> If I had been on the jury, I would have found ...
No, you wouldn't.
The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.
Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.
No, you wouldn't.
The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.
Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.
They just can't "found" something when they are not asked. If you tell the count you found something because you saw something outside the court, that would consider invalid.
In its more colloquial sense, I can see why you prefer to call that "answering" questions rather than "finding" facts.
However, it's silly to quibble over the parent thread's author's usage of "found" when it's the dominant phrasing used in the legal system.
No, it has been decided by the jury https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/572/musk-v-alt...
> Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.
And here the jury has been asked questions about the statute of limitation, which is exactly what the parent commenter is referring to.
The problem is: As a jury, you can't answer the question you ain't asked.
In this case, they jury was instructed to answer a YES/NO question. They can say YES/NO or (sometimes, can't decide). They just can't answer something else. If they do, that is either disregarded, or consider the jury misunderstood the instruction.
You just don't understand how the jury system works.