User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Can You Say "MISTRIAL" ?

  1. #31
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second ClassTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 81.0%

    patrickt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Oaxaca, Mexico, for over twenty years. Born and raised in Memphis, TN, and worked in Colorado.
    Posts
    35,550
    Thanks
    5,013
    Thanked: 26,156
    Rep Power
    21474880
    It wasn't a trial. It was a sham to justify lynching. The President of the United States stated before the verdict he hoped the jury would make the "right" decision. There were threats and one juror said she felt threatened. The thugs repeatedly said that if they didn't get their way the city would burn.

    It was a classic Soviet or Nazi trial. Quite suitable for Democrats.

    I don't know whether Chauvin was guilty of the crime or not but he didn't get a trial.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to patrickt For This Useful Post:

    dinosaur (05-04-2021),MisterVeritis (05-04-2021)

  3. #32
    Senior Member V.I.P Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 73.0%

    Freewill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,979
    Thanks
    4,775
    Thanked: 6,952
    Rep Power
    8174336
    Quote Originally Posted by Oceander View Post
    Sounds like he lied to the court during voir dire.

    That may, in fact, constitute grounds for a new trial. According to the Supreme Court, the standard - at least in federal courts - is that a party may be able to obtain a new trial if that party can "demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause." McDonough Pwr. Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984).

    It remains to be seen whether the Minnesota state courts apply the same, or a substantially similar, rule.
    All good points but no one is going to turn back the trial, just like the corrupt election. He might as well be picking out the drapes for his cell and his new boyfriend.

  4. #33
    Senior Member V.I.P Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 73.0%

    Freewill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,979
    Thanks
    4,775
    Thanked: 6,952
    Rep Power
    8174336
    For those who want to be surrounded by blacks should move the Ghan. Or down town Atlanta.

  5. #34
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second ClassTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 81.0%

    patrickt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Oaxaca, Mexico, for over twenty years. Born and raised in Memphis, TN, and worked in Colorado.
    Posts
    35,550
    Thanks
    5,013
    Thanked: 26,156
    Rep Power
    21474880
    Quote Originally Posted by Oceander View Post
    It was never taken away. The States and the federal government are two separate sovereigns, each, within its own sphere of power, able to enact laws defining offenses, violations of which can be punished by the sovereign who enacted the law. The spheres of power of the two sovereigns overlap, with the result that both a State and the federal government, in lawful exercise of its granted (or retained) power, may define as an offense the same set of operative facts, and each may prosecute an individual for violating that offense, without regard to whether the other has, or will, also prosecute.
    I am not a lawyer but I've dealt with courts a lot.
    For 200 years the "offense", the "crime", wasn't the specific charge or even what court it was heard in. It was the criminal act. If you robbed a bank in Seattle you could not be tried in Washington State courts and then in Federal Court for the same bank robbery or tried in Washington for armed robbery and in federal court for bank robbery.

    As the lawyers said, "You only get one bite of the apple." The first time I saw it change was with the Rodney King trial. The cops were convicted in California but the sentence didn't satisfy Washington so they tried them again, for the same criminal act, in Federal Court.
    Last edited by patrickt; 05-04-2021 at 10:33 AM.

  6. #35
    Senior Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsOverdriveTagger First ClassSocial3 months registered
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    Oceander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    LIRR
    Posts
    7,757
    Thanks
    13,523
    Thanked: 12,321
    Rep Power
    16564629
    Quote Originally Posted by Freewill View Post
    All good points but no one is going to turn back the trial, just like the corrupt election. He might as well be picking out the drapes for his cell and his new boyfriend.
    It's a very different matter to order a new trial because the jury was tainted than it is to overturn a conviction because the evidence didn't support the jury's conclusion. It's also a lot easier, politically, for a reviewing court to do that under the circumstances of this case, because the court wouldn't look like it was siding with Chauvin, the way that it would be accused of doing if it overturned the conviction on substantive grounds.

    The real key for the defense here, is going to be to run out the clock on this process as long as possible so that it fades from memory to the point where, three or four years from now, a new prosecutor is likely to be willing to take a plea to something like manslaughter than to deal with the cost and expense of running a new trial.
    So let us stop talkin' falsely now
    The hour's getting late -- Jimi Hendrix

    #RESISTBidet

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oceander For This Useful Post:

    dinosaur (05-04-2021),Freewill (05-04-2021)

  8. #36
    Senior Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsOverdriveTagger First ClassSocial3 months registered
    Overall activity: 62.0%

    Oceander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    LIRR
    Posts
    7,757
    Thanks
    13,523
    Thanked: 12,321
    Rep Power
    16564629
    Quote Originally Posted by patrickt View Post
    For 200 years the "offense", the "crime", wasn't the specific charge or even what court it was heard in. It was the criminal act. If you robbed a bank in Seattle you could not be tried in Washington State courts and then in Federal Court for the same bank robbery or tried in Washington for armed robbery and in federal court for bank robbery.

    As the lawyers said, "You only get one bite of the apple." The first time I saw it change was with the Rodney King trial. The cops were convicted in California but the sentence didn't satisfy Washington so they tried them again, for the same criminal act, in Federal Court. That's when double jeopardy became legal.

    Not true. The dual sovereign issue was first addressed by the Supreme Court in 1847, in the case Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410 (1847), at least according to the most recent Supreme Court case on the matter, Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) (opinion by J. Alito). In that case, the Supreme Court first addressed the issue that the states and the federal government were separate sovereigns. In a second case, the Supreme Court declared that “the same act might, as to its character and tendencies, and the consequences it involved, constitute an offence against both the State and Federal governments, and might draw to its commission the penalties denounced by either, as appropriate to its character in reference to each.” United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560, 569 (1850). See Gamble v. U.S.

    The Rodney King trial might have been the first time you noticed the dual sovereigns issue, but that was most assuredly not the first time that it had been addressed, and dual state and federal prosecutions based on the same common nucleus of operative fact allowed.
    So let us stop talkin' falsely now
    The hour's getting late -- Jimi Hendrix

    #RESISTBidet

  9. #37
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 27.0%

    yeuemmaimai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Somewhere on this here planet
    Posts
    935
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked: 745
    Rep Power
    764313
    Quote Originally Posted by Hillofbeans View Post
    Chauvin is cold and callous thug with a badge but this juror was biased
    thug or not, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, this man did not get one.
    Bring out your dead- The monster is amongst us waiting to be revealed - he bears the number of a man, 666.
    Death is not racist as it is
    color blind it comes for us all regardless of age or standing
    has no remorse, or feels pity
    cannot be reasoned with nor bargained with
    it is coming for us all.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to yeuemmaimai For This Useful Post:

    Hillofbeans (05-04-2021)

  11. #38
    ADMIN IT Staff
    Forum Donor
    V.I.P
    TPF Moderator
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation First ClassTagger First ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsCreated Album picturesVeteran
    Overall activity: 55.0%

    Trinnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    67,034
    Thanks
    8,555
    Thanked: 68,653
    Rep Power
    21474912
    The Media has made the story so big, I doubt he can get a fair trial. What a mess.
    Respect the rules of the Forum.
    << Forum RULES >>


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Trinnity For This Useful Post:

    Hillofbeans (05-04-2021)

  13. #39
    Senior Member V.I.P Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 73.0%

    Freewill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,979
    Thanks
    4,775
    Thanked: 6,952
    Rep Power
    8174336
    Quote Originally Posted by Oceander View Post
    It's a very different matter to order a new trial because the jury was tainted than it is to overturn a conviction because the evidence didn't support the jury's conclusion. It's also a lot easier, politically, for a reviewing court to do that under the circumstances of this case, because the court wouldn't look like it was siding with Chauvin, the way that it would be accused of doing if it overturned the conviction on substantive grounds.

    The real key for the defense here, is going to be to run out the clock on this process as long as possible so that it fades from memory to the point where, three or four years from now, a new prosecutor is likely to be willing to take a plea to something like manslaughter than to deal with the cost and expense of running a new trial.
    Maybe you are right, but conditions certainly need to change in the country for what you suggest to happen.

  14. #40
    Hail to the Thief Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Overall activity: 41.0%

    El Guapo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    6,573
    Thanks
    2,145
    Thanked: 13,948
    Rep Power
    21474845
    Quote Originally Posted by Authentic View Post
    Third degree murder under Minnesota law does not require intent.
    2nd degree does...they convicted him of that, too






    The charges and verdicts themselves are irrelevant...they'll seek a mistrial on Minnesota's failure to give him a fair trial. Not going to list the reasons now...they are myriad.
    You are the carbon they want to reduce


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •