|
https://twitter.com/conradjwilson/status/790697468891574273
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
lol it's going to be a hung jury, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:wearing american flag poo poo is desecration Wearing American flag stuff isn't desecration, turning an American flag into something is
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Starshark posted:lol it's going to be a hung jury, isn't it? Why hurry perfection? I mean, getting jury sequestered is like a free vacation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Given the number of defendants and charges, the fact that this is taking more than two days is pretty much normal, I think, not a sign of a hang or a not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Why hurry perfection? I mean, getting jury sequestered is like a free vacation. You been on a jury? For more than unruly cat woman or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Starshark posted:lol it's going to be a hung jury, isn't it? Nah. There are lots of charges, and to do the job right they have to look at each charge one at time and see if the government met the standard of that particular charge, and then formally vote on it. Even if they only spend 1 hour per charge, it's going to take a couple days to get through it all. If it was me I'd want to take a couple days just to make it look good, even if I walked out of the courtroom sure that they are all guilty. You don't want the nut cases to think you're a plant or bought off or part of the conspiracy. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Still a shame we couldn't have the guilty verdict and summary execution today on UN Day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:OBJECTION/SUSTANINED-OBJECTION/SUSTANINED-OBJECTION/SUSTAINED The real trick is when your objection gets sustained by starting to stand up before you even open your mouth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Wearing American flag stuff isn't desecration, turning an American flag into something is What if the clothes have a gold fringe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Hobnob posted:What if the clothes have a gold fringe? Then you are a Free MACHO Man on the land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Pac-Manioc Root posted:Then you are a Free MACHO Man on the land. PBUH.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Pac-Manioc Root posted:Then you are a Free MACHO Man on the land. Oh yeah, oh yeah this is the place the place to be yeah but I don't consent to joinder oh yeah, yeah, oh yeah 'cause this is an admiralty court not common law oh no, not today, not tomorrow, not any day of the week because I am free, oh yeah, a free man on the land oh yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
I ain't no ship, brother, but the evil government will have you believe my name is "HMS Jabroni"
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Fiend posted:I ain't no ship, brother, but the evil government will have you believe my name is "HMS Jabroni" The legal fiction HMS JABRONI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:
This has got to be the absolute lowest point in the judge's career.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The real trick is when your objection gets sustained by starting to stand up before you even open your mouth. Scrub. The key is to be able to shoot a look at the judge before you even have to stand up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Sentencing for Cavalier/Booda: https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/790996270009556992 Looks like any time he gets in the NV trial is to be served concurrently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
I don't think you can serve concurrently with time served. Time seved is 'okay, you're free to go, your time before trial counts as your sentence."
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I don't think you can serve concurrently with time served. Time seved is 'okay, you're free to go, your time before trial counts as your sentence." Yes you can. If I have been in custody for 8 months on case A, and am sentenced to 8 months on that case, I get out today on credit for time served. If I have case B, being prosecuted by the same entity, they can agree that those 8 months will apply to that case and will therefore be served concurrently. If I get 12 months on the next case, I will get 4 month. Also, I suspect this means he's snitching on the NV case and has a deal worked out there as well (probably for 8 months). "Time-served" is not an actual sentence, "8 months" is. Requesting time served is just a shorthand to the judge for "sentence him to all his credits and no more and release him." In the minutes, it will read "sentenced to 8 months, credit 8 months."
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Edit: Nvm, answered above. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
There's also the three years of probation to follow confinement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
So what does this mean? https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/791003564415983616 Is it literally just that the jury wants to ask some questions before they make decisions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:So what does this mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
When jurors have questions (whether they can consider certain information, whether they can get a clarification on a jury instruction, etc.) it is up to the court to provide (or decline to provide) an answer. Because a trial is more or less a zero sum game, the precise answer given likely benefits one side at the other's expense to some degree or another. As a result, the judge doesn't just answer the question immediately, the parties argue over the answer and then the court crafts the answer and gives it to the jury. It's more or less addenda to the jury instructions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Thanks! Here are the questions: https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/791021686946566144 https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/791021767384965120 Those both look very bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Wait, how did a former Land Management employee not get tossed out during juror selection?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:Thanks! Nah. What they read to me is - the top three are going down for all charges. The rest of the people are going down for only part of the charges. The potentially biased juror will be replaced with an alternate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Micheal_scott_noNoNoooNOOOO.mp4
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
are jury notes usually released to the public before a verdict?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
lmao step up your voir dire game defense counsel. Wouldn't be shocking based on those questions if one or more juriors are trying to find a way to avoid convicting Fry and Medenbach on the weapons charges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
is it possible a guilty verdict could be tossed because of the BLM guy in the jury pool?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Is that first question even valid? As in the jury should only be considering the evidence presented for each individual charge and not the implication of their votes for the trial as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:is it possible a guilty verdict could be tossed because of the BLM guy in the jury pool? That's a stretch, his prior history with BLM was known during jury selection and the defense had 21 peremptory challenges. We also don't know what was actually said. For all anyone outside the jury rooms knows, he said "I'm very biased, but we have to look at each charge element by element and leave our personal feelings out of it" or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Incidentally, juror bias is currently before the supreme court. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-juror-racial-bias.html The existing standard is very deferential to secrecy of the deliberation process and if this case rolls that back it sounded at oral argument like it would be narrowly focused on issues of racial bias.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:That's a stretch, his prior history with BLM was known during jury selection and the defense had 21 peremptory challenges. We also don't know what was actually said. For all anyone outside the jury rooms knows, he said "I'm very biased, but we have to look at each charge element by element and leave our personal feelings out of it" or something. good
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Number 1 is a question that will be answered very carefully, but if answered properly shouldn't be an issue. With so many charges it is fairly likely a couple may hand or even ng as sometimes elements get lost by the prosecutor or jury. Second one will result in a questioning on all the jurors. That is a very serious allegation. I wouldn't read too much into the questions, but I suspect the defense is feeling better than the prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Is that first question even valid? As in the jury should only be considering the evidence presented for each individual charge and not the implication of their votes for the trial as a whole? Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(b) is pretty unambiguous - partial verdicts are fine. The ninth circuit model jury instructions are also very clear - each charge and each defendant has to be considered separately. See specifically model instructions 1.14 and 3.14. Not surprising for the jury to be confused on a point like that though. This is a very complex case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:So what does this mean? If dumbass lawyers get to make four thousand objections, 99% of which are overruled, the jury should get to troll the defense with dumb questions as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
So the judge agreed to question the juror behind closed doors with two of the defense attorneys and Knight present. RB didn't like that. https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/791055664516767744
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 00:19
|
|