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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

The Dog

The Dog 44019

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45665

Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44019

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
dcbc

dcbc 14465

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

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

They're going to sentence him to be Stormy's butler?

 

b20fe65f-4a42-4aa6-bec8-c179a6bf7444_tex

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14465

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Creation Museum advertising on CNN.  lol wut?

I would point to John Malone's 2022 acquisition as inviting that sort of advertising, but his quote about wishing to see "CNN evolve" seems inconsistent with the advertising here.

 

https://www.vox.com/2022/8/26/23322761/cnn-john-malone-david-zaslav-chris-licht-brian-stelter-fox-peter-kafka-column

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hookem2010

hookem2010 2623

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19189

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11920

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour 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.

ynMPSo.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CTC2

CTC2 2791

Posted
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”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105066

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Js1

Js1 85276

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

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

Oh idk, wanting to hang him sounds reasonable to me 

  • Hook 'Em 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14465

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CTC2

CTC2 2791

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3432

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10957

Posted
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14465

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tokamak

tokamak 6391

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6930

Posted
Posted
4 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.

But they were instructed not to consider his status as a former POTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1966

Posted
Posted
But they were instructed not to consider his status as a former POTUS. 

Yep, but that doesn’t mean that they are not doing that…even if they are telling themselves that they are not doing it.

Cuts both ways sometimes. Best example in the other direction is that they are instructed not to consider a defendant’s failure to testify, but we know that they often do weigh it to some extent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29655

Posted
Posted

I'm sure Icono/Macklemore will be apoplectic. (I don't recommend trying to view the video on the Daily Mail's AIDS-riddled site.)

'F*** the King': Furious moment Trump supporters clash with British couple outside his NYC hush money trial as cops escort them away after they visited 'purely for entertainment'

image.png.94241fe68c1e3b27f209b7e0e1bbeec4.png

image.png.72462428343e27ab53c2348a1ea0223c.png

This is the moment a British woman and her partner scurried out of a New York City park after a group of Donald Trump supporters shouted to 'get the f**k out'.

Video shows how police were forced to step in after protesters at a park near Trump's hush money trial apparently clashed with the couple. 

Furious protesters, sporting Trump apparel and waving MAGA flags, yelled 'f**k the Queen' and 'f**k the King' as the couple tried to leave the park. One demonstrator, as she was held back by an officer, branded the woman a 'f***ing c**t' and told her to 'burn in h**l you liberal f**k'.

While it is not clear what sparked the ugly confrontation, NYPD officers were seen trying to separate Trump's supporters and the couple.

Despite the profanity-riddled tirade, the English woman appeared rather unphazed by the exchange, branding the supporters as 'disgusting people' and revealing she and her partner had come to the demonstration 'purely for entertainment value'.

The chaotic scuffle comes as jurors in Trump's trial have begun their second day of deliberations after failing to reach a quick verdict.

The British woman was seen smiling and almost chucking as the crowd surrounded her in the park, shouting profanities.

'Disgusting aren't they? What disgusting people,' she said, sounding somewhat lightheartedly.

Her partner, seemingly less amused, was ushering her away from the group.

'We were actually here purely for entertainment value,' the woman told the media as they walked away from the rowdy demonstrators.

'We're from England,' she added, as her partner said 'we've got to keep going.'

The protesters continued to shout, telling the couple to 'take your tea' and 'get the f**k out of my park'. 

One furious protester, who called the woman a 'c**t', appeared to walk after her, but was stopped by a police officer who blocked her with his arm and said: 'She's leaving, just stop.'

When the pair reached the park entrance the woman, speaking to the media, added that she and her partner 'enjoy watching Trump on the TV'.

It is unclear if the couple were asked to vacate the park of left of their own volition.

DailyMail.com approached NYPD for more information but a spokesperson said there was no complaint report on file.

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89628

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

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.  

Having dealt with a couple of juries, I gotta say Trump’s jury intimidation game is extremely weak for a guy who is from New York City and supposedly has Mafia ties.  You’d think they would have acquitted him already because they were worried that their pets and family members were going to be dying of mysterious causes over the coming years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted
6 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.

34 counts and the defendant objected to the Jury having the Jury instructions and apparently they have to have the record read to them in court.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6930

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, scottsins said:


Yep, but that doesn’t mean that they are not doing that…even if they are telling themselves that they are not doing it.

Cuts both ways sometimes. Best example in the other direction is that they are instructed not to consider a defendant’s failure to testify, but we know that they often do weigh it to some extent.

Seems like it would be easier and fairer to evaluate the evidence dispassionately if they considered Trump to be average Joe New Yorker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted
6 hours 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.

I’ve definitely heard the metaphor before, Just the first lines of the tweet let me know what the rest said without having to click through to X.  I think I head it as a logical test and circumstantial evidence in a philosophy class first and then I also heard it as a juror on a 3rd times the charm Felony DUI case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jw4381

jw4381 3070

Posted
Posted
On 5/21/2024 at 9:28 AM, Hermanator said:

Is there any way to fix this or have we (The United States) inadvertently through greed created a reality under which democracy cannot function? 

Narrator: not without re-education camps n shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40844

Posted
Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

Damn you jury!  

I have to leave for the gym soon, so I guess it's going to be Schrödinger's Trump for me over the next couple of hours.

Think they're about done for the day.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...