Jump to content

washparkhorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    9831
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by washparkhorn

  1. Jury coming back to the courtroom to watch videos - without anyone present (it becomes the jury deliberation room temporarily). The bailiffs are checking the courtroom for listening/recording devices left in the church pews behind the bar.
  2. That's an important point to those of us outside the courtroom. OJ's jury consultant has been present for the Defense and may be providing insight to the Defense team on the jury's group psychology. As you point out, none of us have been able to watch how the jury's reaction to certain evidence.
  3. Bari Weiss of the University of Austin at Texas - where are you when you are needed? Oh yeah - grifting.
  4. That's how I see it. Two bites at the apple. But a verdict for the State would change the narrative, I suppose, so they want to avoid it.
  5. Great question. Hiring local counsel to ride bitch seat makes sense (and wise to soothe the local yokels). If I was advising him, I would recommend bringing in the sharp shooters.
  6. Agree. I was surprised the Defense asked for a mistrial without prejudice. I suspect Defense expected an immediate verdict. Waiting for a verdict does strange things to lawyers.
  7. I know (sorry for not being clear) - I was paraphrasing the judge. VLC is pretty common in courts, from my experience. It's an ugly interface, but it works (and it is a free download for parties with limited financial means).
  8. Correct. When the video was received by the Detective, he airdropped it to the prosecutor's office, who tried to airdrop it to a non-apple file. The prosecution then tried to send it via email, which (allegedly, but could be true) compressed the .mov file. Embarrassing for legal professionals who should know to exchange documents. Now the defense is asking for a non-prejudicial mistrial - meaning a new trial.
  9. VLC talk just occurred. Judge - I have no idea what VLC is.
  10. The prosecution sent it when they received it (after Tucker Carlson bought the right to the video). Defense says there was not adequate exchange of the video because it was in .mov format and their non-apple phone plays the file in a compressed format (I think goes the D argument).
  11. I think it's part of the urban/flyover country divide. Fly by the seat of their pants appears to be the rule in Kenosha. In real life, good lawyers worry about evidence and admissibility before a trial. Disputes are handled with pretrial motions (motions in limine) to include or exclude evidence - not when the jury has the case.
  12. Apparently you have been called out a someone who struggles with intelligence, if I am reading between the lines correctly. Don't take that head down/ass up is apparently the suggestion from @elguapo
  13. The "i don't know what a .mov file is" is not a good look for the legal profession. Clowns indeed.
  14. Local Yokel lawyering (both sides). And a judge unable to untangle the mess created by the lawyers. That poor jury twiddling their thumbs waiting for lawyers and a judge to talk about Tucker Carlson evidence. Rule of thumb for civilians - the jury can use the exhibits while deliberating. The judge is correct on that principle of law.
  15. The judge is making sense regarding the province of the jury to re-watch the videos.
  16. This morning the jury requested to view videos admitted into evidence. They appear to be resolving unknowns or points of disagreement - or they just want to see it again to validate beliefs/disbeliefs. It slows the process down, generally. It's common. But it may be also the jury agreeing with each other, but there is one loose end they want to cleanup, which, in that case, they could decide minutes after re-watching the footage.
×
×
  • Create New...