- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Rittenhouse Day 4 of deliberation: Not Guilty on all counts...He is Free!!!
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:01 am to sms151t
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:01 am to sms151t
quote:
This case, there is clear evidence of Self Defense, but the jury wants to convict, a non idiot prosecution would have convicted Rittenhouse easily.
I don't think this is true with this evidence. Unless they try it like 50 times, I fully believe there's always going to be some hold outs for the defense side of it. Again, this is an area of the country that owns guns and isn't anywhere near as liberal as Minny.
1
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:01 am to The Quiet One
Question for the legals on here:
Let's assume for a moment that a juror did go home and do "research"...if they introduce information based on that research, but not on testimony / evidence introduced during the trial, would that be (additional) grounds for a mistrial???
Let's assume for a moment that a juror did go home and do "research"...if they introduce information based on that research, but not on testimony / evidence introduced during the trial, would that be (additional) grounds for a mistrial???
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:02 am to TD422
quote:
Let's assume for a moment that a juror did go home and do "research"...if they introduce information based on that research, but not on testimony / evidence introduced during the trial, would that be (additional) grounds for a mistrial???
It is definitely grounds to dismiss the juror.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:03 am to TD422
quote:
if they introduce information based on that research, but not on testimony / evidence introduced during the trial, would that be (additional) grounds for a mistrial???
If that information comes to light.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:03 am to Indefatigable
quote:
It is definitely grounds to dismiss the juror.
So the judge just replaces the juror and they move on?
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:04 am to HubbaBubba
Same thing for me.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:05 am to Jcorye1
To further expound, we've seen inept lawyering on both sides. I fully believe had Kyle had a talented lawyer used to these kinds of trials, we'd be in a different situation. Richards just consistently shite the bed by not objecting, and it's sounding more and more like the whole "duty to retreat" thing is hurting Kyle, where a competent lawyer would have gotten that thrown out as it's not even part of the law.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:06 am to TD422
This is all a pile of horse shite, right in front of our eyes. Kid never should have been charged or indicted, and now he’s apparently in a fight for his life in kangaroo court.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:07 am to MeatCleaverWeaver
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:08 am to TD422
quote:
So the judge just replaces the juror and they move on?
Who knows what Judge Peter Principle will do. He’s a rudderless ship. He is probably be more equipped to deal with a dui or noise ordinance violation.
This post was edited on 11/19/21 at 10:10 am
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:08 am to TD422
quote:
So the judge just replaces the juror and they move on?
If it came to that, yes. They would select one of the alternates to fill the spot.
Two jurors were already dismissed earlier in the trial. One for potential bias and the other for health reasons.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:10 am to TDTOM
quote:Now, this is something we haven't really considered.
This tells me there are very few holdouts, or they are very meticulously going through everything. If it was split I think they would probably call it.
Some folks being Karens, but also believing him to be not guilty. And wanting to dot every i and cross every t, while meantime their hubby demands a bigger police/Nat'l Guard presence to protect their city.
"See, we looked at everything, he's not guilty, so don't burn us out again"
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:12 am to SlowFlowPro
Someone explain this to me, i must be out of the loop 
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:14 am to the808bass
quote:
a crusader
I would guess that the person meant crusader in the sense of someone who wasn’t looking at the facts and was deciding on outside opinions or information or predisposed biases.
Yes - exactly that.
IMO the "crusader" is probably pro-convict in this trial, but either way is a problem.
I think the facts of this trial are pretty clearly self-defense so no crusading needed for those steadfast in their opinion to stick to acquittal.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:19 am to 3nOut
A lot of misunderstanding of juries in this thread. Believe it or not, most jurors want to their job correctly. It is very difficult to send a man to prison, and equally difficult to set a potential criminal free.
Believe it or not, 2 people can be presented with same evidence and draw completely different conclusions. That doesn't make one person stupid or stubborn. People are just different, which is both the beauty and the bane of our jury system.
If any jurors already decided guilt or innocence before the trial, they should have been weeded out during voir dire. The Judge repeatedly asks jurors if they can be open minded and impartial, and saying "no" is a quick and easy way to avoid serving on the jury.
This case has multiple, complicated counts and days of testimony and evidence. 35 pages of instructions. I expected at least three days of deliberation, even if they all wanted to acquit or convict immediately. They still have to go through each element of each count and agree whether those elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The theories that the jury is deliberately stalling for various reasons are ludicrous conspiracy theories. These people want to go back to their regular lives. Jury pay is a joke. Its a fair bet they all want this over with.
Believe it or not, 2 people can be presented with same evidence and draw completely different conclusions. That doesn't make one person stupid or stubborn. People are just different, which is both the beauty and the bane of our jury system.
If any jurors already decided guilt or innocence before the trial, they should have been weeded out during voir dire. The Judge repeatedly asks jurors if they can be open minded and impartial, and saying "no" is a quick and easy way to avoid serving on the jury.
This case has multiple, complicated counts and days of testimony and evidence. 35 pages of instructions. I expected at least three days of deliberation, even if they all wanted to acquit or convict immediately. They still have to go through each element of each count and agree whether those elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The theories that the jury is deliberately stalling for various reasons are ludicrous conspiracy theories. These people want to go back to their regular lives. Jury pay is a joke. Its a fair bet they all want this over with.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:21 am to Dday63
Just plugging in, anything thus far?
Judge addressed anything new?
Judge addressed anything new?
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:24 am to Bamafan24
quote:
Is today the day this young man is set free?
Naw. Today is the day the jury announces they are at a deadlock and the prosecution announces they will happily retry him.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:24 am to Dday63
quote:
Believe it or not, 2 people can be presented with same evidence and draw completely different conclusions
Not in this case. Not honestly, anyway.
Posted on 11/19/21 at 10:24 am to TigerFanatic99
They're not announcing anything today.
Page 4 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News