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

[DixonHur 11,340]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

2% of Surly are in the entertainment industry

We may be few in number, but we are full of opinions.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,874]

 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

https://youtu.be/a6otjCKg594?si=Q_lVPBV_rbxe5UiQ

[Gil Bang 25,975]

lawdogs:  why can't the jury have written instructions?

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,691]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

lawdogs:  why can't the jury have written instructions?

 

 

[tbone_ 14,128]

Seems moronic not to give them the written instructions.

[Dahobbs 17,625]

5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

lawdogs:  why can't the jury have written instructions?

 

 

Judge's choice here I think. It is fairly common for juries to be provided written copies in other jurisdictions. I don't know about New York though.

Edited May 30 by Dahobbs

[SaucyJack 3,488]

two of the jurors can't read.... so discrimination.

[dcbc 14,487]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Judge's choice here I think. It is fairly common for juries to be provided written copies in other jurisdictions. I don't know about New York though.

Yeah, in Texas, they roll back there with the charge (with instructions) and fill it out.

 

Edit:  Here's the answer.  It appears as though Trump objected to their being able to take a written charge into deliberations.

 

Thus far, the Court of Appeals has held that it is error to provide a
deliberating jury with a written copy of a complete final charge, or portions
thereof, over a defendant’s objection. People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980,
982 (1993); People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591–592 (1987).

A defendant may, however, consent, or impliedly consent by failing
to timely object, to the submission of a written copy of the court’s entire final
instructions to the jury. People v. Muhammad, 34 N.Y.3d 1152 (2020). If the
court does provide a copy of its written final instructions, it needs to instruct
the jury on the use of the written instructions.

 

No wonder they're asking questions about instructions.  34 counts and a complex case.  I'm glad they are.  I'm less concerned about their asking about the instructions.  I don't think they necessarily have a strong hold-out, I think they have more than they can remember and more than they were able to take notes on (or maybe their notes on the instructions conflict).  And that was Trump's plan.  But they appear to be made of sterner stuff and have a job to do.

Edited May 30 by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 31,496]

8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Yeah, in Texas, they roll back there with the charge (with instructions) and fill it out.

 

Edit:  Here's the answer.  It appears as though Trump objected to their being able to take a written charge into deliberations.

 

Thus far, the Court of Appeals has held that it is error to provide a
deliberating jury with a written copy of a complete final charge, or portions
thereof, over a defendant’s objection. People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980,
982 (1993); People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591–592 (1987).

A defendant may, however, consent, or impliedly consent by failing
to timely object, to the submission of a written copy of the court’s entire final
instructions to the jury. People v. Muhammad, 34 N.Y.3d 1152 (2020). If the
court does provide a copy of its written final instructions, it needs to instruct
the jury on the use of the written instructions.

 

No wonder they're asking questions about instructions.  34 counts and a complex case.  I'm glad they are.  I'm less concerned about their asking about the instructions.  I don't think they necessarily have a strong hold-out, I think they have more than they can remember and more than they were able to take notes on (or maybe their notes on the instructions conflict).

That's fucked up and a ticket to jury nullification.

[dcbc 14,487]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's fucked up and a ticket to jury nullification.

Unintentional jury nullification on the jury's part.  Good on them for sticking with it and trying to get it right (two lawyers on the panel probably doesn't hurt).  I was concerned that if they deliberate past tomorrow, it might not go as well for the good guys.  But this may take a while.

Edited May 30 by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 31,496]

6 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Unintentional jury nullification on the jury's part.  Good on them for sticking with it and trying to get it right (two lawyers on the panel probably doesn't hurt).  I was concerned that if they deliberate past tomorrow, it might not go as well for the good guys.  But this may take a while.

Right, on the unintentional.

I suspect that the mere fact that it is a former president, even a shitheel like Trump, is going to make this a slow jury, even if not particularly riven with dissent.

[Horndog 2,228]

I heard an interview today with a woman who had been a juror on a trial that lasted two months. Deliberations took over a week. Unanimous guilty verdict. 

[Sawbonz 27,578]

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

Yeah, in Texas, they roll back there with the charge (with instructions) and fill it out.

 

Edit:  Here's the answer.  It appears as though Trump objected to their being able to take a written charge into deliberations.

 

Thus far, the Court of Appeals has held that it is error to provide a
deliberating jury with a written copy of a complete final charge, or portions
thereof, over a defendant’s objection. People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980,
982 (1993); People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591–592 (1987).

A defendant may, however, consent, or impliedly consent by failing
to timely object, to the submission of a written copy of the court’s entire final
instructions to the jury. People v. Muhammad, 34 N.Y.3d 1152 (2020). If the
court does provide a copy of its written final instructions, it needs to instruct
the jury on the use of the written instructions.

 

No wonder they're asking questions about instructions.  34 counts and a complex case.  I'm glad they are.  I'm less concerned about their asking about the instructions.  I don't think they necessarily have a strong hold-out, I think they have more than they can remember and more than they were able to take notes on (or maybe their notes on the instructions conflict).  And that was Trump's plan.  But they appear to be made of sterner stuff and have a job to do.

I hope every time the jury comes back in to hear the instructions read;  the judge prefaces it by saying “ because the defendant objected to your having these, I am reading them once again”

Edited May 30 by Sawbonz
Fing talk to text

[dcbc 14,487]

9 minutes ago, Horndog said:

I heard an interview today with a woman who had been a juror on a trial that lasted two months. Deliberations took over a week. Unanimous guilty verdict. 

At this point, one of them probably has asked the rest why they can't have the charge and instructions back there, and one of the lawyers has explained why.  Seems like something that would be discussed.

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I hope every time the jury comes back in to hear the instructions read the judge, prophesies it by saying “ because the defendant objected to your having these, I am reading them once again”

I hope he doesn't.  No reason to offer appellate ammo to the defense.   But I hope that, internally, they understand that fact.  And I suspect, with two NY lawyers on the jury, they do.

Edited May 30 by dcbc

[Gil Bang 25,975]

cunts gonna cunt

 

 

[bluto 4,932]

Is there any substance to one day of deliberation per week of trial?

[YGIFS 19,452]

5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

cunts gonna cunt

 

 

HE's a much more brilliant legal scholar than I.  But two things Ted---legal issues are not settled by general elections apart from our judicial process.  As a former Solicitor General, you should know that.  and then second---the painting off your right shoulder looks like some kinda weird, twisted up cock.  You fucking sickie....

[Pato del Muerto 52,524]

1 hour ago, Horndog said:

Unanimous guilty verdict. 

[Horn Dog 9,875]

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

cunts gonna cunt

 

 

Cruz is gonna get secret service on his ass asking for a juror to beat the shit out of Trump like that.  

[Gil Bang 25,975]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,691]

5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

These people should all commit seppuku.  

[TDunk 590]

6 hours ago, YGIFS said:

What was the gameshow where you'd have to click the buzzer to avoid the whammy guy?  

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? 

[Biff Tannen 45,691]

8 minutes 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? 

And the whammy guy is of course trump 

[HenryJames 66,122]

25 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

These people should all commit seppuku.  

That would take courage.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:54 AM, Neonmoon said:

She says that Jack didn't follow the proper delay tactics for Trump, so denied. 

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise

[TDunk 590]

18 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

And the whammy guy is of course trump 

Doing his double fisting dance, yes. 

[BamaATL 16,593]

39 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

These people should all commit seppuku.  

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

[Surly Bevo 25,049]

Lap dogs who yap and nip at you….all of them.

[YGIFS 19,452]

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

[atomheartbevo 89,730]

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.

[Underdog 28,711]

9 hours ago, bluto said:

Sid Bream gonna come to the defense of his sister in law?!

 

8 hours ago, SizzleChest said:

Too soon, Motherfuckers! 

[TwiceHorn 31,496]

7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

These people should all commit seppuku.  

I'll help.

[Dnaguy 12,001]

8 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Considering his past takes were complete dog shit (see below), I think he might not be on the level with this one too.

 

[Homercles 10,206]

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.  

[dcbc 14,487]

1 hour ago, Homercles said:

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

FFT

[Biff Tannen 45,691]

So is today the day?

[TwiceHorn 31,496]

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.

[Red Five 40,862]

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?".

[Pancho 44,858]

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

[Biff Tannen 45,691]

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.

[dcbc 14,487]

5 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.

Best I can tell: because there are 34 counts, the elements of the crime are a bit nuanced, and they can't have written instructions (because Trump objected-NY law is screwy that way). 

 

Reading tea leaves when it comes to juries is purely guesswork.  By and large, they take their role seriously.  And if they're taking their time to be sure they believe they're getting it right by the letter of the law, that's about as good of a scenario as we can ask for. 

Edited May 30 by dcbc

[Pancho 44,858]

 

[Surly Bevo 25,049]

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.  

[dcbc 14,487]

1 minute ago, Pancho 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.

[softlynow 1,816]

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. 

[Gatorubet 30,246]

[RomaVicta 29,929]

 

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 May 30 by RomaVicta
Gator beat me on the photo. Well done.

[Gatorubet 30,246]

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

[dcbc 14,487]

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 May 30 by dcbc