Nun not guilty of running light in fatal crash

EJ from Palatine wrote:

So the jurors were brainwashed? It's a jury trial, the jury rendered a verdict, that's how it works, Church vs State, what is wrong with you fools?

Jos Soroka wrote:

I don't recall religion being called into account here. There was this horrific traffic accident in which a young person died. The individual who hit the car was accused of running a red light. The persons occupation is not part of the equation here. So why is everyone all hot and bothered about the fact that this is a nun?

Mike CSI wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh for Pete's sake. Yes, that's the spirit, take my words and twist them all up so the point is lost. I never said or even eluded to the word "brainwashed" so you can correct yourself anytime on that one. I'm saying the jury was influenced by the defenses tactics of basically shoving her religious faith in their faces. If any amount of those jurors were Christian or Catholic, do you really think they would even consider a guilty verdict with a young nun looking at them piteously in full habit? No, of course not. Christianity and Catholicism is the foremost religion in the United States, hence why there are no gay marriages and why we just had a president who loved to utilize the bible as a rationale for most of his boneheaded actions. Christians and Catholics LOVE to shove their religion at everyone and claim it is the only right religion and if they don't convert they'll go to hell. Okay, not every one of them does that but those "strong in faith" do.
I'm also not saying this was a literal "Church vs State" legal situation, I was utilizing the phrase as a means to illustrate that the defense used this woman's religious background to sway the jury. That's why they fought to allow her to wear her habit in court
Like someone else said, I'm amazed that the prosecution didn't obliterate the defense when they started calling every witness a liar with absolutely zero proof to substantiate their claim. It was dirty pool by the defense and a ball dropped by the prosecution.
Also, for those who don't think that the nun's religion was central to the defense...if this had been any other Joe on the street in this situation, the jury would have come back with a guilty verdict even faster, if there had even been a trial at all.

Mike CSI wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh for Pete's sake. Yes, that's the spirit, take my words and twist them all up so the point is lost. I never said or even eluded to the word "brainwashed" so you can correct yourself anytime on that one. I'm saying the jury was influenced by the defenses tactics of basically shoving her religious faith in their faces. If any amount of those jurors were Christian or Catholic, do you really think they would even consider a guilty verdict with a young nun looking at them piteously in full habit? No, of course not. Christianity and Catholicism is the foremost religion in the United States, hence why there are no gay marriages and why we just had a president who loved to utilize the bible as a rationale for most of his boneheaded actions. Christians and Catholics LOVE to shove their religion at everyone and claim it is the only right religion and if they don't convert they'll go to hell. Okay, not every one of them does that but those "strong in faith" do.
I'm also not saying this was a literal "Church vs State" legal situation, I was utilizing the phrase as a means to illustrate that the defense used this woman's religious background to sway the jury. That's why they fought to allow her to wear her habit in court
Like someone else said, I'm amazed that the prosecution didn't obliterate the defense when they started calling every witness a liar with absolutely zero proof to substantiate their claim. It was dirty pool by the defense and a ball dropped by the prosecution.
Also, for those who don't think that the nun's religion was central to the defense...if this had been any other Joe on the street in this situation, the jury would have come back with a guilty verdict even faster, if there had even been a trial at all.

Depot Jim wrote:

All the Nuns, including the accused, wore their Nun's Habits at the trial. It was a victory for the Church.
Church 1
Justice 0

Gary wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Jim: These 'nuns' are not affiliated or endorsed by any Church; Catholic or otherwise.
They are a group of women who live together in community and perform what they believe to be God's will.
The 'Church' as you put it didn't figure into this matter at all.
Don't let your prejudice get in the way of the facts!

Depot Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not prejudiced against any Church or Religion. So stop the name calling. But all the Nuns, including the accused, did wear their Nun's Habits at the trial. Even with all the eyewitnesses accounts and facts, the Nuns dressing up in their habits obviously did have a major effect on the jury decision and out come of the trial.

Mike CSI wrote:

... It was dirty pool by the defense and a ball dropped by the prosecution.

Depot Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not prejudiced against any Church or Religion. So stop the name calling. But all the Nuns, including the accused, did wear their Nun's Habits at the trial. Even with all the eyewitnesses accounts and facts, the Nuns dressing up in their habits obviously did have a major effect on the jury decision and out come of the trial.