Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

oh fuckity-fuck.  The jury also asked that the jury instructions be read again.

That would be good for the defense.

I think I jinxed this thing with my jury note story post

Jury:  We would like for the jury instructions to be read again.

Judge:  No.

Easy enough.

Posted
4 minutes ago, strangulation! said:

I bet your clients strenuously object to being charged ungodly rates for y'all to post all day, every day, on the internet

friends-ross.gif

Posted

I actually take it as a pretty good sign that they pretty quickly requested to re-hear Pecker's testimony and the jury instructions. I think if there was a Trumper on the jury who's determined to hang it no matter what, it would've taken more time before they wanted to go back to the evidence and instructions.  That indicates there's something specific a holdout may want clarified, meaning they're trying to take the process seriously. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Donald, these key witnesses -- could your attorneys have called them to the witness stand?

There’s a gag order, ya stupid sip

  • Haha 5
Posted
52 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I think there is a non-insignificant chance that the next President, regardless of whether its Biden or Trump, is assassinated in 2025.

I'm just about fully convinced that since the Secret Service kept Obama out of reach from all the deranged rednecks, they can pretty much foil any attempt.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I'm just about fully convinced that since the Secret Service kept Obama out of reach from all the deranged rednecks, they can pretty much foil any attempt.

It's food.  They kept several presidents protected and alive.  But it's about food.  The man eats in the same three places every single week.  It's not that hard.  There have been bullets and illnesses and the like.  But getting to their food has been an afterthought.  The protocol to protect the food is 99% steel.  But the guy eats at one of the three restaurants every single week.  No shopping, no cooking, no nothing.  It would cause a lot of trauma to regular Americans dining at one his properties, but it's really not that hard.  When you know what someone will eat or drink and when they eat or drink it................there hasn't been an easier way to get to somebody in decades.  There is a SS agent right now grappling with this reality.  But the good news is he doesn't have to make any tough choices.  The shitbag appears to be dying on his own.

Posted
38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I actually take it as a pretty good sign that they pretty quickly requested to re-hear Pecker's testimony and the jury instructions. I think if there was a Trumper on the jury who's determined to hang it no matter what, it would've taken more time before they wanted to go back to the evidence and instructions.  That indicates there's something specific a holdout may want clarified, meaning they're trying to take the process seriously. 

Could easily be that, or it could be that they picked up on the prosecution's closing that they could convict without Cohen's testimony and said let's lean on Pecker.  The jury's like a tripod.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Well thoughts and prayers to the Bream family on her upcoming homicide.  Or suicide.  Or accidental death.  

I know I annoyingly post multiple times that these people are gonna end up murdering one another, but I didn't realize it was going to actually occur.  I guess it'll be fun to watch though........

Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, what I've taken from today's proceedings is that surly is 95% lawyers.

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

The other 5% are offensive coordinators.

  • 46% of Surly are lawyers
  • 46% of Surly are doctors
  • 2% of Surly are both
  • 2% of Surly are pilots
  • 2% of Surly are engineers (1 member of Surly is a lawyer and an engineer, but the stats don't reflect it)
  • 2% of Surly are in the entertainment industry
  • 2% of Surly are math majors
1 hour ago, South Austin said:

spacer.png

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

What a great fucking movie that is.

Check the movie forum, he and Brad Pitt have a new movie coming out where they clean things up.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, bluto said:

Sid Bream gonna come to the defense of his sister in law?!

the guy who was literally one of the first handful of players drafted  from Liberty University.  Now the birthplace of MAGA higher-ed  Who wore an actual painters cap as we're talking about painting houses.  And is related to Shannon Bream who is about to get her house painted.  What the fuck people?  I swear to the heavens, Andy Van Slyke is going to be a member of the Cabinet in a year's term.  Why is this happening?  

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

lawdogs:  why can't the jury have written instructions?

 

 

Judge's choice here I think. It is fairly common for juries to be provided written copies in other jurisdictions. I don't know about New York though.

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Judge's choice here I think. It is fairly common for juries to be provided written copies in other jurisdictions. I don't know about New York though.

Yeah, in Texas, they roll back there with the charge (with instructions) and fill it out.

 

Edit:  Here's the answer.  It appears as though Trump objected to their being able to take a written charge into deliberations.

 

Thus far, the Court of Appeals has held that it is error to provide a
deliberating jury with a written copy of a complete final charge, or portions
thereof, over a defendant’s objection. People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980,
982 (1993); People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591–592 (1987).

A defendant may, however, consent, or impliedly consent by failing
to timely object, to the submission of a written copy of the court’s entire final
instructions to the jury. People v. Muhammad, 34 N.Y.3d 1152 (2020). If the
court does provide a copy of its written final instructions, it needs to instruct
the jury on the use of the written instructions.

 

No wonder they're asking questions about instructions.  34 counts and a complex case.  I'm glad they are.  I'm less concerned about their asking about the instructions.  I don't think they necessarily have a strong hold-out, I think they have more than they can remember and more than they were able to take notes on (or maybe their notes on the instructions conflict).  And that was Trump's plan.  But they appear to be made of sterner stuff and have a job to do.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Yeah, in Texas, they roll back there with the charge (with instructions) and fill it out.

 

Edit:  Here's the answer.  It appears as though Trump objected to their being able to take a written charge into deliberations.

 

Thus far, the Court of Appeals has held that it is error to provide a
deliberating jury with a written copy of a complete final charge, or portions
thereof, over a defendant’s objection. People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980,
982 (1993); People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591–592 (1987).

A defendant may, however, consent, or impliedly consent by failing
to timely object, to the submission of a written copy of the court’s entire final
instructions to the jury. People v. Muhammad, 34 N.Y.3d 1152 (2020). If the
court does provide a copy of its written final instructions, it needs to instruct
the jury on the use of the written instructions.

 

No wonder they're asking questions about instructions.  34 counts and a complex case.  I'm glad they are.  I'm less concerned about their asking about the instructions.  I don't think they necessarily have a strong hold-out, I think they have more than they can remember and more than they were able to take notes on (or maybe their notes on the instructions conflict).

That's fucked up and a ticket to jury nullification.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's fucked up and a ticket to jury nullification.

Unintentional jury nullification on the jury's part.  Good on them for sticking with it and trying to get it right (two lawyers on the panel probably doesn't hurt).  I was concerned that if they deliberate past tomorrow, it might not go as well for the good guys.  But this may take a while.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Unintentional jury nullification on the jury's part.  Good on them for sticking with it and trying to get it right (two lawyers on the panel probably doesn't hurt).  I was concerned that if they deliberate past tomorrow, it might not go as well for the good guys.  But this may take a while.

Right, on the unintentional.

I suspect that the mere fact that it is a former president, even a shitheel like Trump, is going to make this a slow jury, even if not particularly riven with dissent.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I heard an interview today with a woman who had been a juror on a trial that lasted two months. Deliberations took over a week. Unanimous guilty verdict. 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Horndog said:

I heard an interview today with a woman who had been a juror on a trial that lasted two months. Deliberations took over a week. Unanimous guilty verdict. 

At this point, one of them probably has asked the rest why they can't have the charge and instructions back there, and one of the lawyers has explained why.  Seems like something that would be discussed.

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I hope every time the jury comes back in to hear the instructions read the judge, prophesies it by saying “ because the defendant objected to your having these, I am reading them once again”

I hope he doesn't.  No reason to offer appellate ammo to the defense.   But I hope that, internally, they understand that fact.  And I suspect, with two NY lawyers on the jury, they do.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

cunts gonna cunt

 

 

HE's a much more brilliant legal scholar than I.  But two things Ted---legal issues are not settled by general elections apart from our judicial process.  As a former Solicitor General, you should know that.  and then second---the painting off your right shoulder looks like some kinda weird, twisted up cock.  You fucking sickie....

Posted
9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

cunts gonna cunt

 

 

Cruz is gonna get secret service on his ass asking for a juror to beat the shit out of Trump like that.  

Posted
6 hours ago, YGIFS said:

What was the gameshow where you'd have to click the buzzer to avoid the whammy guy?  

How has no one directed @YGIFS to try to come up with a game show involving the apprentice and a small, mushroom shaped buzzer to avoid the whammy guy yet? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, TDunk said:

How has no one directed @YGIFS to try to come up with a game show involving the apprentice and a small, mushroom shaped buzzer to avoid the whammy guy yet? 

And the whammy guy is of course trump 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...