence that had been presented at trial.  That, also, is juror misconduct. 

The show is presenting a point of view and it wants to persuade people to agree with it.  I'm fine with that.  But if the only way you can do that is to present juror misconduct in a way that makes it appear to be acceptable, and even admirable, behavior, then you need to go back to the drawing board and if necessary, just drop it altogether.  

The justice system is messed up enough already, and if this show wants to help make that better, presenting juror misconduct in a favorable light is not the way to go.  Because my takeaway was if we have a system that doesn't serve the black defendant well, the solution is for jurors to come up with their own case and evidence and try him with that. 

[peeayebee]

4 hours ago, joanne3482 said:

The whole time I thought he was the 'dumb' guy from Coach so I go to his Wikipedia page and they don't mention it. So I figure I'm wrong but go to Coach to find out who it was and he was  the 'dumb' guy from Coach. 

That's the only place I know him from.

 

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

This was pretty funny, but as someone who has had jury duty before (and been passed over since because I now work in the legal field and apparently that means I can't be trusted to render a verdict honestly), I had to ??at that one juror going online to research the hoodie, and Dre even talking about the case while still on the jury, because the first you are FORBIDDEN/PROHIBITED from doing, and the latter as well.

Yeah, there was a lot of unbelievable legal stuff that was hard to ignore. But I did. I mean, a jury in traffic court?

 

1 hour ago, monakane said:

I kept thinking I could not find the defendant guilty because his lawyer was so terrible and did not present a case.  

I think that a jury is supposed to reach a verdict based on what each lawyer presents. Even though the defense attorney apparently didn't make a case for his client at all, that's what the jury has to work with. Who presented the most compelling evidence? The prosecutor.

Anyway, loved Ruby's Church Hat magazine. Loved Jack's cute attempts to cuss. 

I had to rewind to watch the commercial. It was worth it. "I come with a pen... Where's my pen?"

I think my favorite part was the very end when Ruby mentioned to Bow that Diane was in a fight club. Hee.

[vibeology]

I agree the jury stuff was a mess. I know it's technically misconduct to talk about a case during the case, but let's be honest that doesn't mean that people don't go home and talk about the cases. Not everyone, obviously, but of course some people do. And Dre, who talks about all his life problems with his coworkers is the type who'd talk about this too. So I can let that slide because even if it is against the rule, I do think it's how many people act.

But checking out social media, researching years of hoodie designs- that isn't okay or the sort of thing people normally do. I hate to think about how rushed some public defenders are and how that impacts trials, but that isn't an excuse for a jury member to step in and basically do their job based on facts not in evidence. That to me crossed a line.

[Ikki]

Aw, I was in a fight club when I was Diane's age.

(Almost my entire fourth grade class was. In retrospect, it was pretty wild.)

[Michel]

3 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I think my favorite part was the very end when Ruby mentioned to Bow that Diane was in a fight club. Hee.

Bow's reaction to that was my everything.:)

[Michel]

I noticed the air date.  Why are they waiting two weeks for the next episode?

[mtlchick]

"What does your brim say about you?"  Still laughing.

 

I liked it, I didn't love it for some reason.  Maybe because I know so many kids that curse and the parents don't bat an eye at it?  Also, I should be concerned that Diane is now part of a fight club, but it's par for the course.

RIP Charlie (who's legally dead and yet isn't.) 

[attica]

11 hours ago, mtlchick said:

"What does your brim say about you?"  Still laughing.

Not lying: I would read the shit out of Church Hat. I bet the prop people had fun mocking that up.

I've never been picked for a trial, but every person that I know who has has talked about the case (or cases in the case of a couple grand jurors I have known) at least vaguely before verdict. Discreetly, and usually just enough so I could find/follow the trial in the news, but still.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I saw this article yesterday and it reminded me of Rainbow's concerns because unfortunately people DO judge you based on your name:

Asian last names lead to fewer job interviews

[possibilities]

23 hours ago, monakane said:

I kept thinking I could not find the defendant guilty because his lawyer was so terrible and did not present a case.

The complete lack of representation by his supposed lawyer certainly created a reasonable doubt in my mind. I know it's pretty common, though, and people do get convicted under those circumstances.

22 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I think that a jury is supposed to reach a verdict based on what each lawyer presents. Even though the defense attorney apparently didn't make a case for his client at all, that's what the jury has to work with. Who presented the most compelling evidence? The prosecutor.

But the defense attorney did say that he was unprepared because he didn't know the trial was that day. To me, that should have caused the judge to intervene since it's obvious lack of counsel. This case was a mistrial at every step. And honestly-- that seems to be a problem in real life, so I don't mind the show portraying the system as a basically lawless clusterfuck. That's what it is.

22 hours ago, peeayebee said:

Yeah, there was a lot of unbelievable legal stuff that was hard to ignore. But I did. I mean, a jury in traffic court?

This, too. My take home was: "The system is a farce. People don't want to serve on juries. Defendants don't get defense. Judges don't care. Juries don't follow rules. " Most people have either been to traffic court or known someone who has, and would know it's not a jury trial. I thought that detail highlighted that the show as winking a little, but the misconduct they showed was credible in that you could imagine it happening. Hell, I don't even have a driver's license (slow reflexes, can't drive), but I know so many people who went to traffic court to contest speeding tickets that I know how it works.

Why is it worse for the jury to research than for the defendant not to have any representation? I'm not saying either is good, but why is one crossing the line and the other not?

Church Hat Magazine was awesome.

[joanne3482]

I've already forgotten the episode mostly but I thought that was the point...there isn't jury in traffic court. Ruby was just there being a jury. 

[meep.meep]

On 2/23/2017 at 0:32 PM, peeayebee said:

That's the only place I know him from.

More recently, he was Marshall's dad on How I Met Your Mother.  Marvin Erickson who they named the baby after.

IMDB is your friend.

I loved Church Hat!  They're so good with little details like that.

[peeayebee]

5 hours ago, meep.meep said:

More recently, he was Marshall's dad on How I Met Your Mother.  

Oh right. I forgot about that. 

[kat165]

On a shallow note: Ruby looked great in this ep. Loved her hairstyle. And Bow looked fabulous in that black plaid top she was wearing.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I agree - there's suspension of disbelief (which I am fine with for tv/movies to an extent) but the stuff with the jury this week (finding this kid online, researching hoodies, etc) was far beyond that.

Re: the jury being all white except for Dre - I know someone who actually wants to have jury duty because he feels it's an important civic responsibility, but EVERY year he gets dismissed because he is (1) male (2) white (3) over 30 (4) a law school graduate (despite the fact that he is not a practicing lawyer!). The closest he got was after almost an entire day of jury selection, they called him to the jury box and just as his ass was about to hit the actual chair in seat #12 (as in he was standing right in front of the chair, bending his knees to sit down in it), they dismissed him.

[peeayebee]

I would love to be on a jury, too, but I can't because of needing to take care of my son. Hmm, the next time I get a summons (which isn't often) I have to see if my recently retired sister can watch him.

[Inquisitionist]

On 2/18/2017 at 3:37 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Once again, Dre is a selfish baby. He only wanted to help his friends after (1) years of not seeing most of them (2) one of them died and (3) because he expected them to thank him and be grateful. If you truly want to help someone, you do it to HELP THEM, not because you want recognition for it. And if you really want to help someone, you actually help them instead of just giving them whatever is laying around your house (like your wife's bike).

This ^^ really spoiled the episode for me.  Hard to laugh at the rest when I was feeling so sour about Dre's OTT cluelessness.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 2/23/2017 at 1:32 PM, peeayebee said:

I think that a jury is supposed to reach a verdict based on what each lawyer presents. Even though the defense attorney apparently didn't make a case for his client at all, that's what the jury has to work with. Who presented the most compelling evidence? The prosecutor.

Right.  It's an imperfect system for sure, since money can play a part in how good a person's lawyer is.  But the bottom line is (or should be):  the jury's verdict is based on the evidence presented at trial. 

 

On 2/24/2017 at 11:57 AM, possibilities said:

 Most people have either been to traffic court or known someone who has, and would know it's not a jury trial. I thought that detail highlighted that the show as winking a little, but the misconduct they showed was credible in that you could imagine it happening. Hell, I don't even have a driver's license (slow reflexes, can't drive), but I know so many people who went to traffic court to contest speeding tickets that I know how it works.

Actually, there are jury trials available for traffic violations in some jurisdictions. 

 

Quote

Why is it worse for the jury to research than for the defendant not to have any representation? I'm not saying either is good, but why is one crossing the line and the other not?

Ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim that a defendant assert, and there are procedures to handle it. 

Courts have rules of evidence, and the very thing that a juror's "research" reveals might be something the judge has decided is inadmissible under the rules of evidence.  That's why you don't want jurors gathering "facts" on their own.  

 

On 2/23/2017 at 1:44 PM, vibeology said:

I agree the jury stuff was a mess. I know it's technically misconduct to talk about a case during the case, but let's be honest that doesn't mean that people don't go home and talk about the cases. Not everyone, obviously, but of course some people do. And Dre, who talks about all his life problems with his coworkers is the type who'd talk about this too. So I can let that slide because even if it is against the rule, I do think it's how many people act.

But checking out social media, researching years of hoodie designs- that isn't okay or the sort of thing people normally do. I hate to think about how rushed some public defenders are and how that impacts trials, but that isn't an excuse for a jury member to step in and basically do their job based on facts not in evidence. That to me crossed a line.

I agree about jurors talking about the case.  You know that happens, and has always happened.  The courts do their best to keep people from doing it (like sometimes sequestering juries), but ultimately it's up to the jurors to abide by the instructions, and since they're people, you know how that's going to go.

And I agree that the juror "research" portrayed crossed the line, and I find that whole part irresponsible because it's becoming a real problem.  Before everyone had the internet at their fingertips 24/7, if a juror wanted to go rogue, he'd have to actually do something, like drive to the scene of the crime, or go to the library and look stuff up.  That took effort, which might dissuade a person from doing it, and it's possible that in the time between thinking of doing it and actually doing it, he'd remember the judge's admonition against it.

But now that that juror "research" is no more difficult than fiddling around on the internet, it's becoming more pervasive, and there's no reason to believe it's not going to get worse.  It's a real problem.

The judicial system we have obviously isn't perfect, but it's what we have.  It's not Black-ish's responsibility to provide a civics lesson, but I don't think it should be portraying this type of increasingly prevalent juror misconduct in a favorable light.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm sure the show portrayed a public defender in the worst light for laughs as well as trying to say that ineffectual counsel is a reason why some defendants get screwed, but not all public defenders are incompetent. The first and only trial that I got to serve as a juror (before I changed careers and got into the legal profession), the defendant has a public defender. And she was smart, passionate, and it was clear she'd studied the case and had a strategy to defend her client. The ASA (Assistant State's Attorney) however, was dull as all get out and so out of the public defender's league when it came to keeping and holding my attention (though it was a struggle, I did pay attention), he, the ASA made their case with the evidence. It was a drug case. And I've worked with a number of legal aid lawyers and public defenders, and they're not dumb or incompetent. Well, the ones I've worked with and have seen in action, aren't. It would have been more interesting if Antoine's lawyer had been a competent one.

[Michel]

6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I'm sure the show portrayed a public defender in the worst light for laughs as well as trying to say that ineffectual counsel is a reason why some defendants get screwed, but not all public defenders are incompetent. The first and only trial that I got to serve as a juror (before I changed careers and got into the legal profession), the defendant has a public defender. And she was smart, passionate, and it was clear she'd studied the case and had a strategy to defend her client. The ASA (Assistant State's Attorney) however, was dull as all get out and so out of the public defender's league when it came to keeping and holding my attention (though it was a struggle, I did pay attention), he, the ASA made their case with the evidence. It was a drug case. And I've worked with a number of legal aid lawyers and public defenders, and they're not dumb or incompetent.

@GHScorpiosRule, what was the verdict?

[GHScorpiosRule]

19 minutes ago, Michel said:

@GHScorpiosRule, what was the verdict?

Guilty. But we studied the evidence for four days, and I will admit I was the holdout like Dre was, because most, and three of my fellow jurors made it clear, that they didn't want to even be there because they had made plaaaaaans for vacation and had already decided he was guilty because his girlfriend didn't testify on his behalf and had made a plea. When they took a vote, I wrote on mine I wasn't about to be pressured just because there were a few who had already made up their minds just so they didn't have to be there.  These morons had the option to tell the court they had a conflict or couldn't serve, instead of  bitching and whining about having been selected. And yeah, the complainers were all White.?

The second vote, a couple more people changed their vote, admitting they voted guilty the first time because they had felt intimidated and pressured.

We were allowed to ask questions for clarification, allowed to believe or not believe any witnesses that had testified. When we went over the physical evidence, it was clear dude was guilty. Though his lawyer was very good making him look not guilty. But it took a toll-and I didn't know it at the time, but according to the jury forewoman, who told me after the case was over,  I flinched after we rendered our verdict and the judge hit his gavel. But I LOVED it. And now that I'm a paralegal, I'm dismissed immediately. Like I can't be trusted to make my decision based on the evidence.??? It was a great experience.

Edited February 26, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[Court]

I would love to serve on a jury. I've never even been summoned. But a friend of mine who is a judge's daughter gets summoned constantly. She's always dismissed the second they hear who her dad is.

[Mrs OldManBalls]

Bow punching the kids high five made me chuckle a bit as did Charlie saying he declared himself legally dead to get out of jury duty. 

[shapeshifter]

18 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

Right.  It's an imperfect system for sure, since money can play a part in how good a person's lawyer is.  But the bottom line is (or should be):  the jury's verdict is based on the evidence presented at trial. 

 

Actually, there are jury trials available for traffic violations in some jurisdictions. 

 

Ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim that a defendant assert, and there are procedures to handle it. 

Courts have rules of evidence, and the very thing that a juror's "research" reveals might be something the judge has decided is inadmissible under the rules of evidence.  That's why you don't want jurors gathering "facts" on their own.  

 

I agree about jurors talking about the case.  You know that happens, and has always happened.  The courts do their best to keep people from doing it (like sometimes sequestering juries), but ultimately it's up to the jurors to abide by the instructions, and since they're people, you know how that's going to go.

And I agree that the juror "research" portrayed crossed the line, and I find that whole part irresponsible because it's becoming a real problem.  Before everyone had the internet at their fingertips 24/7, if a juror wanted to go rogue, he'd have to actually do something, like drive to the scene of the crime, or go to the library and look stuff up.  That took effort, which might dissuade a person from doing it, and it's possible that in the time between thinking of doing it and actually doing it, he'd remember the judge's admonition against it.

But now that that juror "research" is no more difficult than fiddling around on the internet, it's becoming more pervasive, and there's no reason to believe it's not going to get worse.  It's a real problem.

The judicial system we have obviously isn't perfect, but it's what we have.  It's not Black-ish's responsibility to provide a civics lesson, but I don't think it should be portraying this type of increasingly prevalent juror misconduct in a favorable light.

Yes. And I think the point was that given a disinterested jury, a poor defense, and that the defendant was a POC, the only way the defendant was going to be found innocent was if the jury found via a smart phone a fact that should have been presented by the defense attorney—and that wouldn't have happened if Dre wasn't there or if Dre didn't appreciate the importance of his standing up for Antoine when no one else would or could.

[StatisticalOutlier]

23 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

Quote

I think that a jury is supposed to reach a verdict based on what each lawyer presents. Even though the defense attorney apparently didn't make a case for his client at all, that's what the jury has to work with. Who presented the most compelling evidence? The prosecutor.

Right.  It's an imperfect system for sure, since money can play a part in how good a person's lawyer is.  But the bottom line is (or should be):  the jury's verdict is based on the evidence presented at trial.

Quoting myself here, because I think I should clarify my saying, "Right," since we're talking about who proved what.  In a criminal case, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  If the defense puts on a case (it doesn't have to), then the verdict isn't based on which side the juror believes more.  It's not a situation where you weigh the two sides and one prevails.  The prosecution has to put on a case that proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard of proof there is.

In a civil case, there are a couple of different standards.  The one most similar to "who presented the most compelling evidence" would be "a preponderance of the evidence."  There's also a higher standard, of "clear and convincing evidence," which a plaintiff might have to present in order to prevail, depending on the case.  But both are a lesser standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Yes. And I think the point was that given a disinterested jury, a poor defense, and that the defendant was a POC, the only way the defendant was going to be found innocent was if the jury found via a smart phone a fact that should have been presented by the defense attorney—and that wouldn't have happened if Dre wasn't there or if Dre didn't appreciate the importance of his standing up for Antoine when no one else would or could.

First, a quibble:  you do want a disinterested jury, as in unbiased.  In this case, the jury was uninterested, which you don't want.  Sorry if this is seen as pedantic, but it matters in this context. 

Second, I can't tell--do you think the juror misconduct in this case was acceptable because it resulted in the right outcome?  I'm all for the right outcome, but not at the cost of legitimizing blatant juror misconduct.

There was a case a few years ago where a man committed some heinous, publicized crime.  The jury got its instructions and came to a verdict, and the defendant was given a relatively light sentence.  There was great public outcry against the jury, and it turned out that the jurors had made their verdict based on what they wanted to have happen to the defendant instead of following the instructions.  The problem was that they thought "negligent" was worse than "reckless," so they found the defendant had been negligent, expecting the maximum punishment to be handed down.  Only the legal definitions of those two terms, which were included in the jury's instructions, are such that "reckless" is worse than "negligent." 

Had they followed the instructions, they would have gotten it right.  But they didn't, and then were pissed at the system. 

Sometimes jurors don't know best.

[bonniejmac]

On 2/25/2017 at 2:28 PM, StatisticalOutlier said:

Actually, there are jury trials available for traffic violations in some jurisdictions. 

I have a friend who served on a jury for a man defending himself against a speeding ticket. His base argument was 'all the cops in this county got it out for me.'

He was quickly found guilty. 

[vmcd88]

This episode was hilarious.  When I hear the name Devante I totally think of Jodeci.  Loved that Bow and Dre chose Devante but also chose a "safe" name so the child use it in his professional life (if he wanted).  As African Americans, my husband and I definitely had that conversation when we were thinking of names for our daughter.