Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not at all. The problem here is Trump is using his position to undermine one of our most important democratic institutions, an independent criminal justice system . . . .
I think you mean one our most imaginary democratic institutions. There is no such thing, and there never was.
It would be nice to have that kind of time. The docket of the Stone case seems to indicate that the defense team got the questionnaires 7 days before the deadline for making objections for cause, but grounds for the objections were limited to the information in the questionnaires. Minute order dated 9/13/19. It appears that background searches either weren't possible (perhaps the prospective jurors' names were redacted) or wouldn't make any difference since the grounds for cause were limited to the contents of the questionnaires.
If your argument is that Stone’s lawyers didn’t have time to do a twitter search of their jury foreperson, that is a sad indictment of the quality of his lawyers and also a near impossibility. Even the PI lawyers I know do it. Holy moly.
If your argument is that Stone’s lawyers didn’t have time to do a twitter search of their jury foreperson, that is a sad indictment of the quality of his lawyers and also a near impossibility. Even the PI lawyers I know do it. Holy moly.
The judge forbade it, or at least forbade the defense from using info gathered from such a search.
And I don't know where you live, but there's no way in hell a personal injury lawyer is doing a twitter search of potential jurors in Texas. There's no time. And the thing about the foreperson is ignorant. The jury chooses the foreman after the jury is selected. Lawyers never know who the foreman is going to be.
Based on experience. What do you think? How many cases have you tried to a jury?
None. I'm still not buying that a defense team "doesn't have time" to perform a 30 second Google search. Attorneys appeared to have lots of time during my last stint of jury duty.
No they told the truth. They don't serve the president. They service the country. Trump wants loyalty like a mobster. All the people that are speaking out about Trump aren't lying. Trump is the liar.
Wrong.
When these same people released portions of the transcripts between Trump and the president of Mexico, or the PM of Australia, were they serving their country, or just trying to undermine the president from day one?
The whistleblower and his lawyer, saying they wanted to remove Trump from office, was that them inserting their own politics, or serving the country? Time and again, these civil servants subverted the trust we placed in them and used their positions in government to serve their politically partisan motives, not to serve the nation.
But whatever, people like you think Trump is still guilty for the crimes of firing Comey, for Russian collusion, for violating the emoluments clause, etc..., and then you will come up with new imagined crimes in the coming months.
No they told the truth. They don't serve the president. They service the country. Trump wants loyalty like a mobster. All the people that are speaking out about Trump aren't lying. Trump is the liar.
It isn't any surprise that Trump behaves like a mobster. Remember that his mentor was black-hearted Roy Cohn the Mob lawyer; not only that he rubbed elbows for years with the Mafia in his New York real estate dealings. It is no secret that he admires the tactics of the Mob. Dare to oppose him and you will be taken out. It is old school Mafioso mentality from way back, rule by intimidation and fear.
If what you are saying is true, then Roger Stone has the most incompetent attorneys on the planet for (a) not challenging her empaneling for cause during jury selection; and (b) not moving for a retrial due to her presence on the jury.
I agree with you that a good lawyer should check the social media of prospective jurors.
I don't know much at all about how jury selection and court law works. However, could it be possible that the lawyers knew about her bias, and sought to use that as a cause for a mistrial, if the ruling went against them?
During jury selection, do they ask jurors if they can be unbiased and do not have any background or affiliations which might present a conflict of interest? If so, would it be wrong for her to claim impartiality with a history of political partisanship, and could this be used to declare a mistrial?
I'm not following this topic too much, so I don't know the answers?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
