For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of up to citizens. In such large juries, the unanimity rule would be unrealistic, and verdicts were reached by majority. Juries were appointed by lot.
I was suspicious that the unique conflicts of interests inherent in the relationship between the golf media and Augusta National Golf Club would create a stunting of the coverage of this major story and, unfortunately, my concerns were more than warranted.
Before I get into how CBS specifically blew it on this saga, let me first provide the details on what actually happened.
While leading the tournament on Friday, Tiger hit what appeared to be a perfect third shot into the par 5 15th green until it hit the flag stick and caromed off the green and into the pond in front of the hole.
It was a crushingly bad break even before the chaos that the ensuing chain of events would create overnight because it turned a probable birdie into a situation where he would have to struggle for a bogie.
At that point Tiger had three basic options. He could go to the drop area in front of the pond, he could keep the point where the ball entered the water between him and the hole and drop as far back as he wanted, or he could replay the shot as close as possible from the previous spot.
It appeared at the time that Tiger decided to take the third option and replay the shot. He seemed to do so perfectly as he hit the ball to three feet from the hole and appeared to make a spectacular bogie six on the hole.
However, after the round Tiger told reporters something which proved that his drop broke the rules. So it was muddy and not a good spot to drop. So I went back to where I played it from, but I went two yards farther back and I tried to take two yards off the shot of what I felt I hit.
Video of his fifth shot clearly shows that he was indeed about two yards behind the divot that his third shot created. Ironically, if Tiger had never mentioned this in the interview after the round, not only would no one have noticed, but I would have among those who strongly objected to the notion of him being penalized at all for having taken the exact same drop.
This is because the drop itself was actually theoretically okay though it was on the borderline because the rule book does not state a specific distance from the previous spot that is unacceptable. Unfortunately, because this mistake was not immediately known it was not corrected before Woods signed his scorecard.
This meant that, if was later deemed that his drop was illegal, his scorecard would then be incorrect and in percent of similar cases in the history of golf, the only remedy for that situation is disqualification.
As it turns out, Augusta National did exactly that in a way that would make a high-priced criminal defense attorney proud. They decided that Tiger did in fact break the rules and issued him a two-shot penalty, but then did a series of legalistic gymnastics in order to rationalize that he should not be disqualified.
However, there is a major problem with this line of thinking: Therefore, their initial investigation was effectively irrelevant because it was not as if Tiger thought or asked about a potential infraction and was told he was in the clear before he signed his card.
Had that happened, then the Masters would have been obviously correct in not later instituting a disqualification. Here is the key provision: They should get high marks for not trying to avoid the subject and for detailing the controversy extensively right from the start of the broadcast.
However, CBS never highlighted either of the key points which would have shed a totally different light on the controversy.
In the morning while on The Golf Channel, Faldo was about as strong on this issue as anyone could possibly imagine.Nov 19, · Open verdict topic.
The open verdict is an option open to a coroner's jury at an inquest in the legal system of England and Wales. The verdict means the jury confirms the death is suspicious, but is unable to reach any other verdicts open to them.
The jury in the Hillsborough inquests has reached conclusions on all of the questions it was asked and will give their decisions tomorrow morning. Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine said a majority verdict will only be accepted once a jury has deliberated for eight hours or more, without reaching a unanimous decision.
- The text discusses that a problem with a jury that is not unanimous, is that it deteriorates the communication and level of discussion among the jurors. The individuals who go against the majority are easily pushed to the side, because they are not needed in the decision (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, ).
The jury must consist of at least 11 persons for a majority verdict in criminal proceedings. A unanimous verdict (verdict agreed to by all members of the jury) cannot be reached after a reasonable time (at least 8 hours) after the jurors have gone to the jury room to consider their verdict.
The expert report which university professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz drew up for my jury trial in May (Hv /90) after five years of work showed for the first time that not a single document which has been used to support the criminal charges against National Socialist Germany (including the charges pertaining to the "Holocaust") was ever allowed to be examined forensically.