All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I've served on several juries. One of the last juries I served on, there was this one woman who just refused to listen to the judge or the law. She refused to listen to our explanations of the law. She just kept saying she didn't 'feel' that what we were saying or what the judge was saying was right. She was really just a very stupid person. I swear, if I were ever accused of a serious crime, I would refuse a jury trial.
Jury duty is one of the few times you're engaging with the truest form of the general population. Anything else you do has pre-existing filters that sort of prevent you from engaging with GenPop regularly.
Our jobs, schools, communities, etc, almost all have some light form of filtering out the dumbest people you've ever interacted with.
But bless the souls who work the customer service counter at a grocery store because your world is nonstop stupidity.
Jury duty absolutely has an economic bias as well. Maybe not from the initial letters that get sent out, but by the time the jury is selected there are definitely filters in place.
My mother was a paralegal, and growing up? Dinner table conversations were about her work, so the talk was about legal proceedings.
She never served on a jury. Neither did her boss. Not once. The refused her every time...reason being is they don't want informed people. They don't want a juror who might know things about the law, and be able to reason out things that they didn't present or catch mistakes that would otherwise go unnoticed. Both sides want...ignorant people. People who really know nothing about anything.
Lawyer here. That’s true most of the time, but sometimes one side will want lawyers/paralegals/(insert educated profession here) because they feel a case is overly complicated and having someone who understands and can explain to the others is beneficial
I never thought of it that way. Makes sense because I tend to think oh everyone around me is pretty reasonable, but I'm also in my own little bubble here
Yep, there are so many micro filters around us that weed people out of the places we go and who we interact with. Recruiters, prices, distance from public transit, etc., are all tiny sorting filters that keep us from engaging with the dumbest people on earth.
Again, unless you're call center or a pharmacy or something.
Then one of the places we really need a filter, our political leadership, where the qualifications are over 18 and breathing. And breathing is optional.
I showed up for jury selection interested in serving, then realized that my fellow citizens were a sample of some of the absolute most stupid people I had ever encountered in the wild.
All I could think to myself was "Where did they all come from, though....? Why so many....? Wait, they can VOTE??"
i’m just kind of realizing this but it’s not their fault.
our institutions have failed us: whether it’s failures in our education system, lies spread by the mainstream media, or a culture where intelligence and intellectual curiosity is looked down on.
regular people can only do so much with the resources they have.
and by “our institutions” i actually mean that republicans are solely to blame for the failures of these systems.
edit: btw the judges words nearly brought a tear to my eye. if only our justice system actually worked in the manner intended.
I was in the ER with an infection in my blood and in quite a bad way, only thing I really remember is a nurse yelling at a lady saying how gratefully she should be that her concern is only a sprained ankle and points at me and goes "you don't want the attention that guy is getting, and be grateful that you don't need that many doctors and nurses." She was complaining that it was unfair that I was getting prioritised over her daughter with a sprained ankle and it was taking too long.
I was at the hospital on a backboard in a room shared with another patient. She was absolutely screaming in agonizing pain. After a few minutes, I asked through the curtain what was wrong with her - she had a broken toe. I then replied with "I have a broken neck, shut the fuck up."
there is a cartoon with sailors at a bar. The guy with the peg leg is complaining that his suffering demands respect. The guy next to him has a peg-head.
I’m a school nurse and was just talking with a nurse colleague this morning about being brand new nurse 15yrs ago and quickly realizing how many people are below average intelligence. It’s not even their fault much of the time.
Working at a high-end health food store in a conservative state during the pandemic really did a number on me.
It’s hard to describe the amazing level of stupidity and hostility from the wealthy, successful, and educated- especially when they’re very certain of themselves about their stances on masks, vaccines, yada yada
2020 is when it started to feel like people in real life were acting the way people on the internet do, like before that there was a bifurcation- it was trolls and assholes on the internet but mostly good, positive people in real life. That changed and now it’s like there’s trolls and assholes everywhere
As a small business owner I can tell you that that was pretty much a universal experience in covid times and there's been nearly no recovery since.
In my wildest imagination I couldn't have imagined people wearing masks below their chins or believing that they were designed to filter things going in.
So many instances of employees telling me what's true about how the world works when just basic eyeball usage would completely disprove their assertion.
It takes a lot of time energy to get smart and apparently just a brief period of the unknown to undo all of that effort.
I love in a wealthy town and absolutely refuse to say the name of my town to anyone outside of town, I always list the next town over. Only by engaging with the wealthy can you really understand that intelligence isn't what does it.
I oddly worked at a health-food store about 10 years before that and I totally know what you mean. I cannot fathom what that audience thought of the pandemic. I used to tell people that we'd get more complaints about the products we do carry than the ones we don't. Meaning people would walk up to the front of the store and hold a products ingredient list in my face and tell me how bad that is.
People DEFINITELY brought their online selves into the real world and it's AWFUL. The entitlement is other level and it feels like everyone has prioritized getting "theirs".
My mom was the foreman on a jury once and there was one woman who refused to convict despite there being literal photographs of the man with the gun from the security cameras. After a full day of deliberating and trying to convince the hold out she came back the next morning and flipped her vote. My mom asked what changed her mind and she said, "well I was watching the news and he was arrested again for robbing another gas station".
They weren't sequestered but they were supposed to avoid the news and so they had to do a bunch of stuff to try to unfuck this stupid ass jurors inability to listen to basic instruction for 2 days.
If I was guilty I prefer the jury trial. Decent chance for them to come to the wrong conclusion. If I was innocent hell no for the jury for the same reason.
Serving on a jury made me terrified that a jury of my peers would ever find anything close to justice. I rarely get to hear the thought process of random people, and when I did I found too many of them were aggressively stupid and proud of it. It was not a good experience for shaping my worldview.
I was on the jury for a case where a brother killed his abusive brother in self defense. Lost my cool when one of the other jurors kept saying "well I wouldn't do that," thus somehow proving guilty of murder. Dumb people are our peers.
I mean I was pretty pumped to get jury duty. A week off work (fortunate to be salaried) and I get to be a part of a trial? Sign me up. Unfortunately only got called up to the courtroom once and they didn’t make it through enough alternates to get to me.
I've always taken jury duty seriously, because it's an important part of a functioning democracy 🤷🏻♀️ I'm a GenX with a B.A. and good emotional intelligence.
Much in the same vein of RoguePlanet2, I'm an elder millennial with a BS in comp sci and halfway through an MBA. I did my time in the navy and it absolutely opened my eyes to what the lowest common denominator is in a given group. Empathy is crucial to a functional society. Also, as a government employee I'm obligated to serve jury duty if called. its a necessity to keep everything humming along.
This is more of a problem then a joke. Peoples unwillingness to participate in either government, juries, or other responsibilities as citizens deserve what they get. Sadly we are about to get it soon I think. Skipping out on jury duty is neanderthal thinking.
There's also a huge problem with the modern jury that is expected to be unbiased in a modern world where social media is ubiquitous, as if the 24/7 news cycle wasn't bad enough. This entire case is absolute trash and a mockery of the system itself.
The contamination of these cases is absurd and it's an open circus that everyone is simply continuing to pretend doesn't exist as if we can just live like this forever. The most apt comparison of the absurdity of placating for the rule of law is how everyone tries to pretend we still live in a democracy and sane-wash our king.
and to compound that problem - jury duty has been considered acceptable involuntary servitude [Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916)] - i.e. it's a form of slavery that's okay because society. thus, you don't get paid even minimum wage even though if the same county paid me to shit in a park I'd get $20/hr for the effort
it really highlights how hypocritical the legal system is, telling us all how important and equitable everything is while not even giving it basic societal support
It’s not an unwillingness to participate. It’s a system where most people aren’t being paid while they’re on jury duty. Blame the system, not the people.
Some of us have jobs that don’t pay us for jury duty and jury duty pays nothing to almost nothing. It’s a flaw in the system. I was called a month ago and had to take the day off to report…I lost a days pay and several hours.
Because all religion and spirituality are entirely predicated upon emotional intensity. Otherwise all the mythology would be any other story, the morality tales would be legalism, and the cognitive beliefs would be like any other information consumed
I had a similar situation. To be selected for the jury, we all had to swear that we were willing to give the mandatory minimum sentence that we wouldn’t refuse to give it just because it was the mandatory minimum. Lo and behold… guess who was uncomfortable “giving the minimum” when it came time to decide sentencing? This was a murder trial in Houston, where the jury had to decide the verdict and the sentence.
So three women flat refused the five-year minimum. (This was a case where it was self defense, but he didn’t qualify for self defense under the law because he technically instigated. And he called 911 right away - all on video.) when we couldn’t get them to agree to five, the jury immediately jumped to 10.
I was only voice to point out that 10 years is 200% of 5 years. And we finally settled on 7. Literally if I hadn’t been there, they would’ve gone from. Nope we can’t do 5? Okay 10 - just because it’s the next round number.
I left the room despising those people. This man had a special needs child. He wasn’t a dangerous person. The man he killed was demonstrably dangerous. This guy just made a horrible horrible permanent decision on that day. Devastating. My heart is racing just thinking about it.
There's a reason jury nullification is a thing. A person can feel a law is wrong or unjust. That's the downside of jury trials and why lawyers and judges try really hard to only have juries with people who agree the law should be followed to the t.
My one and only jury duty was for a murder trial, and we were deadlocked. We gave a note after I think 4 days of deliberation, judge asked us to try harder, I think we went 2 or 3 more days and were still deadlocked. After our second note judge declared it a mistrial. We had one holdout who was very smart and felt the case wasn't solid enough. But yea, we also had a few jurors who didn't understand the basic case and were not too bright.
I was once on jury duty. All of us came to a guilty conclusion after a few hours except for one lady who didn’t want to convict him because she felt bad he would go to jail.
I have been called to jury duty now twice- you are absolutely correct. I don’t wanna be mean to my city but
the IQ there feels like a warm room temperature for the potential jurors,
and logic is very hard to follow when people have so many feelings.
Then it becomes the big Lawyer show.
I had a similar experience. I was on a jury and after 2 weeks of testimony I was like … oh thank god this should be like a 5 second deliberation then we can finally be done. But sure enough there was one person on the jury who wasn’t convinced and the more we argued with them the more they became flustered and dug in. It was so bad. In the end we got them to agree on the worst charges so we just took that and let the others go. Makes me stressed out just thinking about it.
It was very similar to what you describe in that they just didn’t “feel” the defendant was guilty. This person ignored all the testimony of the expert witnesses (I suspect a lot of it went over their head anyways), and just made up their mind and nothing was going to change it.
I was foreman on a jury trial a few years ag and we had someone like that on the jury. She kept saying "I just don't see why she (the accused) would do that (commit that crime)". She wasn't able to follow the judge's instructions at all, as she couldn't keep two consecutive thoughts in her head.
The only thing that saved the situation was that once it became 11 v 1, she quickly backed down.
This is the system, and it swings both ways. iirc during the O.J. trial, one or more jurors were clear from the start of deliberations that they would never vote guilty. I don’t know if others were persuaded or caved.
Seems a lot of the comments have some resentment for the juror holding out. And I agree with you. That’s the right of a juror. And that’s how proof beyond a reasonable doubt works. So call it a mistrial and either start over or move on.
Not guilty by reason of insanity most likely based on this. One juror is holding out on a guilty verdict or the judge wouldn't be harping on how the state has to go so far to win that charge.
I was on one (civil case, person v county) and there was a mix of "I think he deserves the money because the county can spare it," "I have done business with the county and they were a pain in the ass, so they should pay up," and "I will switch my verdict if it means I get to go home."
This. I was so excited to serve on a jury, and when we finally got to deliberations I was stunned by the dumb and completely irrelevant arguments that fellow jurors were making.
The good news is that we have studied psychological manipulation of the weak-minded so thoroughly that if you spend enough money on a talented lawyer you can convince a below average intelligence person of almost anything.
You might even convince people that it's only weak-minded, below average intelligence people that can be convinced of almost anything instead of even quite intelligent people.
The last jury I was on had nine people saying guilty and three saying not guilty. After all the back and forths about the evidence, it seemed like we weren’t going to come to a decision.
Then one of the people who was saying guilty basically said that he was never changing his mind, and then two more said the same.
Then one of the not guilty voters said he didn’t feel strongly enough to keep everyone there all night and changed his vote to guilty. The two remaining not guilty votes immediately followed suit, and we were out of there within about twenty minutes.
That seems like a failure of the justice system. People who will decide the fate of someone’s life based on whether they want to go home early are lazy and don’t deserve to be a part of society.
We spoke to the judge, who very concisely explained all that mattered was evidence, after that and a few hours of convincing we got her to change her mind.
Jesus christ. She already admitted "the evidence says not quilty" and it took HOURS to convince her to change her vote.
Some people fundamentally do not give a shit about reality or facts or truth. It's all feels and beliefs for them. Magical religious faith-based type of thinking.
Jurors can weight the evidence however they please [[e.g., "I think all fifteen eyewitnesses are lying, but the defendant seemed believable"]], but when they're sworn in they agree to faithfully apply that evidence to the instructions provided by the judge. They can be removed if the judge finds out they're not.
BUT the judge can only find out if other jurors report them. And even then the first remedy is just warning the person and admonishing them to follow the rules. If they keep it up, they get removed.
If no one reports anything, you get a hung jury.
If all the jurors end up agreeing with them, you get a conviction or an acquittal.
It depends on what they say as well. The other jurors can't just report to the judge "they're being unreasonable" and then the judge kicks them out. They have to say something like "he's guilty because he's black" or something crazy like that. Otherwise you'd have judges kicking out all sorts of jurors just based on the fact that it's 8-1 in the jury votes and nobody wants that.
if you've ever served on a jury, then you know the system gives them the utmost deferential treatment. I think a lot of people are intimidated by a judge and so don't want to speak up when things get hinky in the jury room. The judge really does want fairness (obvy there are some exceptions) and they *really* don't want a case overturned bc of some juror behavior they didn't know about at the time but could have nipped it in the bud had they known.
I've been in the position of having to tell the judge about something a juror did, and I spoke to her clerk, not the judge herself, so no black robe anxiety. She thanked me and said the judge really did need to know about the behavior (which ended up causing a mistrial).
I’ve been a juror for a murder trial and had the same shit going on in the jury room where people were coming up with theories and im like look our job is not to prosecute or defend we are here to hear the facts given—if the prosecution didn’t do a good job of that that’s not our fault. We shouldn’t have to piece it together ourselves.
The jury doesn’t decide if they think someone is guilty. They determine if the prosecution proved they were.
It’s maddening to try to explain this to
people who say “but I think…”. Nope. You don’t get to fill in gaps and guess. The question is: Did. The. State. Prove. Their. Case.
Fuck I did a mock jury about eminent domain acquisition final evaluation and we were trying to determine, “how much should this group get for their land.” I had one woman who said, “what about the mineral rights- (long uninteresting spiel about friend getting screwed about it)” and I had to restrain myself and try to be nice when I explained “if there was valuable minerals under this shitty church it still wouldn’t matter because the land isn’t zoned industrial mining.” Which was never brought up and shouldn’t be considered.
I was on a jury once where some of the jurors ignored the fact that the defendant was guilty based purely on their own testimony during the trial. But because they didn't trust the evidence of the victims, they refused to find them guilty.
Have you never heard of faulty self incrimination? There are loads of cases of people admitting to crimes they didnt commit. Admission of guilt cannot be used alone as evidence of a crime
He is saying the opposite of that. The jury believed the person on trial, when they gave witness testimony that they didn’t do it. They believed this more than the evidence against them.
Can't really go into details too much. Suffice to say, one of the victims said they did x and y, and the defendant basically admitted that they did x and y. There was physical evidence to support it as well. Only x and y was needed for a conviction, but there was also evidence they did a, b, c, d and e as well. They didn't admit to any of the rest.
Jurors ignored that x and y was enough to convict, because they didn't believe the victims about a, b, c, d and e.
Frustrating. People are severely under education or aware of reason. The world must be a truly baffling place to these people. No wonder conspiracy theories abound.
We all use heuristics and bias or prejudice in our day to day. It’s shocking though when I see people being reasoned with who will not budge from unreasonable positions without a second thought and willful ignorance of data and evidence. Feelings and authority are far more compelling to people unfamiliar with critical thinking and rational argument.
Being stubborn and unreasonable used to be negative personality traits. The most belligerent of us have convinced themselves they are virtues.
We don't know that. The admonition given here could cut both ways. He specifically mentions that reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt.
In any case judges are forbidden from asking jurors in the minority to reconsider towards the majority without asking the majority to reconsider towards the minority. It's not the judge's job to lean on one side or the other.
There's no indication as far as I can tell that even the judge knows what the actual split is. There's something about the foreperson saying that one of the juror's is not following the judge's directions, which hints towards 11-1, but even if that's true we still don't know to which side.
Eh, that's what the defense is trying to imply, but they are also trying to play the game. The Defensive team has actually done a wonderful job regardless of what I, or anyone, believes in both the public and court itself. They are really making the prosecutors look stupid. Reminds me very much of the Rittenhouse case and how bad the prosecutor looked there.
There have been cases where all but one juror wanted to give a guilty verdict as well.
One cannot assume the one dissenter is certainly in the wrong, especially considering trials where all 12 jurors have found a defendant wrongfully guilty or wrongfully not guilty.
Part of the challenge is that many jurors will also side with the majority to finally get out of jury duty and return to their jobs, even if they themselves disagree with the majority
What is your source of that information? The jurors are still anonymous to the public at this point and no legitimate sources are confirming their split.
All he knows is there is a split. That's it. He is guessing that because it has taken so long, it is more likely that the hold out is against him, which is a reasonable guess, but that's all it is.
He told media that it came from a note from the jurors:
“Well, when a note that the judge already has says that there are 11 jurors that have made a decision and one juror will not apply reasonable doubt, I think that tells you where they’re at,”
That note does make it seem like the holdout is against aquittal.
Of course, the jury note itself is wrong — just because one juror has a different opinion than the others doesn’t itself mean that juror misunderstands the concept of reasonable doubt. He or she just may have a different opinion about whether it is met in the case.
Hell, it very well could be that the other 11 misunderstand the "reasonable" part of reasonable doubt and ignored the part of the instruction that says "reasonable doubt does not mean any doubt." It's isn't at all uncommon for people to think that if they have any doubt whatsoever, or if there are some far fetched what ifs, that they should acquit.
We don’t know for certain. But given the defense’s response and request to have the juror removed, that’s what it is looking like. I’m watching the trial live, are you?
Chances are that a not insignificant number of the jurors to whom the judge is speaking do not have the education and/or the cognitive ability to understand many of the terms and concepts which he is expressing.
This exactly. I was thinking to myself, "does he not realize a lot of people are really dumb and probably don't have any clue what he is saying?" Or maybe they screen for that in the jury pool?
Judging by various comments I've read on Facebook or heard from friends IRL, the average American strongly conflates the severity of the accused crime with the likelihood of guilt.
In other words, "she killed her kids, therefore she doesn't deserve a trial. Instant death penalty, no Due Process".
The part where not having a trial means we technically don't actually know she's responsible for killing her kids is irrelevant. Kids are dead, therefore we are enraged, therefore no Due Process is required.
The last decade or so has really proven to me how much society is held up by a sliver of the population. If most things we take for granted were put up for a vote we would be living in a hell hole toot sweet.
As they say, the best argument against democracy is democracy, but the best argument for democracy is everything else. We embrace things like jury trial and general voting not because they produce the optimum or ideal result every time, but because the risk of abuse rises exponentially as power concentrates.
oh I just read an article and the quote wasn't "vs 11 jurors" it was "I don't feel it's appropriate to say I side with one juror or the 11" which sounds a whole lot more reasonable to me. The "vs" quote made it sound like the judge would favor the 11, maybe just my reading though.
Yeah this isn't a democracy situation. They don't get an equal vote. Unanimous one way or the other, or else the lawyers have not done a sufficient job of proving their case one way or the other.
I'm no great supporter of jury trials, but at some point you have to accept that the citizens you have placed this responsibility on have made their decisions.
I dont think ive ever seen truer words. A lot of us wont claim to be geniuses but its scary how many people I see that are straight up drinking mercury and calling it a cure levels of brain dead.
This is by design. I was on Jury selection once for a violent criminal case. Both sides immediately went out of their way to remove anyone who had experience, education or knowledge on: Law. History. Sociology. Engineering and Hard Sciences. Questions for the pool were based around quite a bit of that, along with things such as 'Have you ever handled a firearm'.
Questions for the pool were based around quite a bit of that, along with things such as 'Have you ever handled a firearm'.
Questions invariably relate to the facts of the case. I served on a jury. The defendant was accused of stabbing another person for $50 to buy crack. We were asked if we had ever been the victim of a stabbing, were closely related to someone who had been the victim of a stabbing, etc.
My wife got was in jury pool and got picked for 3 cases one after the other. In all three cases she answered that she had "some law study at college level" and in all three she was eliminated from the juries.
There are a huge number of innocent people who have been convicted because the situation is too complex or nuanced for a jury to understand, and they understood that (or were pushed by their lawyer) and ended up taking the plea deal for probation, but they still live with a false conviction. Dumb juries are an unethical/incompetent prosecutors dream. Dumb juries are more common than not. They are selected because of their ignorance or likelihood to agree with the state. Yes I understand voir doir, I'm talking about how things actually work in xyz county you've never heard of.
Its happened to me. I was innocent, the DA was extremely aggressive. My plea deal went from 7 years of prison to 1 year of probation. My decision was 1 year of probation vs. a jury trial and potentially 7 years (or more) if I didn't just take the plea deal. My lawyer said I had a 90% chance the jury would acquit me, but the 10% was a huge gamble, and I may just happen to get a jury who will convict me either way depending on voir doir. Years of my life, away from my young kids, ending my career, or 1 year of probation. What choice would you make? Bear in mind I was innocent the entire time.
The fairy tale of proving your innocence is rare. Its more like you are punished unless you have concrete evidence of you innocence. It's the opposite of how justice is actually supposed to work.
An incredibly similar thing happened to me and I was forced to make a very similar choice. Sending you love, it's fuckin rough. I've literally lost housing and jobs over some shit I didn't do.
Extenuating circumstances like tampering aside, if judges can second guess the jury's verdict, then there is no point in having a jury. A jury isn't a FISA court, it doesn't have to stamp anything put before it.
The founding fathers wanted jury trials specifically to stop corruption and government overreach that could be imposed on the populace from justices on the bench.
You want people to go back and forth for days deciding your fate. You want multiple points of view. You want multiple interpretations. You want argumentation until the jury can finally come to a decision. That is a feature not a bug.
I was on a jury once where we had to be sequestered overnight because of one hold out. It sucked.
I can’t imagine being 6 days into it, stuck talking over the same points hour after hour, with one person holding everyone hostage and no end in sight.
In my trial the 2 holdouts stopped early because of laziness/apathy, even though they never changed their minds. We asked for their side but they didn’t want to explain. Didn’t feel great especially when they were both well-read grad students. They also talked about being harsher on the victim because she’s a woman and therefore privileged..
Why would this be a problem, surely the whole point of a jury of more than 1 would be so you get a cross reference of opinions on the case. Is this juror just supposed to change their mind because they are out voted?
I was on a jury where, surprisingly, most people were pretty level headed and sensible. We had one person though who was just confidently wrong about a particular legal term or phrase. I can't remember what it was. Not just wrong. Very wrong and copping an attitude about it.
So we agreed to ask the Judge for a definition or explanation of that issue and it finally shut them right up.
“Must convince you of the defendant’s guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty.”
That probably leaves open the objection of the juror who is holding out. They’re clearly not convinced of the moral certainty of a not guilty verdict.
Edit: TIL about Moral Certainty in the legal sense. However, I'm not alone in this misunderstanding. In Victor v. Nebraska (1994) the Court said:
We do not condone the use of the phrase. As modern dictionary definitions of moral certainty attest, the common meaning of the phrase has changed since it was used in the Webster instruction, and it may continue to do so to the point that it conflicts with the Winship standard. Indeed, the definitions of reasonable doubt most widely used in the federal courts do not contain any reference to moral certainty.
You don’t need moral certainty for a not guilty verdict. If you don’t have the requisite certainty for a guilty verdict, you don’t find them guilty of that charge.
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.