- Nov 14, 2011
- Reaction score
And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the DefendantWith no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just thatA mistrial based on what?yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courtsThey do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have beenYou're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors."Could."That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking aboutWho says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would doLOLI woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.
The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??
At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.
Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens
We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.
This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.
Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.
Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.
If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.
I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?
I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.
The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.