Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 7:14 PM, wildcat09 said:

 

This fuckin guy.

Expand  

So if we ever get around to trying any of the 9/11 masterminds, I assume this judge would declare a mistrial if any of the 3,000 dead are referenced as victims. If you call them victims then you're pre-judging the defendants as guilty.

Posted

Because people are cutting the cable. But you can’t steal my artistic talents, dad!!!!!!!!!   I’m going to swarthmore!  I’m not gonna be a finance guy like you

Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 6:47 PM, JimmyJames said:

Probably. 
 

What I saw him now was focusing on a report that some black dude claimed to be the jump kick man Kyle shot at and missed which the prosecution then told the defense about last week. Don’t get the outrage about that yet but I’m sure the DT crowd will fill in all the necessary gaps to show how Castro killed Kennedy. 

Expand  

That's a lie.  Only thing I posted was about the motion to dismiss.  Which is about the video compression issue.

Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 7:31 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

So if we ever get around to trying any of the 9/11 masterminds, I assume this judge would declare a mistrial if any of the 3,000 dead are referenced as victims. If you call them victims then you're pre-judging the defendants as guilty.

Expand  

Pretty sure that only involves cases where there self-defense is an issue.  Which makes sense. 

Posted

Only been loosely following the case. Why is the defense asking for a mistrial? It seems like a slam dunk acquittal already from what I’ve read. If it’s a mistrial it’s possible he could be retried again in the future right? Seems ill-advised.

Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 8:10 PM, mchookem said:

Robert Duvall and Jeff Bridges both won Oscars for basically the same role with different character names.

Expand  

It's why some viewed "Crazy Heart" as a prologue of sorts to "Tender Mercies".  I don't particularly agree, but I get the point.

Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 8:32 PM, BurdineBandit said:

How is this thread better than the DT thread? I've tried to get some insight into it over there and it's a fuckin shitshow. CR is now bearable? Everything's all fucked up on this site. 

Expand  

No cheeseweasel here.

  • Haha 2
Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 7:49 PM, Johnny Sack said:

That's a lie.  Only thing I posted was about the motion to dismiss.  Which is about the video compression issue.

Expand  

Referencing post 4161 in the DT thread. I interpreted this to be discussing an alleged failure to disclose the kick jump dude since someone had just posted an article on that. If I’m wrong about your intent then I apologize. 
 

If the defense withheld exculpatory evidence until after evidence closed, a mistrial with prejudice may damn well be warranted.  I will wait to see the state's response.  But this would not be the first time those assholes fucked with Kyle Rittenhouse's constitutional rights in thistrial.

Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 9:22 PM, JimmyJames said:

If the defense withheld exculpatory evidence until after evidence closed, a mistrial with prejudice may damn well be warranted. 

Expand  

If the defense withheld exculpatory evidence, then they've brilliantly set up an ineffective assistance of counsel argument.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 9:32 PM, South Austin said:

If the defense withheld exculpatory evidence, then they've brilliantly set up an ineffective assistance of counsel argument.

Expand  

Reminds me of Texas v. Leipold in which case the defense failed to provide any evidence of it's existence.

 

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
  On 11/17/2021 at 11:04 PM, JimmyJames said:

All bets are off then. 
 

I tried to tell the DT crowd this was a tough case for both sides. They wouldn’t listen. Shocker. 

Expand  

Well, you know, there's been no evidence to convict.

Edited by DDD Dad
Posted

David Henderson is a frequent guest on Shep Smith's show and he was saying that these are some of the most confusing jury instructions he's ever seen.  (He's a UT grad and lives in Dallas and I've always wondered if he posts here.)

He speculated that if there were one or two jurors who flat out refused to convict, they'd already declare a hung jury at this point.  He thinks they're working through the jury instructions.

Posted
  On 11/18/2021 at 12:17 AM, Aqua Buddha said:

David Henderson is a frequent guest on Shep Smith's show and he was saying that these are some of the most confusing jury instructions he's ever seen.  (He's a UT grad and lives in Dallas and I've always wondered if he posts here.)

He speculated that if there were one or two jurors who flat out refused to convict, they'd already declare a hung jury at this point.  He thinks they're working through the jury instructions.

Expand  

That’s because the Wisconsin statute on self defense was the most confusing I’d ever seen. It was and is ridiculous. 

Posted
  On 11/18/2021 at 12:11 AM, Pescado_Rojo said:

So I’ve always heard a long deliberation is bad news for the defendant. Is that usually true, or just something stuck in my head from the OJ trial?

Expand  

It’s can be but with a high publicity trial with very long and confusing jury instructions like this one it could mean anything.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

DT thread on the trial for Aubrey’s killers has some new sock account caping for the killers and bitching about the media coverage. Opening odds that it’s Sack are -150.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 11/17/2021 at 2:19 PM, South Austin said:

This is also what attorneys do when we’re waiting in a verdict.

Expand  

One time after closing the jury had a question 30 minutes later and I went and got a colleague I had tried the case with and told him we needed to get back in the courtroom ASAP. I later felt bad about it because I neglected to tell him it was just a question, not the verdict. He thought it was the actual verdict which as the plaintiff in a complicated death case would have meant we lost for sure.

The point is there is nothing more stressful for a lawyer than waiting on a jury verdict. Nothing. Not even the trial itself. Because you’re totally out of control of it. Nothing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 11/18/2021 at 3:29 AM, JimmyJames said:
One time after closing the jury had a question 30 minutes later and I went and got a colleague I had tried the case with and told him we needed to get back in the courtroom ASAP. I later felt bad about it because I neglected to tell him it was just a question, not the verdict. He thought it was the actual verdict which as the plaintiff in a complicated death case would have meant we lost for sure.
The point is there is nothing more stressful for a lawyer than waiting on a jury verdict. Nothing. Not even the trial itself. Because you’re totally out of control of it. Nothing.

The two words that cause the most outrageous cardiac activity are “jury’s back.”
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 11/18/2021 at 3:29 AM, JimmyJames said:

One time after closing the jury had a question 30 minutes later and I went and got a colleague I had tried the case with and told him we needed to get back in the courtroom ASAP. I later felt bad about it because I neglected to tell him it was just a question, not the verdict. He thought it was the actual verdict which as the plaintiff in a complicated death case would have meant we lost for sure.

The point is there is nothing more stressful for a lawyer than waiting on a jury verdict. Nothing. Not even the trial itself. Because you’re totally out of control of it. Nothing.

Expand  

Did you bill the client while you were posting on surly?

  • Haha 2
Posted
  On 11/18/2021 at 3:37 AM, Brisketexan said:


The two words that cause the most outrageous cardiac activity are “jury’s back.”

Expand  

It’s totally true. Never been more nervous and it happens every single  time no matter the stakes. I can’t even imagine what it’s like for my clients. And we’re just talking about money there. Think about criminal defendants facing jail time. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...