RUMPOLE: thanks for getting the tail-end of the happenings today
CARM: that note I posted is what was READ by the judge from an actual note. It was typed up and tweeted by a reporter. That's not the actual note from the jury room.
| Random Topics http://randomtopics.org/ |
|
| Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) http://randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=153&t=1385 |
Page 10 of 12 |
| Author: | Rumpole [ Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Can you say "Reversal on Appeal" |
|
| Author: | Rumpole [ Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Quote: T.J. Holmes@tjholmes Jurors says they will have their questions for the court about further explanation of the law on Monday. #SlagerTrial #WalterScott Judge has dismissed the jury for the weekend. Deliberations have ended for the week. They will return on Monday morning. IMHO if there is a verdict now (Guilty) then it can ONLY be down to coercion of the single aberrant Juror. The Judge just in his own self interest should realize that best result for HIM now is a mistrial .. and retry from scratch. This sick puppy will be reversed on appeal. |
|
| Author: | Carmelita [ Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Good grief. The judge by letting this yo yo and by letting the jury split be known is a dope likely prejudicial in favor of the plaintiff. How did the note get revealed? |
|
| Author: | Rumpole [ Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
The black female Jury foreperson revealed the jury split.... in open court. According to Sundance: Quote: At that moment, Judge Newman screwed up – BIG TIME.
Mistake #2 – Judge Newman did not reprimand the foreman from quantifying the numerical position of the current juror status (ie. 11-1). Failing to tell the foreman not to quantify the jurors positions is the cornerstone for a coercion appeal. [Remember, Newman also accepted and read the notification from the holdout juror] Mistake #3 – Judge Newman was, as a matter of his own knowledge therein, bound to ask the foreman if he still represented the voice of all jurors – in the request for a 3rd round of deliberations, he didn’t. Mistake #4 – Judge Newman then sent the jury, without any questions, back to the deliberation room – while he discussed the jury notification with the defense and prosecution. Quote: JUST IN: Judge in the trial of Michael Slager, officer who shot and killed Walter Scott, asks for undecided juror to be replaced.
— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) December 2, 2016 |
|
| Author: | Molly [ Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
RUMPOLE: thanks for getting the tail-end of the happenings today CARM: that note I posted is what was READ by the judge from an actual note. It was typed up and tweeted by a reporter. That's not the actual note from the jury room.
|
|
| Author: | Carmelita [ Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Sounds like the judge Mosby would be if Mosby was a judge. Rumpole your "According to Sundance" makes me happy I no longer read there. The judge sounds like a nut, he cannot replace a juror just because the jury is deadlocked. BTW Do you have a link to the judge dismissing the juror? I can't find one. |
|
| Author: | Rumpole [ Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
The quote about Judge removing "bad juror" is via #FakeNews (CBS) It seems CBS using the old "tweet and delete" trick. https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/stat ... 6191946752 The tweet is Kaput, but that is a verified CBS Twitter account. In fact I read that CBS explained that deleted tweet as being wrong it was the (black) woman Jury foreperson who suggested removing bad juror (which i read as it was happening). So it was just that and not a new utterance by the judge. The CBS correction of deleted tweet... is ALSO DELETED!!  Rumpole's tip: Beware FAKE NEWS on ALL the major networks. http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.co.nz/ Rumpole's Other Tip: Beware Twitter. Tweets get deleted, Twitter suspends accounts. Tweets then VANISH from forums etc. The common reliance of "Embedded Tweets" to relay info is fraught with danger.. better to post a SCREENSHOT image along with tweet link. |
|
| Author: | Carmelita [ Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
CBS Clinton's Bull Shit News?  Yeah I can see them throwing that out there.Sounds like the trial is a shit show and that the foreman is a BLM SJW bully. I hope they get a mistrial. All the other stuff is a lot of nonsense bad and sloppy. The foreman speaks for the jury that is why she was elected, it seems from what I read the judge asked once if the foreman spoke for the jury? It wasn't a verdict it was a question. Verdict poll the jury and demand the foreman state that she speaks for the jury. The judge did clarify the law from what I read but refused to give an answer to a subjective question What is the difference between "passion" & "fear" under the law. That is subjective answer once the definitions are before a juror. It sounds like a low IQ pool. I can't find anywhere that it says that a judge cannot disclose which way the jury leans in an open courtroom. If you have a a 6/6 split that has or should have bearing on a judges decision compared to a 11/1 split. It does seem to me that the judge has over stepped the Good Faith precedent but it is not the first time it has happened. My thoughts are that the there will be a mistrial or an appeal as IMO the judge is acting in a way that is outside of his lawful boundaries in that he is putting undue duress on the holdout juror. The jurors sound like a group of petulant little morons. "We're tired" We're hungry." Piss off donor job. |
|
| Author: | Rumpole [ Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
The foreperson does speak for the jury, but she has to talk to them in PRIVATE in deliberation room, and actually speak only what they actually decide as a group. She CAN NOT make shit up when asked in court by the Judge.... the Jury needs to retire, and she needs to poll what their view on a specific issue is. The Judge KNOWS this he is being an ass in asking her stuff and expecting an answer off the top of her head in Court. The trial is a MESS I dont think it is correct that the Jury was instructed to consider Manslaughter at all. The trial evidence and arguments were based on a MURDER charge. There are very likely DIFFERENT arguments the defense could have made in regards to manslaughter, and yet Manslaughter was given to Jury as an option only AFTER defense had rested... I would say grounds to appeal. And now clear coercion of a juror.. so verdict overturn on appeal could be won even with my 3-legged cat presenting the argument. As I said..... The only way to get out of this MESS is for Jury to remain hung... judge declares mistrial... start again. Next time CHARGE manslaughter and RUN a proper trial on that charge. |
|
| Author: | Carmelita [ Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Agree with everything you said. Did the judge actually question the foreman and let her speak for the jury about decisions that she made on her own, on the spot? Sorry I probably shouldn't even comment since I'm not watching it and only reading accounts of it. I agree it is a mess. Hoping for a mistrial. |
|
| Author: | Rumpole [ Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
I'm making it up as I go along as well, Carm I have not followed the trial.. just read about the mess at the end of yesterday. |
|
| Author: | Carmelita [ Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
 Sadly things are probably going along as goofily as they appear to be, given our courts history. Molly what say you trial watcher? What are people talking about when they say the judge let the foreman speak for the jury unlawfully? |
|
| Author: | Molly [ Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Hi Carm  I haven't seen or read any news, only a few tweets from the reporters I am following. I think the judge has followed the law to the letter. He is very calculating in his rulings -- articulate and has shown no bias that I have seen. When the sides argue he can pull a case out of his head and cite it, to defuse the argument and make a quick ruling. He's been amazing to watch. The jury has contradicted themselves in their notes, then in answers to the judge's questions. I'm gonna try to compose a brief explanation of what happened late yesterday (tomorrow when my mind is clear & not watching Cricket). I think it is VERY interesting what transpired. |
|
| Author: | Carmelita [ Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Thanks Molly!  I'm glad to hear it isn't as being portrayed. It didn't seem possible to me some of what was being said. |
|
| Author: | Rumpole [ Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Froggie is a big help.. as always. At least conformation about #FakeNews CBS stuff. https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/stat ... 1690686464 
|
|
| Author: | Rumpole [ Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
It seems to me that the problem(s) are with the ignorant bitch who is Jury foreperson. I guess the Jury as a whole felt they had to elect the one (token) black as foreman? IMO she is as dumb as a sack of rocks (low IQ with agenda/attitude), (likely NOT a high IQ jury overall) She has made mistakes by blurting out info in open court, and in talking CRAP about what the jury as a whole does or doesn't think. She does NOT have a "point of law" that she, and certainly not the entire jury, wants answered. She is making that shit up. The Judge is at fault at least in so far is he did not shut this daft woman up.. when he had a few chances to.. so he is culpable now too. I still regard this trial as a MESS. We all KNOW what the jury split is.. and we (and even the judge) should NOT know that. There is a shitload of COERCION on the holdout Juror apparent.. even my 3-legged cat can see that. IF this jury comes back GUILTY now, I can not see how that would not be overturned on appeal.. and the Judge admonished. The ONLY half decent result possible is put this trial down, and start again! With a MANSLAUGHTER trial and not a murder trial. ALSO..... IANAL but it seems to me that there might be grounds to appeal the fact that the charge was MURDER and the whole trial was geared towards not ony prosecuting MURDER, but in answering and defending MURDER. My guess is the prosecution FAILED to prove that case and Slager will be regarded (even by this daft jury) as NOT GUILTY of murder. So.. to include "or manslaughter" after the trial presentations are done is sneaky, to say the least, and I would imagine contrary to proper jurisprudence?? Just as an aside OVERCHARGING seems to have been a common thread in a lot(all) of these high profile/political ramifications trials, and I think it is fundamentally WRONG. Lesser included charges, especially when slotted in later, are likely to push a jury towards a "consolation verdict". Find NOT GUILTY on main charge, but then (often swayed by emotion and not evidence) they fell it's correct to find the perp guilty of "something". It is often the case that the "minor" consolation crime has VERY severe penalties itself, which the jury does NOT fully grasp. It is not just a small consolation punishment of short prison stay... it is in itself a long prison term. even LIFE in effect. |
|
| Author: | Molly [ Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
I can't get my thoughts together to do a brief as I promised. Just one of those days. You've made some good points, Rumpole, that I agree with completely. Especially, the overcharge bit. IDK about your opinion on the entire jury. LOL I give them a little more credit after having sat through a lot of testimony and facts (except for maybe the token foreperson). I don't think Slager is a "bad cop" that should go to prison for doing his job. The sad thing is -- he did shoot Scott in the back, which the State proved, and his Defense did not prove, IMO, that Slager was in fear for his life. With the presumption of innocence, they weren't required to prove it, but they tried by putting Slager on the stand. If that one hold-out caves, they may get a guilty tomorrow. If not, and the judge declares a mistrial, I don't know what happens to Slager in the meantime. What is weird is, the Defense had a bondsman sitting in court every day during deliberations. He was the last one to testify before the judge on Friday, before recess for the weekend. I forgot I need to listen to that last bit of video to see what was said. I still say, if the mofo had not run from Slager in the first place, he wouldn't be dead in the ground. I see protests and family payouts in the future. |
|
| Author: | Molly [ Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Reporter inside the courtroom says all jurors are there and have been deliberating since 9:30. No live feed yet. 10:15AM - Judge: The jury is "undecided" not deadlocked. They have questions. "Why was voluntary manslaughter offered as a charge?" "What is meant by imminent danger?" "Define a forethought for murder." "Is self defense the same for a police officer as another person?" Defense renews request for Mistrial. State wants judge to give jurors guidance in explanation of law, give new instructions. Judge denies mistrial and requests both parties to draft any charges to be given to jurors to answer their questions. Court in recess for 20 minutes (until 11:00AM). |
|
| Author: | Carmelita [ Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Ok so I just watched a brief recap of Slager’s testimony. Recap in my own words. Slager said that after Scott fought with him and gained control of his taser that Slager was in fear for his life. Even though Scott was running away Slager was unaware that Scott no longer had the taser and he feared that Scott could use it on Slager and get his gun. Slager felt Scott posed an immediate threat to Slagers life. I would vote to acquit on all charges. Slager is under no obligation to put his own life in danger. Scott was erratic, combative, resisting arrest, disarmed Slager of his taser and was an imminent danger. Scott was running for a reason what if he got behind the tree? What if he had a gun? I respect the juror for standing his ground and hope he continues to do so. |
|
| Author: | Carmelita [ Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Walter Scott Shooting (Ofc. Michael Slager Charged) |
Ok. It is not a single hold out juror. There is one vocal juror who has stated adamantly that he has reasonable doubt and will not be bullied into a guilty verdict but there are several jurors who are undecided. http://www.wyff4.com/article/several-ju ... ys/8465454 The jury in the murder trial of former South Carolina patrolman Michael Slager has sent a note to the judge indicating that several jurors are undecided. The foreman said that one juror is adamant that he will not convict as he has reasonable doubt but the foreman does not say that 11 jurors are in agreement to convict Slager. That is a misinterpretation from what I can see. This is why I should only comment on things that I am personally familiar with. Where the heck did the story about the judge revealing an 11 to 1 vote to find Slager guilty? Because that is nonsense. Just because the Jury former said that "One juror can not say Michael Slater is guilty." does not mean that 11 jurors found him guilty 
|
|
| Page 10 of 12 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|