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
4 minutes 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

1552d64d-98d5-43bf-b139-90b951f84ec0_tex

Posted
31 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

You're saying we're used to disappointment?

What do you expect when a national championship in every sport is the anticipated outcome.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes 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

1) you and I both know that could mean any of 100 different things.

2) just be like me: expect the worst (acquittal), and never be disappointed.

We don't deserve anything good, this timeline has made it clear.  I don't know why any of y'all waste any time hoping for anything good.  Anything good we get is entirely accidental and pure lagniappe in this timeline.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
9 minutes 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

Well, they were not given a written copy of the instructions, which is insane to me for this complex of a case. I'm not surprised at all they asked them to be read again. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

.2) just be like me: expect the worst (acquittal), and never be disappointed.

I tried to get seppuku insurance for my part of the ledge, but I’m priced out now. 

Posted
38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

220098

e44f4fa2-be91-4377-ba61-3e6f83b91a4b_tex

 

Also, I sometimes breathe through my eyelids in court.  And think about banging younger Susan Sarandon.

44ff7d59cb4f7e33c7a35f23f0d4c8adc4ae216f

 

Older Susan Sarandon with much larger tracts of land will do as well.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So people that are insisting that there will be some sort of hung jury is pretty amusing to me.  What you'd have to believe is that an elected prosecutor took a case to the grand jury against a President without being 100% sure they'd get a conviction.  It may not be every charge, but my goodness, no political figure would dare do this without being 100% convinced.  

Juries are wild animals in and of themselves.

I had a sexual assault case hang up because 1 juror misheard testimony regarding yoga pants. 11 to convict. The other 11 looked totally beaten down that they couldn't convince her that she'd misheard the testimony.

A jury a colleague had for his trial somehow had an 18 year old on the panel who fell asleep constantly during the trial. He was the only one who didn't vote to convict.

My partner had a jury hang up on a bank robbery solely because the prosecutor inavertently insulted a woman during jury selection, and felt it was the only way to "have her voice heard."

I had one jury write on the jury form that they thought the charges were totally unjust, and the case should've been dismissed . . . directly below the signature of the presiding juror finding my client guilty. And a corporate attorney was the presiding jury. The judge was pissed.

This jury can easily fuck this up, and it could be for a bizarre reason Stephen King couldn't dream up.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Actually, I don't even know how a jury reaches a verdict without a written copy of the instructions.  This is completely foreign to me. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

When the jury reconvenes tomorrow morning, witness testimony and jury instructions will be read again as they continue deliberations. 

Reading the testimony to the jury should take 30 minutes. It is not yet clear whether the jury wants to hear the instructions in their entirety, and the judge will clear that up tomorrow.

Posted

It sounds to me like there are some who don't really understand the standards and others are trying to inform them why they're voting the way they are. Of course that could go either way, but probably majority leaning guilty. That said, I have very little experience trying criminal cases against ex-presidents for business crimes involving paying off porn stars they banged.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Juries are wild animals in and of themselves.

I had a sexual assault case hang up because 1 juror misheard testimony regarding yoga pants. 11 to convict. The other 11 looked totally beaten down that they couldn't convince her that she'd misheard the testimony.

A jury a colleague had for his trial somehow had an 18 year old on the panel who fell asleep constantly during the trial. He was the only one who didn't vote to convict.

My partner had a jury hang up on a bank robbery solely because the prosecutor inavertently insulted a woman during jury selection, and felt it was the only way to "have her voice heard."

I had one jury write on the jury form that they thought the charges were totally unjust, and the case should've been dismissed . . . directly below the signature of the presiding juror finding my client guilty. And a corporate attorney was the presiding jury. The judge was pissed.

This jury can easily fuck this up, and it could be for a bizarre reason Stephen King couldn't dream up.

Well that's terrifying 

Posted
3 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Juries are wild animals in and of themselves.

I had a sexual assault case hang up because 1 juror misheard testimony regarding yoga pants. 11 to convict. The other 11 looked totally beaten down that they couldn't convince her that she'd misheard the testimony.

A jury a colleague had for his trial somehow had an 18 year old on the panel who fell asleep constantly during the trial. He was the only one who didn't vote to convict.

My partner had a jury hang up on a bank robbery solely because the prosecutor inavertently insulted a woman during jury selection, and felt it was the only way to "have her voice heard."

I had one jury write on the jury form that they thought the charges were totally unjust, and the case should've been dismissed . . . directly below the signature of the presiding juror finding my client guilty. And a corporate attorney was the presiding jury. The judge was pissed.

This jury can easily fuck this up, and it could be for a bizarre reason Stephen King couldn't dream up.

When I was a bailiff, I had what looks like a slam dunk rape trial where two women hung the jury by voting not guilty because they said: “no woman would answer her door wearing that”.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It sounds to me like there are some who don't really understand the standards and others are trying to inform them why they're voting the way they are. Of course that could go either way, but probably majority leaning guilty. That said, I have very little experience trying criminal cases against ex-presidents for business crimes involving paying off porn stars they banged.

Yeah, I read it as possible evidence of some holdouts and an effort to convert them. 

The problem being

IMG_2276.jpeg.d4ce6417668167c1f1c5890c7992a0ff.jpeg

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

When I was a bailiff, I had what looks like a slam dunk rape trial where two women hung the jury by voting not guilty because they said: “no woman would answer her door wearing that”.  

Yep. That we are hoping that one or more juries help us beat this fucker in November is very much a concern. Voters are stupid. Juries are just a small sampling of that stupidity.

Posted
2 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Yep. That we are hoping that one or more juries help us beat this fucker in November is very much a concern. Voters are stupid. Juries are just a small sampling of that stupidity.

"Would you like to put your fate in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty?" is often a fair sales pitch to get your client on board with settlement.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Drool 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Yeah, I read it as possible evidence of some holdouts and an effort to convert them. 

The problem being

IMG_2276.jpeg.d4ce6417668167c1f1c5890c7992a0ff.jpeg

 

… And wasn’t using them anyhow

Posted
1 hour ago, Snake Diggity said:

The earliest possible solution to the Trump problem is if he loses this fall, but far more likely not until he dies, which could be a decade or more away.

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

Posted
2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

another question just came in from the jury:

Are we permitted to award an amount greater than the amount the Plaintiff asked for?

What? That doesn't even make sense. 

Posted
Just now, BamaATL said:

Press your luck

Yep  thank you.  and there's a buzzer to tell another game show host to shut up or he doesn't get to be President again.  And Chuck Woolery moved into my cousin's my neighborhood in the hill country and exchanged MAGA flags.  And Pat Sajak is hanging out with Marjorie Taylor Greene for pro-MAGA fundraisers.  And suddenly Jackie Rodger Junior's $100,000 jackpot wad is the most sane gameshow host in existence.  What in the flying fuck is going on here?  He was a fucking gameshow host.  Then became President to spite Seth Meyers and we're all gonna have to live underground next year because some young people didn't "turn out the vote" over Gaza?  It's not a simulation.  It's not Lobo hyperbole.  We brought this on ourselves.  

Posted
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Would you like to put your fate in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty?" is often a fair sales pitch to get your client on board with settlement.

being a someone who has been [vague description] in 5-10 civil trials a year for the last 20 years (with 15-20x as many engagements that ultimately land on settlement), this has always been my mindset.

but what is weird about that is when i think back over the highest stakes, most complex presentations to juries for unbelievably nuanced liability and damages cases, there are very, very few of them where it wasn't my objective opinion that they got it exactly right.  it is kind of mind blowing to me as a lot of the ones i am involved in are some seriously, down in the weeds nuanced issues related to highly complex finance concepts or other industry concepts but damned if i don't underestimate the jury almost every time. it's wild. can never take it for granted obviously but i have had to remind myself of that a number of times sitting in the back of the room when they seat the jury at the beginning of a month long trial dealing with shit that would be hard to communicate to a grad school finance professor and thinking to myself "there's no fucking way."

not that this little anecdote informs this impending outcome.

 

Just now, immamac said:

What? That doesn't even make sense. 

you new around here?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, dcbc said:

I don't recall Pecker's testimony being as highly assailed as was Cohen's.  So I agree, the fact that that's where their focus lies is bad news for Individual Uno.

Yep, that's my thinking.  Sounds an awful lot like they're looking for similar testimony about Trump's knowledge/involvement without relying on Cohen, whom someone(s) is/are saying "I don't think I can trust that guy."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

another question just came in from the jury:

Are we permitted to award an amount greater than the amount the Plaintiff asked for?

Isn't that from The Verdict?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, sidis said:

being a someone who has been [vague description] in 5-10 civil trials a year for the last 20 years (with 15-20x as many engagements that ultimately land on settlement), this has always been my mindset.

but what is weird about that is when i think back over the highest stakes, most complex presentations to juries for unbelievably nuanced liability and damages cases, there are very, very few of them where it wasn't my objective opinion that they got it exactly right.  it is kind of mind blowing to me as a lot of the ones i am involved in are some seriously, down in the weeds nuanced issues related to highly complex finance concepts or other industry concepts but damned if i don't underestimate the jury almost every time. it's wild. can never take it for granted obviously but i have had to remind myself of that a number of times sitting in the back of the room when they seat the jury at the beginning of a month long trial dealing with shit that would be hard to communicate to a grad school finance professor and thinking to myself "there's no fucking way."

not that this little anecdote informs this impending outcome.

 

you new around here?

My sense as well.  On occasion, one is flabbergasted by a verdict.  But more often that's because you're still believing your own BS.  In the fullness of time, you see that they probably got it pretty right.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, sidis said:

being a someone who has been [vague description] in 5-10 civil trials a year for the last 20 years (with 15-20x as many engagements that ultimately land on settlement), this has always been my mindset.

but what is weird about that is when i think back over the highest stakes, most complex presentations to juries for unbelievably nuanced liability and damages cases, there are very, very few of them where it wasn't my objective opinion that they got it exactly right.  it is kind of mind blowing to me as a lot of the ones i am involved in are some seriously, down in the weeds nuanced issues related to highly complex finance concepts or other industry concepts but damned if i don't underestimate the jury almost every time. it's wild. can never take it for granted obviously but i have had to remind myself of that a number of times sitting in the back of the room when they seat the jury at the beginning of a month long trial dealing with shit that would be hard to communicate to a grad school finance professor and thinking to myself "there's no fucking way."

not that this little anecdote informs this impending outcome.

 

you new around here?

Excellent post.  You've got more jury trials than me, but I've said the same thing.  I have had one verdict that the jury got dead-wrong, but....they got it dead-wrong because the judge utterly fucked up and the way he laid out the case and the jury charge, it would have been very hard for them NOT to get it dead-wrong.  In other words, in light of the case and questions that were actually presented to them...they got it right.  The error was the judge's fault.

Which ultimately worked out, as we got the entire thing flipped -- full-on reverse-and-render -- by the court of appeals.  

But swallowing that shitty verdict at the time SUCKED.  And it took four years of waiting to get it fixed.  I hated that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, that's my thinking.  Sounds an awful lot like they're looking for similar testimony about Trump's knowledge/involvement without relying on Cohen, whom someone(s) is/are saying "I don't think I can trust that guy."

That seems — less than ideal.

Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

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

i am not a lawyer but i often do their jobs for them when shit starts to matter.

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Excellent post.  You've got more jury trials than me, but I've said the same thing.  I have had one verdict that the jury got dead-wrong, but....they got it dead-wrong because the judge utterly fucked up and the way he laid out the case and the jury charge, it would have been very hard for them NOT to get it dead-wrong.  In other words, in light of the case and questions that were actually presented to them...they got it right.  The error was the judge's fault.

Which ultimately worked out, as we got the entire thing flipped -- full-on reverse-and-render -- by the court of appeals.  

But swallowing that shitty verdict at the time SUCKED.  And it took four years of waiting to get it fixed.  I hated that.

the only truly bitter pill i have had to swallow in my career was a bench trial from a visiting judge assigned from an entirely unrelated federal district who had absolutely no fucking subject matter experience whatsoever and completely fucked up the entire class certification process so bad that when i [played my role] at the merits trial in showing the screwed up [vague stuff] that the plaintiff did to get to their numbers and how it couldn't be done on a class-wide basis given the [vague stuff], i was threatened with contempt.  case currently pending under consideration at the [x]th circuit court of appeals and i cannot wait for them to fucking buttfuck that fucking asshole so hard on a laundry list of error that would make aileen cannon blush.

i can't think of a jury that i wanted to kick in the nuts. just a few i very much wanted to walk over and shake awake when it was time for them to listen to the important part.

Posted
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

So people that are insisting that there will be some sort of hung jury is pretty amusing to me.  What you'd have to believe is that an elected prosecutor took a case to the grand jury against a President without being 100% sure they'd get a conviction.  It may not be every charge, but my goodness, no political figure would dare do this without being 100% convinced.  

In the non-Upside Down World, Trump would’ve been disqualified as a legit candidate for POTUS many, many months — if not years ago. But here we are with him potentially being the man to beat.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Excellent post.  You've got more jury trials than me, but I've said the same thing.  I have had one verdict that the jury got dead-wrong, but....they got it dead-wrong because the judge utterly fucked up and the way he laid out the case and the jury charge, it would have been very hard for them NOT to get it dead-wrong.  In other words, in light of the case and questions that were actually presented to them...they got it right.  The error was the judge's fault.

 

Which apparently is the source of the presumption that the jury follows the trial court's instructions.

Posted
9 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That seems — less than ideal.

Eh, probably to be expected.  I remember thinking during Pecker's testimony that they had the thing about wrapped up, just needed someone to authenticate the checks.

But that was a long time ago and a couple days of Michael Cohen ago.

So they show the skeptic that evidence and bingo bango.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Is he talking about his lawyers, the thugs, that could have called some witnesses?  Jesus, Donald.  They probably could have called Eric, Don Jr, and Laura Trump, too (not sure Ivanka would vouch for you).  Why weren't they called?  Huh? And who is he talking about at the end.  

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...