Posted on 11/18/2021 5:34:39 AM PST by Pilgrim's Progress
Links will be provided at they become available.
Hoping to see this thing wrap up soon with a favorable verdict for our nation's hero - Kyle Rittenhouse and some legal jeopardy for ADA Binger and his buddy Krause (aka Fatlock).
Apparently Karen is on the jury using a capital K and: A capital K in a word that should contain a lower case k indicates defiance.
A capital K in a word that should contain a lower case k indicates defiance.
Just to give an example of nutty thinking that I managed to reverse when stuck being foreman on a jury.
Two hold outs would not vote guilty. Reason? Not proved. Essentially, I think, “no movie of it.”
I asked them if they thought he did what he was accused of. Yes. Then I asked if they had any doubt at all whether or not he did it. Nope, they were sure he did it. No doubt at all in their minds. But they would not vote guilty because it wasn’t proved.
I told them that if there was that kind of proof, there wouldn’t be a trial. Function of a jury is to listen to the witnesses and then think about it. Sort of a metaphysical “what is proof, anyway” sort of discussion.
They weren’t uncomfortable saying he was guilty - they truly believed he was, and said they had no doubt, not the slightest, of guilt.
If they’d have been liberal moonbats, they’d have shifted the basis for holding out.
Guilty guy was convicted. Justice was done.
Not good because it's a woman's handwriting, I get that. But let's say it is the NG voters holding out, we're still going to get to a hung jury, and then whatever the Judge "I promise to deal with that once the jury has reached verdict" regarding prosecutorial malfeasance ... it's either going to coin flip:
“I doubt it. My early speculation was the jury would intiailly split 10 / 2, with 10 for acquittal.”
But will the two be able to persuade the others? All they need is reasonable double to acquit. I worry it is the other way, if there is reasonable doubt, convict.
I see no way to a guilty verdict. That isn’t going to happen on this evidence. This isn’t the tribal OJ jury.
Thanks, I did not known that.
I see no way to a guilty verdict.
***********************
That’s because you are a logical, rational person. Liberal anti-gunners are not. They are emotional creatures. Guns are bad and evil.
I think the only issue their having is with the charges related to Rosenbaum.
in what regard?
Possible to get a split jury though. Even in a semi-rural Wisconsin town burned by “BLM types.” I came to the realization years ago that even intelligent (in some ways) people can listen to the media and believe the lies.
“This request is from the prosecutor’s point of view.”
I agree.
Well, my “I see no way to a guilty verdict” supposes a couple of loons on the jury. I just don’t see any way to draw 12 loons in that part of the world.
Today was the first I’d seen an actual jury note. In case others have missed the previous ones, too, here is a link to all of them.
And she calls him “Mr. Rosebaum”. She sees his as a person she respects.
Thanks, I was reasonably sure this would all be over by now and scheduled a few appointments for the dog - so I’ve been running around trying to keep up with the thread.
What does Rich Baris (People’s Pundit) mean by the term Red Authoritarian?
If they are all “city folks”, you can bet they are all loons, it is a prerequisite. All we can hope for is that there are a few hardheaded constitutional rural jurors in there.
“I think the only issue their having is with the charges related to Rosenbaum.”
If Kyle is a murderer on the first one does it reduce your self-fence arguments on the other two?
She couldn’t be trying to appear impartial at all, can she . . .
In my mind, not everyone that uses Mr. is using it as a title of respect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.