Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

This fuckin guy.

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
3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

dumb question alert: why are some trials televised and some get a courtroom sketch artist?

I think states and even districts within states have different rules on cameras. 

Posted
1 hour ago, 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. 

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

Posted
14 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

dumb question alert: why are some trials televised and some get a courtroom sketch artist?


because you touch yourself 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, 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.

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
17 minutes ago, mchookem said:

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

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
11 minutes ago, 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. 

No cheeseweasel here.

  • Haha 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

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.

All of which makes me think that Mickey Rourke would have been better than either in both parts.

c6590c826f697bf12ca7a00ffcf08b57185e1154

Posted
1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

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

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
8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

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

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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, South Austin said:

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

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

 

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, South Austin said:

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

Ha! Missed that. 

Posted
1 minute ago, F250 said:

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

 

 

"it is existence" is a deep observation

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 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. 

CR has been better than DT for about 5 years.

die-hard-john-mc-clane.gif

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Jury coming back to break for the day. 

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. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, 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. 

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
16 minutes ago, 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.

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

Posted
25 minutes ago, 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?

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
 

Called it. Y’all think I was kidding. The Sacks of the world will happily fund his future congressional campaign. Hell, might as well get used to “Senator Rittenhouse.”
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Called it. Y’all think I was kidding. The Sacks of the world will happily fund his future congressional campaign. Hell, might as well get used to “Senator Rittenhouse.”

chrisrockcookie.gif.9b55153173e8d2ca7bac957a864074d7.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 hours ago, South Austin said:

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

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
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
8 minutes ago, 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.

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

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:


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

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. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

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

Nope. Most cases on contingency fee. So very little billing unless we actually win the case. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...