- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PT lawyers....how fast does Stone walk on appeal?
Posted on 2/14/20 at 6:35 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 2/14/20 at 6:35 am to boosiebadazz
Lmao. So, essentially Stone’s lawyers didn’t even do a social media check on this woman.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 6:50 am to Bourre
quote:No, I did not.quote:Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest
I like how you ignore this part of the story:
If you want to appeal based upon a bad juror, you must object based upon that bad juror.
Lawyers can certainly argue the point, but I do not see any appellate court in this country overruling a trial court judge who declines dismissal for cause purely for belonging to a political party OR for opposing a politician who is not personally on trial.
As to Hart, social media has irrevocably changed jury selection. Stone’s lawyers should have been aware of her Twitter account.
Even without that info, however, I think I probably would have used a peremptory on her. There must have been some REALLY bad veniremen.
With that being said, MANY lawyers are scared to exercise a peremptory on a Black venireman. That may have bee a factor.
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 10:25 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 6:54 am to SavageOrangeJug
This also demonstrates that he did not receive adequate counsel. His attorney’s should have been all over that prior to and during the trial.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 6:55 am to LSU Patrick
Not doing a social media check is retarded but not going to merit ineffective assistance of counsel.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 6:55 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:00 am to udtiger
quote:Louisiana must pick juries differently.
Were they out if peremptory challenges?
Here, we do not exercise our limited number of peremptory strikes until AFTER the judge has ruled on requests for dismissal for cause. It would have been impossible to have declined to request a dismissal for cause because they were “out of peremptory strikes.”
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 7:02 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:08 am to Bourre
quote:
This case is something fricked up
It sure is.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:23 am to boosiebadazz
quote:She is juror 1261. Search that term
Here is a link to the entire voire dire:
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Here, we do not exercise our limited number of peremptory strikes until AFTER the judge has ruled on requests for dismissal for cause. It would have been impossible to have declined to request a dismissal for cause because they were “out of peremptory strikes.”
It's the same in Louisiana; however, you have a limited number of peremptories and assuming it's similar in DC, they may have blown through theirs in response to other denials of for cause challenges. That's why I said I would need to see the full transcript of the voir dire. Also, it may be that they had a peremptory in their pocket but were saving it for a backstrike (if those are allowed in that court) for an even facially worse juror.
Still, a for cause challenge should have been put on the record for the purposes of preserving the issue for appeal.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:37 am to udtiger
I was unclear. We do not exercise ANY peremptories until after the Court has ruled on ALL “for cause” motions. That way, you get to pick the three or six or ten worst (depending upon the type of case).
Exercising them one at a time would be weird.
Exercising them one at a time would be weird.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:38 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Here is a link to the entire voire dire: LINK
I'll read this later and comment.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:40 am to SavageOrangeJug
What has become blatantly apparent re the Stone case, is that there is indeed a double standard of criminal justice re Democrats v Republicans. From Comey to McCabe to Hillary destroying SUBPOENAED emails, and on to Brennan, Clapper and many who were at the conspiratorial core of the whole Muh Russia/"insurance policy"...the glaring elephant in the political room is whether or not Trump Nation swallows this (un)Equal Justice pill...or they don't. And if they don't, and these Deep State Operatives are given a pass...then what?
I heard an interview wherein a Trump NSC Advisor (K. Mcfarlane, I think) that a Deep State Bureaucrat working in the WH told a Trump High Up that "you can't fire us...we'll be here long after you are gone". In effect, Progressive Ideologues run this Government...POTUS no longer does...if they are anti-Transnational Progressive. And they all get rich on Taxpayer money up there.
The conversation and legal maneuvering is pointless, as it will solve nothing. The Deep State Progs will NEVER allow true Equal Justice, but (anti-Constitutional) Prog Operatives like Schumer, Pelosi, et al...will project and scream Trump undermining Constitution, and the MSM will back it up. Gas on the revolutionary fire.
Outside of a massive Trump electoral victory in the Fall, with the House and Senate going Red to disempower Prog Dems in Congress...the Transnational Progressives in the Bureaucracy will hold power. Trump's only play will be to alter the Budget in ways that severely CUT Bureaucracy, and move that money to massive Infrastructure Projects that will put money in the hands of the many who will jump into those good-paying jobs. If he presents that argument and opportunity to the pre-election folk...he will win it. I think he will.
Stone is a great way to focus on the REAL problem. It's nuclear war going on behind the scenes up there.
I heard an interview wherein a Trump NSC Advisor (K. Mcfarlane, I think) that a Deep State Bureaucrat working in the WH told a Trump High Up that "you can't fire us...we'll be here long after you are gone". In effect, Progressive Ideologues run this Government...POTUS no longer does...if they are anti-Transnational Progressive. And they all get rich on Taxpayer money up there.
The conversation and legal maneuvering is pointless, as it will solve nothing. The Deep State Progs will NEVER allow true Equal Justice, but (anti-Constitutional) Prog Operatives like Schumer, Pelosi, et al...will project and scream Trump undermining Constitution, and the MSM will back it up. Gas on the revolutionary fire.
Outside of a massive Trump electoral victory in the Fall, with the House and Senate going Red to disempower Prog Dems in Congress...the Transnational Progressives in the Bureaucracy will hold power. Trump's only play will be to alter the Budget in ways that severely CUT Bureaucracy, and move that money to massive Infrastructure Projects that will put money in the hands of the many who will jump into those good-paying jobs. If he presents that argument and opportunity to the pre-election folk...he will win it. I think he will.
Stone is a great way to focus on the REAL problem. It's nuclear war going on behind the scenes up there.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I was unclear. We do not exercise ANY peremptories until after the Court has ruled on ALL “for cause” motions. That way, you get to pick the three or six or ten worst (depending upon the type of case).
Exercising them one at a time would be weird.
That's how it's done here.
After the first panel is interviewed, they are excused and the following takes place (each juror is addressed in order called):
Judge: Defense, do you have a challenge for Juror No. 1?
Defense: No, Your Honor
Judge: Plaintiff/Prosecution, do you have a challenge for Juror No. 1?
Plaintiff/Prosecution: Yes. We challenge for cause because of her answers as to impartiality (reasons). She's too biased to serve.
Judge: Defense?
Defense: Your Honor, (reasons why should not be struck for cause).
Judge: I am not going to strike for cause. I believe the juror can be impartial. Do you wish to use a peremptory strike for Juror No. 1?
Plaintiff/Prosecutor (or defense for the next juror [it alternates]) then has to decide right then and there to use it. If not, on the jury (unless backstrikes are allowed).
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 7:46 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:51 am to udtiger
Really? That is just strange.
After the voir dire, we get a list with the names of all remaining veniremen, and we strike through the names of those we want to strike.
Half the discussion is usually an attempt not to waste a strike on a person that you think the other side will strike instead.
I tried a case once with three strikes per side. Only four veniremen were struck (rather than six), because both sides thought the same two people would be awful jurors.
After the voir dire, we get a list with the names of all remaining veniremen, and we strike through the names of those we want to strike.
Half the discussion is usually an attempt not to waste a strike on a person that you think the other side will strike instead.
I tried a case once with three strikes per side. Only four veniremen were struck (rather than six), because both sides thought the same two people would be awful jurors.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Really? That is just strange.
I agree. I like the "see the field" before using peremptories as you guys have it. Makes more sense (but a lot of other jurisdictions do compared to Louisiana).
I don't know how it was done in Stone which is why I need to read the transcript.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 7:59 am to udtiger
The system you describe is so counter-ntuitive that it simply never occurred to me that any jurisdiction would handle the matter that way. But the “backstrike” thing (which we do not use) makes more sense in that system.
I wonder how many jurisdictions do things that way. Ran a google and saw only Louisiana and Florida (“Florida man”), but I suppose there may be more.
I wonder how many jurisdictions do things that way. Ran a google and saw only Louisiana and Florida (“Florida man”), but I suppose there may be more.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 8:34 am to AggieHank86
I’ve used a peremptory on an ok juror to move the playing field one slot closer to a juror I really wanted (other side was out of peremptory and I knew judge wouldn’t kick for cause because I had rehabilitated her some)
It’s more game theory than anything else and one of my favorite parts of being a litigator.
It’s more game theory than anything else and one of my favorite parts of being a litigator.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 8:40 am to boosiebadazz
Yeah, I have done that, too. In our system, the post-voir-dire list is the order in which they will fill the jury, so you can do it if you are damned sure whom the other side will be striking from earlier in the list.
It only works if you are correct in that guess. It can backfire and lose you a good juror, too.
Does Louisiana allow shuffling of the venire?
It only works if you are correct in that guess. It can backfire and lose you a good juror, too.
Does Louisiana allow shuffling of the venire?
quote:If you see the venire sitting there in order, and you think the first half look awful for your case, you just look at the judge and say “shuffle.”. Handy tool.
TRCP 223 .... the trial judge of such court, upon the demand prior to voir dire examination by any party or attorney in the case reached for trial in such court, shall cause the names of all members of such assigned jury panel in such case to be placed in a receptacle, shuffled, and drawn, and such names shall be transcribed in the order drawn on the jury list from which the jury is to be selected to try such case. There shall be only one shuffle and drawing by the trial judge in each case.
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 8:47 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:00 am to AggieHank86
Hank, I’m no attorney, but I thought the judge picks the jurors in federal cases?
I didn’t think each side has “strikes” like in state criminal and civil trials?
I didn’t think each side has “strikes” like in state criminal and civil trials?
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:09 am to AggieHank86
quote:Hart claimed she could be fair. If her written contemporaneous accounts indicate otherwise, the matter is absolutely subject to appeal. Especially as she manipulated herself to a position of foreman.
Would Jackson have declined to dismiss her? Probably. But you do not preserve the matter for appeal if you do not make the request.
Further as Jackson had already railroaded leftist partisans onto the jury pool over identical defense objections, there comes a point when bench-defense discord can hurt the client.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News