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, 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? 

No shroomies.  No shroomies. No shroomies.  Now!   
 

But yes when he dies or sed

Posted
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

These people should all commit seppuku.  

It’s hilarious because they are miserable and have to try hard to defend somebody over payments to a porn star.  Very Christian of them.

Posted

They all either bend the knee or get completely swept up in RINO labels.  It’d be humorous if there wasn’t so much at stake.  

It really is amazing to behold, they all hitch their wagons to someone who is likely to die soon and showing signs of dementia.  No one has proven remotely capable of filling the evil void that is DJT.  

I agree that the only engine for change in the GOP will be his death, and then what are they going to do?  I hope for a protracted, self destructive thunderdome where the bulk of the party is marginalized but it’s been reinforced that evil tends to prevail.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Homercles said:

They all either bend the knee spread the cheeks or get completely swept up in RINO labels.

FFT

Posted

Earlier, I had said I was doubtful about convictions on just some of the counts.  I based that on the mistaken recollection that all 34 counts corresponded to checks to Cohen stroked by or on behalf of Trump.

I was reminded that some of the counts are ledger entries, some are invoices from Cohen, and some are the checks themselves.

So, yeah, I could see the jury convicting only on the checks, for example.

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

Earlier, I had said I was doubtful about convictions on just some of the counts.  I based that on the mistaken recollection that all 34 counts corresponded to checks to Cohen stroked by or on behalf of Trump.

I was reminded that some of the counts are ledger entries, some are invoices from Cohen, and some are the checks themselves.

So, yeah, I could see the jury convicting only on the checks, for example.

Fine with me.

Although I'm sure we'd be treated to some "Trump was only convicted on 16 of the 34 felony counts.... How bad is this for Biden?".

Posted
15 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Fine with me.

Although I'm sure we'd be treated to some "Trump was only convicted on 16 of the 34 felony counts.... How bad is this for Biden?".

 

And it will be Dana Bash or Katy Tur saying this

Posted

Jury asking MORE questions.  Ok, I've never been on a jury, but it seems like if you've just sat through weeks of evidence and arguments and you still aren't sure what you're really supposed to be doing or how you are supposed to come to a decision...this doesn't seem good.

Posted

So I've been on a couple of juries, including being the foreperson on a cap murder jury.  In that one we buzzed out 5-6 times.  At one point there was a video that had been introduced into evidence we wanted to review, primarily because one person couldn't recollect exactly what had happened while the rest of us could and it was a "It's not that I don't believe the rest of you when you tell me what exactly happened but this is serious so I want to see it for myself." situation which of course I think we all respected (I certainly did).  Others were more mundane requests about the instructions (we did not have them with us and this was in Texas so not sure what the deal was there) So while I am no law dog having been on the inside a few times it's likely hard to say for sure what is going on in there that precipitates questions.  

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
15 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Jury asking MORE questions.  Ok, I've never been on a jury, but it seems like if you've just sat through weeks of evidence and arguments and you still aren't sure what you're really supposed to be doing or how you are supposed to come to a decision...this doesn't seem good.

It’s not atypical. The rules of evidence and procedure keep a fair amount of information away from the jury. It’s hard to know whether you’ve thoroughly covered a topic to a layman’s satisfaction. Sustained objections will definitely peak interest, too, and that often leads to jury notes.

In bench trials it can be obvious how hard it is to convey your message because the judge will take over questioning a witness, if something is unclear. Doesn’t happen to me too often, and when it does it’s always to clean up a finer point, but I’ve had opposing counsel’s case practically made my a judge taking over the examination a few times. 

Add in this bullshit about not having the charge, and I’d be surprised if we’re done with the jury notes. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)

image.png.6b46735bc95e651c83f1d4ba87c52fa9.png

 

I've also been thinking about Trump's claim the trial is rigged because the prosecution didn't call witnesses favorable to his case. I can imagine Trump telling his lawyers where the best chance of appeal lies.

He was denied a competent defense due to the dereliciton of the prosecution.

I look forward to Clarence Thomas' majority opinion sustaining this claim.

Edited by RomaVicta
Gator beat me on the photo. Well done.
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, dcbc said:

What a bizarre jury instruction.  It's actually really good, but I haven't ever seen anything like it.  

I would’ve gone with the frog and the scorpion story myself

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I would’ve gone with the frog and the scorpion story myself

I think the Did someone make it rain? analogy is most apropos given the facts of this case.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
54 minutes ago, dcbc said:

What a bizarre jury instruction.  It's actually really good, but I haven't ever seen anything like it.  

 

1 hour from now.  Jury finds Trump guilty of making it rain on Stormy Daniels.

Jury bout to go full Milli Vanilli with a surprise verdict no one saw coming.

Posted

everything I've seen about the jury questions is that it indicates they are taking this seriously and likely understand the gravity of deciding whether or not to convict a former president for the first time ever.

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

everything I've seen about the jury questions is that it indicates they are taking this seriously and likely understand the gravity of deciding whether or not to convict a former president for the first time ever.

This is the part that worries me.  Will they acquit or be hung just because they are scared of the repercussions?

Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

This is the part that worries me.  Will they acquit or be hung just because they are scared of the repercussions?

No they just want to get it right.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
11 hours ago, BamaATL said:

I wouldn't hold out much hope, they zero honor.  

Nor do they feel shame. Too bad, it's such an unpleasant feeling and they deserve to marinate in it for the rest of their lives.

Posted
3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Jury asking MORE questions.  Ok, I've never been on a jury, but it seems like if you've just sat through weeks of evidence and arguments and you still aren't sure what you're really supposed to be doing or how you are supposed to come to a decision...this doesn't seem good.

Feels like some of the jurors fried their brains on meth during the long weekend break. Should have locked them in a windowless room with no food, water or A/C until they returned with a guilty verdict. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, The Dog said:

everything I've seen about the jury questions is that it indicates they are taking this seriously and likely understand the gravity of deciding whether or not to convict a former president for the first time ever.

Or they have a couple of hold outs who “just aren’t sure”. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

Or they have a couple of hold outs who “just aren’t sure”. 

Who knows?  Seriously, in decades of doing this... I can honestly say "who knows?"  My first jury trial, we had one juror who struck me as an "overthinker" - I wanted to strike him, the partner kept him.  Jury goes out and deliberates all day before returning a verdict in our favor.  Ask the foreman what all went on, and he said "we were all ready to come back with our verdict in an hour, but that dude [juror I was worried about] made us go through each and every piece of evidence, and hold it up to each and every jury question, which took forever."  I can't begrudge him wanting to be thorough -- he took his job seriously.  But I'd have enjoyed winning in one hour vs. winning in six hours.

Or it could be holdouts.

Or it could be reasonable people trying to reign in people who just want to hang him now.

"Who knows?"

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Who knows?  Seriously, in decades of doing this... I can honestly say "who knows?"  My first jury trial, we had one juror who struck me as an "overthinker" - I wanted to strike him, the partner kept him.  Jury goes out and deliberates all day before returning a verdict in our favor.  Ask the foreman what all went on, and he said "we were all ready to come back with our verdict in an hour, but that dude [juror I was worried about] made us go through each and every piece of evidence, and hold it up to each and every jury question, which took forever."  I can't begrudge him wanting to be thorough -- he took his job seriously.  But I'd have enjoyed winning in one hour vs. winning in six hours.

Or it could be holdouts.

Or it could be reasonable people trying to reign in people who just want to hang him now.

"Who knows?"

Ain't nobody know shit.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Who knows?  Seriously, in decades of doing this... I can honestly say "who knows?"  My first jury trial, we had one juror who struck me as an "overthinker" - I wanted to strike him, the partner kept him.  Jury goes out and deliberates all day before returning a verdict in our favor.  Ask the foreman what all went on, and he said "we were all ready to come back with our verdict in an hour, but that dude [juror I was worried about] made us go through each and every piece of evidence, and hold it up to each and every jury question, which took forever."  I can't begrudge him wanting to be thorough -- he took his job seriously.  But I'd have enjoyed winning in one hour vs. winning in six hours.

Or it could be holdouts.

Or it could be reasonable people trying to reign in people who just want to hang him now.

"Who knows?"

Yes, that was my point. I’ve seen all kinds of crazy shit. About the only thing I know for certain is that juries do like to wrap things up on a Friday. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, hookem2010 said:

Nor do they feel shame. Too bad, it's such an unpleasant feeling and they deserve to marinate in it for the rest of their lives.

Juries are weird. My CSB jury experience to help fill this dead time.

I am not a lawyer. I am a licensed  CPA, but I do not practice since I run a small construction company.

Civil case  Travis County court.

Background: Late Middle aged black guy dies on the operating table durring biopsy because surgeon knicked a vital artery in a delicate proceedure. The deceased was terminal with heart disease and some other ailments and had just a few months to live.

Family sues Dr. for negligence asserting either he fucked up or should never had performed the proceedure on such a compromised individual. Seeking only moderate damages in the 100-200k range ( or less) as compensation for stealing away their last days with him and his oppprtunity to get his affairs in order etc.

Lawyers got the jury up to speed on the ins and outs of the actual procedure and the plaintiff called members of the family who cried on the stand as some kind of emotional appeal.

Plantif calls their expert witness, a Dr. In the same line of work who calls out defendants negligence and demonstrates with various exhibits. The guy was credible enough and believable.

So I'm thinking the defense is going to call their own expert witness to cover up the the plaintiff's guy...and they do. The only thing is that its the the Dr. being sued...and wouldn't you know it, he advocated for himself.

So we get back to the jury room for deliberations and I'm thinking this is pretty cut and dry and we need to start thinking about the damages.

So we take a vote, and Im the only jurror who wants to find the Dr. liable. WTF people? This Dr. couldn't find one other Dr to back him up and we are just going let him cover up an expert witness?

I held up that jury for 3 days before I finally gave up. I have no idea whether the Dr. was negligent or not, but the case that was presented in his defense was ridiculously weak since their only expert witness had the mother of all conflicts of interest.

Looking back on it, I think some of it was pride and stupidity on the jury. I also think there were a few racists on the jury.  Still, I couldn't beleive that there was not one other person on that jury who would find for the plantif.

There were other things that also caugjt my attention.  The Dr.'s/insurance company lawyers were much better than the plaintiff's. Their suits were better, their assistants were better, their evidence was slicker and more polished, and their rapport with the jury was better. Their client was composed and well dressed while the plantiff side looked poor, desperate, bewildered, and affraid....and black.  The whole thing seemed unfair, except for, you know, the actual evidence.

I was not too happy with myself for giving in, but there was no talking sense to those guys and I was a single dad at the time who had more obligations besides work.

I left that courtroom pretty down on the American legal system. I dont know how you lawyers do it. Never trust a jury.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Who knows?  Seriously, in decades of doing this... I can honestly say "who knows?"  My first jury trial, we had one juror who struck me as an "overthinker" - I wanted to strike him, the partner kept him.  Jury goes out and deliberates all day before returning a verdict in our favor.  Ask the foreman what all went on, and he said "we were all ready to come back with our verdict in an hour, but that dude [juror I was worried about] made us go through each and every piece of evidence, and hold it up to each and every jury question, which took forever."  I can't begrudge him wanting to be thorough -- he took his job seriously.  But I'd have enjoyed winning in one hour vs. winning in six hours.

Or it could be holdouts.

Or it could be reasonable people trying to reign in people who just want to hang him now.

"Who knows?"

image.png.f1fc5f179c3c19d3d3fe02f480462dec.png

Posted
6 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

I dont know how you lawyers do it.

Usually, during voir dire, they find out we're lawyers and look for a way to not have us on the jury.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Juries are weird. My CSB jury experience to help fill this dead time.

I am not a lawyer. I am a licensed  CPA, but I do not practice since I run a small construction company.

Civil case  Travis County court.

Background: Late Middle aged black guy dies on the operating table durring biopsy because surgeon knicked a vital artery in a delicate proceedure. The deceased was terminal with heart disease and some other ailments and had just a few months to live.

Family sues Dr. for negligence asserting either he fucked up or should never had performed the proceedure on such a compromised individual. Seeking only moderate damages in the 100-200k range ( or less) as compensation for stealing away their last days with him and his oppprtunity to get his affairs in order etc.

Lawyers got the jury up to speed on the ins and outs of the actual procedure and the plaintiff called members of the family who cried on the stand as some kind of emotional appeal.

Plantif calls their expert witness, a Dr. In the same line of work who calls out defendants negligence and demonstrates with various exhibits. The guy was credible enough and believable.

So I'm thinking the defense is going to call their own expert witness to cover up the the plaintiff's guy...and they do. The only thing is that its the the Dr. being sued...and wouldn't you know it, he advocated for himself.

So we get back to the jury room for deliberations and I'm thinking this is pretty cut and dry and we need to start thinking about the damages.

So we take a vote, and Im the only jurror who wants to find the Dr. liable. WTF people? This Dr. couldn't find one other Dr to back him up and we are just going let him cover up an expert witness?

I held up that jury for 3 days before I finally gave up. I have no idea whether the Dr. was negligent or not, but the case that was presented in his defense was ridiculously weak since their only expert witness had the mother of all conflicts of interest.

Looking back on it, I think some of it was pride and stupidity on the jury. I also think there were a few racists on the jury.  Still, I couldn't beleive that there was not one other person on that jury who would find for the plantif.

There were other things that also caugjt my attention.  The Dr.'s/insurance company lawyers were much better than the plaintiff's. Their suits were better, their assistants were better, their evidence was slicker and more polished, and their rapport with the jury was better. Their client was composed and well dressed while the plantiff side looked poor, desperate, bewildered, and affraid....and black.  The whole thing seemed unfair, except for, you know, the actual evidence.

I was not too happy with myself for giving in, but there was no talking sense to those guys and I was a single dad at the time who had more obligations besides work.

I left that courtroom pretty down on the American legal system. I dont know how you lawyers do it. Never trust a jury.

 

I thought civil trials don't have to be unanimous? I was on the jury for a civil trial once. We were 10-2. Spent 30ish minutes trying to convince the two holdouts but then just said fuck it because the judge told us 10-2 was enough.



×
×
  • Create New...