- 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 9:35 am to SavageOrangeJug
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:35 am to SavageOrangeJug
You’re making some assumptions that have not been established as fact.
Stone’s sentencing phase isn’t complete yet.
Appeal won’t evenbe an issue for awhile.
Who knows?
1
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:35 am to boosiebadazz
quote:The criticism is that it is often used in a racially-discriminatory fashion. Of course, the same is said of peremptory strikes.
We don’t have the shuffling mechanism but that sounds awesome. I may run that up the flag pole. I can’t see why either side of the aisle would object.
If you are planning to strike a Black, the first thing you learn is to write in your notes all the objective reasons you do not want him on your jury. Tons of cases address the point, starting with Batson.
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 10:27 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:That's why she yanked them down ASAP once she realized she'd outed herself? Because there was nothing to them?
Her social media posts were about Trump, not Stone. She said she could set aside partisanship to be fair to Stone.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:40 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That's why she yanked them down ASAP once she realized she'd outed herself? Because there was nothing to them?
What’s going to happen is another trash court is going to say “we can’t grant appeal based on politics, because muh institutions”
It’s a joke.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:41 am to NC_Tigah
Yeah, sorry.
Political partisans have NO business on a jury like that. I don’t gaf how well behaved she promises to be.
Political partisans have NO business on a jury like that. I don’t gaf how well behaved she promises to be.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:41 am to VOR
quote:Do you think a Trump activist could get a fair and impartial trial if overseen by a partisan judge allowing partisan packing of a partisan jury?
VOR
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:42 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I would expect the lawyers to ask that Mr. Nadler be dismissed for cause and to ask extensive questions to establish his bias. If dismissal for cause were denied, I would expect them to exercise a peremptory strike on him.
So Jerry Nadler would be fine as a juror as long as he claimed he could be fair?
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:43 am to AggieHank86
I thought I read that Stones lawyers tried to get the juror dismissed, but the judge stepped in.
ETA: from the link on page 1
ETA: from the link on page 1
quote:
Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge 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.
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 9:46 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:46 am to Vacherie Saint
If Stone’s law tried to have the juror dismissed, then they asked the judge to step in.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:47 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:Which juror?
Vacherie Saint
Tomeka Hart? No, they failed to move to strike her for cause. See Boosie’s graphic of the transcript. Thereafter, they failed to exercise the right to strike her peremptorily.
The Obama staffer? I have not read on her yet.
EDIT. Just saw our edit to say which juror. Give me a few minutes.
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 10:28 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:47 am to VOR
Who is “they”?
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:and then when the next in line was Schiff, then Waters, then Omar . . . . obvious unequivocal bias should never require peremptory intervention.
I would expect them to exercise a peremptory strike on him.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:
VOR
Do you think a Trump activist could get a fair and impartial trial if overseen by a partisan judge allowing partisan packing of a partisan jury?
He doesn't care.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:49 am to AggieHank86
You are making your argument on a totally different juror. The Obama press secretary juror, with the husband who was part of the case, is different than the black lady who was recently identified because of her social media post
You probably should have read the article before offering an uninformed opinion
You probably should have read the article before offering an uninformed opinion
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 9:54 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:How many strikes did they have and use?
they failed to exercise the right to strike her peremptorily.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:51 am to NC_Tigah
I wouldn’t assume his lawyers made good decisions. Our justice system doesn’t let people hang for ineffective counsel. Either way, it’s clear Stone did not get a fair trial.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:54 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
He doesn't care.
No, he doesn’t. He was perfectly fine with Hillary donors prosecuting her election rival and he was ok with dem presidential candidates not recusing themselves in an impeachment trial of their opponent.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:54 am to SavageOrangeJug
Everybody who was convicted on copped a plea will have their convictions/pleas vacated when this whole charade is finally exposed.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Her social media posts were about Trump, not Stone. She said she could set aside partisanship to be fair to Stone.
Only Liberal Hank would say this
Posted on 2/14/20 at 9:55 am to AggieHank86
AggieHank86
Go check out Morgan and Morgan in Florida. Their Voir Dire is 3-4 hours and they strike for cause between 40-60% of the venire.
It is an abusive process they have put forth for years.
As for the other, too much depends on the facts leading up to the information. However, while I also agree that political party affiliation does not automatically qualify for strike, this is purely a political trial. Much like Mueller, when everyone is a rabid democrat how is that fair?
quote:
Picking a jury is difficult. Strikes for cause are pretty rare, and you only have a small number of peremptory strikes to get rid of a few folks you do not like. M
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.
Go check out Morgan and Morgan in Florida. Their Voir Dire is 3-4 hours and they strike for cause between 40-60% of the venire.
It is an abusive process they have put forth for years.
As for the other, too much depends on the facts leading up to the information. However, while I also agree that political party affiliation does not automatically qualify for strike, this is purely a political trial. Much like Mueller, when everyone is a rabid democrat how is that fair?
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 10:00 am
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News