Before I get into this, let me start by saying that Tor_Laws has threatened to make an expose thread (his exact words are https://i.imgur.com/W0GN7wk.png ). What better to do? Beat him to it. While I am heading the Department of Justice, we will be as transparent as possible (excluding what is classified by law), and therefore, I want to take this opportunity to address his concerns publicly.
Their argument
Trooper dosk2 should be prosecuted for Juror Misconduct ( A Bill to Institute Jury Reform ). He was clearly biased in favor of the state and influenced the outcome of the trial. The DoJ refuses to prosecute him because dosk2 was helping them!
I’m here to explain why that argument doesn’t make sense and why it is unethical, unfair, and questionably unlawful to prosecute him.
Our Argument
First of all, let’s start with their claim that Trooper dosk2 was bias. In a jury trial in the State of Firestone, all jurors must come to a unanimous verdict (C.III.XII). In this case, the jury unanimously found Tor_Laws NOT GUILTY/ACQUITTED ( https://trello.com/c/CSX99QLQ/1807-state-of-firestone-v-torlaws ). The jury ruled in favor of the defendant and against the state. Because the jury has to unanimously agree on a verdict, this also means that Trooper dosk2 found the defendant not guilty. Since this is so, how could the juror possibly be biased in favor of the state? It is possible that Tor will present screenshots of dosk2 speaking about the facts of the case in which he has a negative viewpoint of Tor’s blatant murder and the jokes he made about it, but again, he returned a verdict of not guilty. He fairly evaluated the facts of the case and came to a fair verdict.
This also nullifies Tor’s argument that we won’t prosecute dosk2 because he helped us. He literally submitted a verdict against us. It is illogical to assume he has a bias against Tor_Laws.
The only other questionable “juror misconduct” is that Tor_Laws was a Trooper at the time of the case, as was dosk2. Section 3B of A Bill to Institute Jury Reform states, “Bias shall be defined as having a personal grudge or feeling toward one or more parties of a case. In a case where either party is a member of a government department or agency, no juror may be in the same department.” By this definition, it is only illegal to be on a jury if you have a personal grudge or feeling toward one or more parties of a case. The second portion states that a member of the same department as one party may not serve on a jury, but it does not actually define it as juror misconduct. Therefore, the Trooper did not even certainly commit a crime. However, for purposes of continuing my argument, we will assume that this is a gray enough area that the DoJ could pursue charges.
According to Trooper dosk2 and everyone else I have spoken to, he declared that he was a Firestone State Patrol Trooper ( https://i.imgur.com/4qwru0b.png ). The prosecutor, themasterofall670, stated that he attempted to strike dosk2 from the jury, but MarshallJAddision, the defendant’s counsel, and the presiding officer, MisterGermanAidan, elected to keep him on the jury ( https://i.imgur.com/D8pFs2a.png ). It would be completely unfair for the Department of Justice to prosecute Trooper dosk2 as he declared that he was a Trooper. Should the state have done more to stop him from being on the jury? Yes. Should the presiding officer have allowed it? No. We can place blame all day, but the fact of the matter is that the Trooper made it clear he was a fellow Trooper to the defendant and nobody took enough action to bar him from serving on the jury. We can’t blame him when four other bar certified attorneys sat around and let it happen.
I promised you that I would prove it is unlawful, unfair, and unethical. The legality is clearly questionable, and it is beyond obviously unfair, but how is it unethical? Trooper dosk2 is a serviceman to his state. He has been a Trooper with Firestone State Patrol for nearly two months, and in that time, logged over 40 patrols ( https://trello.com/c/OosVdcV8/332-trooper-dosk2 ). Despite what Tor_Laws may think, the DoJ is not out to ruin people’s careers. If we imagine that this Trooper certainly committed juror misconduct, one of the most minor felonies in the state, we have to balance if it is worth ruining his entire career and his potential to serve the state over one law that he unknowingly broke. The DoJ prosecuted and may continue to prosecute Tor_Laws because he murdered someone in cold blood. That is certainly not comparable to accidentally sitting on a jury as a way to continue your on-going service to the state. Therefore, to rip the opportunity to serve his state out of dosk2’s hands over a questionable, extremely minor, offense is simply unfair and I will not support it. This does not mean that I am “failing to execute my duties.” It means that I am a decent person. My job is to ensure the safety of the state by prosecuting those who threaten it. Accidentally sitting on a jury does not threaten the safety of the state.
It may be argued that I am contesting what I stated in the state’s appeal ( https://trello.com/c/ZhnXuVhJ/134-state-of-firestone-v-torlaws-2-fsc-64-2018 ). Let me reiterate that DOSK2 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE JURY. The law plainly states that. However, the wording of the law does not state that it is a crime to sit on a jury if you are in the same department as a party nor does it describe that as bias. Because of this, the trial was properly declared a mistrial, but dosk2 does not necessarily need to be prosecuted.
Nobody is really to blame for this incident. A plethora of people let this occur, and even though I wasn’t personally there, it is my responsibility to ensure things like this don’t happen. Therefore, I do take partial responsibility for allowing dosk2 to be on the jury. Regardless, it did not work in favor of the state, and no bias or juror misconduct is present. If Tor_Laws does post his “expose thread,” I ask that the Department of Public Safety and Firestone State Patrol review this thread as well as contact me about the legality of the situation before making unfair assumptions against Trooper dosk2.