Attorney: No More `Black Pastors' in Court for Arbery Case

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Mar 3, 2018
9,250
6,113
1,030
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Ahhh, white fragility on display here, this is absolutely pathetic on top of insulting. They may as well be wearing their Klan robes to court.

This is the same argument that rogue police officers use when shooting and killing black men, that their mere presence is threatening to the officers. We're going to let them keep getting away with this dialogue? I don't think so. Oh and I included attorney Kevin Gough's photo so we can all see the scared widdle wabbit:

The Associated Press

Defense attorney Kevin Gough addresses the court during the trial for the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery at the Glynn County Courthouse on Monday, Nov. 8, 2021 in Brunswick, Ga. Greg McMichael and his son, Travis McMichael, and a neighbor, William "Roddie" Bryan, are charged with the February 2020 death of 25-year-old Arbery. (Sean Rayford/Pool Photo via AP) The Associated Press

By RUSS BYNUM, Associated Press
BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — An attorney for one of the white men standing trial in the death of Ahmaud Arbery told the judge Thursday he doesn't want “any more Black pastors” in the courtroom after the Rev. Al Sharpton sat with the slain man's family.

Kevin Gough represents William “Roddie” Bryan, who along with father and son Greg and Travis McMichael is charged with murder and other crimes in Arbery's Feb. 23, 2020, killing. The 25-year-old Black man was chased and fatally shot after the defendants spotted him running in their neighborhood outside the Georgia port city of Brunswick.

Gough told Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley that he was concerned Sharpton's presence in court Wednesday was an attempt to intimidate the disproportionately white jury hearing the case. The jury was not in the courtroom when he made the remarks.

"Obviously there’s only so many pastors they can have," Gough said. “And if their pastor’s Al Sharpton right now that's fine, but then that’s it. We don’t want any more Black pastors coming in here ... sitting with the victim’s family, trying to influence the jurors in this case.”

Jason Sheffield, one of Travis McMichael's lawyers, told the judge he didn't notice any distractions caused by Sharpton, who sat in the back row of the courtroom gallery wearing a mask.

Gough said he didn't realize Sharpton had been there until after court had adjourned for the day.
“You weren’t even aware of it until later?" the judge said. "I’m not sure what we’re doing.”

Sharpton held a prayer vigil and news conference outside the Glynn County courthouse Wednesday afternoon to show support for Arbery's family. Afterward he joined Arbery's parents and their lawyers to listen to portions of the trial testimony.

Sharpton said in a statement that Gough's remarks showed “arrogant insensitivity."
“I respect the defense attorney doing his job,” Sharpton said, "but this is beyond defending your client, it is insulting the family of the victim.”

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
Ahhh, white fragility on display here, this is absolutely pathetic on top of insulting. They may as well be wearing their Klan robes to court.

This is the same argument that rogue police officers use when shooting and killing black men, that their mere presence is threatening to the officers. We're going to let them keep getting away with this dialogue? I don't think so. Oh and I included attorney Kevin Gough's photo so we can all see the scared widdle wabbit:
As I live and breathe....I hope the trio gets life in prison.
 
Let's see, who do we need in the court room?
Judge...check.
Plaintiff...check.
Lawyer for plaintiff...check.
Defendant...check.
Lawyer for defendant...check.
Jurors...check.
Black Pastor...no, not needed.
I think it's hilarious that you all have dropped all pretense of not being racially biased lol

Why Are Trials Supposed to Be Public?​

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis summed it up when he said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." There are a number of public policy reasons that favor conducting legal proceedings in public:

Ensuring a fair trial. Public trials allow the general public to see that the justice system is functioning properly and treating defendants fairly.

Holding the criminal justice system accountable. The presence of interested spectators is thought to keep the judge, jury, and courtroom staff mindful of their responsibilities and actions. Plus, in jurisdictions where judges are elected, voters can observe the performance of their elected judges up close.

Encouraging witnesses to come forward. Historically, public trials were needed to make proceedings known to potential witnesses.

Discouraging perjury. Witnesses are considered less likely to lie in a public tribunal, in the presence of not only the court, but also members of their community.

What Makes a Trial Public?​

Not all cases are covered by the media and not all states allow cameras in the courtroom, so what makes a trial "public" under the law? All the Sixth Amendment requires is that, within reason, members of the public and press have the opportunity to attend the trial and report what they have observed.

Public Forum​


Trials must be held in a place where the public can attend, and spectators must be allowed in the courtroom. But the Sixth Amendment doesn't require that trials occur in places easily accessible to the public. For example, in the trial of an inmate charged with attacking a prison guard, proceedings can be held in a courtroom inside the prison.

Notice​

There must be public notice of court proceedings, but court officials need not advertise them. In most jurisdictions, court notices must be published in the official "legal organ" of the city or county (usually a particular newspaper) at least a week in advance of the hearing.

Exceptions to Public Trials​

Not everyone can observe every portion of every trial. Judges generally prohibit anyone who might be called to testify from watching any of the trial proceedings before testifying (also known as sequestering witnesses). Also, judges often exclude the media from parts of trials that include particularly sensitive or difficult testimony.

On occasion, judges go to greater lengths and exclude all non-courtroom personnel from the trial ("close the courtroom"). Usually, judges only close a courtroom when there would otherwise be a substantial risk of danger either to particular people or the public at large. The following are appropriate reasons for closing a courtroom:

Safety. In some cases, such as those involving organized crime and gangs, there may be concerns about the safety of the judge, witnesses, or court staff. Court closure may occur, for example, if a witness is in protective custody or previous witnesses have been intimidated.

Privacy. The identities of victims, witnesses, and sometimes defendants may lead to court closure. In rape cases, for example, laws often protect the victim's identity, so the judge may redact the victim's name and close the courtroom when she testifies. Courtrooms are often closed to protect the identity of undercover police officers or confidential informants. Juvenile court proceedings (unless the child is being tried as an adult) are closed to the public to protect the child from future implications of the case. The juvenile defendant's name is even redacted in court pleadings. Similarly, the identities of witnesses and victims who are children are sometimes protected.

Decency. In cases involving sexual exploitation or pornography, or in other cases where graphic or offensive evidence is necessary, the judge may close the courtroom to lessen the ongoing humiliation of the victims and minimize viewing of the offensive materials. For example, in a prosecution for manufacturing and distributing child pornography, the court is likely to close the courtroom for any testimony that requires discussing the children involved or displaying the pornography itself.

Sensitive information. Certain materials will pose a public threat or lose their inherent value if exposed to the public. In trials involving espionage, leaking classified information, and even theft of trade secrets, judges often close the courtroom.
Although judges have the option of closing the courtroom, the Supreme Court has held that they must always consider alternatives to closure. So, trial judges are unlikely to close the courtroom unless there is a clear showing of possible compromise of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights or any of the exceptions outlined above are at play. Even then, the courtroom closure must be as minimal as possible—judges should order a completely closed trial only if there is no less restrictive alternative to protect the parties involved (such as excluding the media or closing for a portion of the testimony). Otherwise, the judge risks setting the case up for a possible appeal down the line due to denial of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
Criminal Trial Publicity
 
lol attention whoring low rent scan artists gets barred, his commie loser supporters cry 'raycissm n stuff' over his inability to imitate humans in public.
 
Ahhh, white fragility on display here, this is absolutely pathetic on top of insulting. They may as well be wearing their Klan robes to court.

This is the same argument that rogue police officers use when shooting and killing black men, that their mere presence is threatening to the officers. We're going to let them keep getting away with this dialogue? I don't think so. Oh and I included attorney Kevin Gough's photo so we can all see the scared widdle wabbit:
This is the kind of thing we're told no longer exists in America.

So it must not have happened.

:rolleyes:
 
Ahhh, white fragility on display here, this is absolutely pathetic on top of insulting. They may as well be wearing their Klan robes to court.

This is the same argument that rogue police officers use when shooting and killing black men, that their mere presence is threatening to the officers. We're going to let them keep getting away with this dialogue? I don't think so. Oh and I included attorney Kevin Gough's photo so we can all see the scared widdle wabbit:

It's nothing to do with racism despite what all liberals, progressives, anti racists, BLM, antifa, and democrats might say. They all constantly say everything is racist when they don't like something, something doesn't go their way, or when they want something.

He doesn't want a black pastor because they are disruptive and because they love attention so they will go out on the streets, on tv, infront of their congregation and shout and yell about racism and in effect be disruptive to the procedure.

He didn't say "no blacks", he said "no black pastors" because they are a problem.

You really should get off the racism bandwagon because it blinds you to reality and it also turns you into a single and narrow minded puppet that only sees racism and nothing else.
 
It's nothing to do with racism despite what all liberals, progressives, anti racists, BLM, antifa, and democrats might say. They all constantly say everything is racist when they don't like something, something doesn't go their way, or when they want something.

He doesn't want a black pastor because they are disruptive and because they love attention so they will go out on the streets, on tv, infront of their congregation and shout and yell about racism and in effect be disruptive to the procedure.

He didn't say "no blacks", he said "no black pastors" because they are a problem.

You really should get off the racism bandwagon because it blinds you to reality and it also turns you into a single and narrow minded puppet that only sees racism and nothing else.

How does saying things outside of the courtroom disrupt the procedure?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
ou really should get off the racism bandwagon because it blinds you to reality and it also turns you into a single and narrow minded puppet that only sees racism and nothing else.

Without the 'racism' scam he has nothing to sell, just like the Democratic Party. Those BLM leaders are raking in the Big Bucks, so naturally these gimps want to get in on that.
 
Funny how when we have folks showing up to do performance art at these school board meetings all across the country --- many of whom don't even live in the community these schools are in -- not a single one of you morons complain about that.....

Even when these folks ADMIT that they are there to intimidate school board and council members, INCLUDING issuing threats to those members.......

But if a scary black pastor is invited to come "BY THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM" -- suddenly, that is a problem and now we all gotta clutch our pearls and faint because of how these scary black pastors are intimidating the jurors...FOH
 
But if a scary black pastor is invited to come "BY THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM"

lol so white criminals and their relatives hang out with loud stupid black racists posing as 'pastors', do they? Where did they meet, on a NAMBLA cruise to Thailand?
 

Forum List

Back
Top