https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ch ... l-n1266337"The thing is, he was honest about his underlying belief, which is that he felt very favorably about Black Lives Matter," Osler said. "The attorneys knew that. And they also knew that that attitude based off lived experience is not a reason to bar jury service."
Osler said it is important to note that Nelson ended with peremptory strikes to burn. Peremptory strikes are used when an attorney believes a potential juror cannot be impartial.
"We can't expect that we can form a truly diverse jury without a truly diverse range of lived experiences," Osler said. "Part of what comes to the surface is that if we want a jury of our peers, we find out what our peers had gone through."
"We can't write off Black jurors because they have lived their lives as Black people," Osler said.
Derek Chauvin Trial
Moderator: Biker
- Burn1dwn
- Non-Gay Omar
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
- pork
- Grouchy old fart.
- Posts: 4040
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
- Location: frisco
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
there are black jurors and then there are black jurors that lied about marching over the act that they were going to be the juror on.
yes...juries should be diverse. yes they should be full of life experiences. they should also be picked based on the full merit of what they are sworn to in their statements. the dude would have never made the jury pool had he disclosed it.
yes...juries should be diverse. yes they should be full of life experiences. they should also be picked based on the full merit of what they are sworn to in their statements. the dude would have never made the jury pool had he disclosed it.
- Burn1dwn
- Non-Gay Omar
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
You need to read the article. He disclosed everything including his favorable view of BLM which he sees as statement and not a movement or organization. He also disclosed his neutral view on Blue Lives Matter which he thinks is competing with BLM when they shouldn't be competing ideas.pork wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:27 pm there are black jurors and then there are black jurors that lied about marching over the act that they were going to be the juror on.
yes...juries should be diverse. yes they should be full of life experiences. they should also be picked based on the full merit of what they are sworn to in their statements. the dude would have never made the jury pool had he disclosed it.
This is all because he bought a souvenir at the MLK rally that has something Al Sharpton said on it. Not because he was caught lying or misrepresenting his ideals.
- pork
- Grouchy old fart.
- Posts: 4040
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
- Location: frisco
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
i have to find the article i read...it was pointing to him not disclosing the marching in a rally. let me try and find it.Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:44 pmYou need to read the article. He disclosed everything including his favorable view of BLM which he sees as statement and not a movement or organization. He also disclosed his neutral view on Blue Lives Matter which he thinks is competing with BLM when they shouldn't be competing ideas.pork wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:27 pm there are black jurors and then there are black jurors that lied about marching over the act that they were going to be the juror on.
yes...juries should be diverse. yes they should be full of life experiences. they should also be picked based on the full merit of what they are sworn to in their statements. the dude would have never made the jury pool had he disclosed it.
This is all because he bought a souvenir at the MLK rally that has something Al Sharpton said on it. Not because he was caught lying or misrepresenting his ideals.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
I read all of that. And I would say that if the only thing he did was attend the DC rally and he bought a T shirt just because he wanted a shirt as memorabilia and that is the end of the story in regards to his participation, then its probably not a big deal. They also mention in the article that there is such a thing as a "Schwartz Hearing" where jurors are questioned on these kind of things after a case to determine if it had any influence on their outcome. That is interesting.Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:12 pmhttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ch ... l-n1266337"The thing is, he was honest about his underlying belief, which is that he felt very favorably about Black Lives Matter," Osler said. "The attorneys knew that. And they also knew that that attitude based off lived experience is not a reason to bar jury service."
Osler said it is important to note that Nelson ended with peremptory strikes to burn. Peremptory strikes are used when an attorney believes a potential juror cannot be impartial.
"We can't expect that we can form a truly diverse jury without a truly diverse range of lived experiences," Osler said. "Part of what comes to the surface is that if we want a jury of our peers, we find out what our peers had gone through."
"We can't write off Black jurors because they have lived their lives as Black people," Osler said.
Now, if something else were to come out that this juror was much more involved in the Floyd riots or the anti-police movement, then that would be different. I mean, some of FLoyd's family spoke at that rally that he might have been at.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.Animal wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pmactually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).
But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Yep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 amThe judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.Animal wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pmactually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).
But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
- pork
- Grouchy old fart.
- Posts: 4040
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
- Location: frisco
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
the judge wasnt throwing out all of the moving work that was done over a statement made by the congresswoman. what he said was if you lose she probably tee'd you up for a great appeal. lets go to then end and then after the decision we can figure it out. if they won they obviously wouldn't have appealed the decision.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Do you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pmYep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 amThe judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.Animal wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pmactually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).
But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Yeah, just read into it and suggest things you think he meant. I'm just going by what words mean.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:18 pmDo you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pmYep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 amThe judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.Animal wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pmactually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).
But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:20 pmYeah, just read into it and suggest things you think he meant. I'm just going by what words mean.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:18 pmDo you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pmYep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 amThe judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.Animal wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pmactually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).
But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
And what do you think these words mean exactly?Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
I know exactly what it means , you fucking idiot. It means that judges hate mistrials and they hate their cases to be appealed. But guess what? They only have control over one of those two outcomes. They get to decide which ones are mistrials. And that number averages below 4%. Because they hate mistrials. It looks bad on them and it wastes money.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:52 pmAnimal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:20 pmYeah, just read into it and suggest things you think he meant. I'm just going by what words mean.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:18 pmDo you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pmYep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 amThe judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.Animal wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pm
actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).
But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.And what do you think these words mean exactly?Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?
But, as you say, they probably don't like their cases to be appealed, either. But they have no say in that outcome. And over 20% of all cases, like this one, are appealed. Because of shit like this. Which he pointed out very clearly in easy to understand language.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Just going to ignore the fact that the Judge clearly and explicitly stated he did not think it would matter then? Mmmkay.Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:55 pmI know exactly what it means , you fucking idiot. It means that judges hate mistrials and they hate their cases to be appealed. But guess what? They only have control over one of those two outcomes. They get to decide which ones are mistrials. And that number averages below 4%. Because they hate mistrials. It looks bad on them and it wastes money.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:52 pmAnimal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:20 pmYeah, just read into it and suggest things you think he meant. I'm just going by what words mean.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:18 pmDo you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pmYep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 am
The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.
I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.And what do you think these words mean exactly?Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?
But, as you say, they probably don't like their cases to be appealed, either. But they have no say in that outcome. And over 20% of all cases, like this one, are appealed. Because of shit like this. Which he pointed out very clearly in easy to understand language.
I did not in fact say they don't like their cases to be appealed, something they indeed do not control. I said they don't like their cases to be overturned - because then they done goofed. And that is in fact something they have a degree of control over, by, for example, granting a motion for a mistrial if they think it would succeed on appeal.
Are you capable of digging real deep, like a big boy, and trying to comprehend what the judge actually said about this? The thing I just quoted for you. What. Does. It. Say.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Why does your dumb fucking ass keep leaving out the one sentence that the Judge added to all of that which says exactly what I am talking about? Why did you intentionally leave that out? Is it because it makes you look fucking stupid?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:59 pmAnd what do you think these words mean exactly?Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?
Just going to ignore the fact that the Judge clearly and explicitly stated he did not think it would matter then? Mmmkay.
I did not in fact say they don't like their cases to be appealed, something they indeed do not control. I said they don't like their cases to be overturned - because then they done goofed. And that is in fact something they have a degree of control over, by, for example, granting a motion for a mistrial if they think it would succeed on appeal.
Are you capable of digging real deep, like a big boy, and trying to comprehend what the judge actually said about this? The thing I just quoted for you. What. Does. It. Say.
He said this ------> I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
Now the part that you cropped out means that he did not declare a mistrial because he did not think it warranted it. However, he clearly stated that it might end up getting the case overturned later. If this was all written in hieroglyphs or something debatable, I would say you might have a point and I am mis-interpreting what a symbol means. But these are words that he spoke out of his mouth in a language that I speak.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
He said first that it may be grounds for appeal, and then he ruled on whether it was grounds for a mistrial. He said the following:Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:15 pmWhy does your dumb fucking ass keep leaving out the one sentence that the Judge added to all of that which says exactly what I am talking about? Why did you intentionally leave that out? Is it because it makes you look fucking stupid?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 5:59 pmAnd what do you think these words mean exactly?Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?
Just going to ignore the fact that the Judge clearly and explicitly stated he did not think it would matter then? Mmmkay.
I did not in fact say they don't like their cases to be appealed, something they indeed do not control. I said they don't like their cases to be overturned - because then they done goofed. And that is in fact something they have a degree of control over, by, for example, granting a motion for a mistrial if they think it would succeed on appeal.
Are you capable of digging real deep, like a big boy, and trying to comprehend what the judge actually said about this? The thing I just quoted for you. What. Does. It. Say.
He said this ------> I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
Now the part that you cropped out means that he did not declare a mistrial because he did not think it warranted it. However, he clearly stated that it might end up getting the case overturned later. If this was all written in hieroglyphs or something debatable, I would say you might have a point and I am mis-interpreting what a symbol means. But these are words that he spoke out of his mouth in a language that I speak.
What did he say?This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
You understand you are dodging a question which simply asks you if you are capable of reading? Why do you think that is? What did he say about this thing you are pretending he thought completely overturned the whole trial? You pathetic fucking baby.
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Maxine Waters is the least reason this thing would get appealed..... Mr. MLK is the poison fruit and I don't think even that has much of a chance.
I blame Biker.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
I really don't think it does either. And even if something did rise to the level of creating an appeal, its not going to matter in the end. But it creates news stories.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
What a pathetic little mental midget you are.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
fuck off you repetitious hair splitting faggot. your circle logic is old.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
my god, you fucking idiot. i couldn't have been any more clear.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:11 pmAsking you what the judge said isn't circular logic you pathetic tit, it's asking if you can read and then admit what you have read. You can't.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:14 pmmy god, you fucking idiot. i couldn't have been any more clear.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:11 pmAsking you what the judge said isn't circular logic you pathetic tit, it's asking if you can read and then admit what you have read. You can't.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Look, you tedious, stupid, prick. Read this.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:16 pm In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.
If your dumb ass cannot figure out what those fucking words mean, then there is no hope for you. The rest of your life will be as much of a waste as it has been up to this point.
- AnalHamster
- Doctor Chaser
- Posts: 6471
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Yes, he said it 'may' be grounds for appeal but he does not think that appeal would succeed. Which part aren't you grasping?Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:21 pmLook, you tedious, stupid, prick. Read this.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:16 pm In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.
If your dumb ass cannot figure out what those fucking words mean, then there is no hope for you. The rest of your life will be as much of a waste as it has been up to this point.
What does that say, you dumb fuck?This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
- Animal
- The Great Pretender
- Posts: 28041
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
in a fucking Nut Shell, it says that he thinks it might be reason to have the case overturned. Now you can keep repeating this and twisting it in any direction you want, but that's what the fuck he said.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:56 pmYes, he said it 'may' be grounds for appeal but he does not think that appeal would succeed. Which part aren't you grasping?Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:21 pmLook, you tedious, stupid, prick. Read this.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:16 pm In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.
If your dumb ass cannot figure out what those fucking words mean, then there is no hope for you. The rest of your life will be as much of a waste as it has been up to this point.
What does that say, you dumb fuck?This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.