Author Topic: Verdict Watch  (Read 16051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2013, 04:48:10 PM »
From recent tweets, it seems the reason for recess was for state and defense to confer. They are said to be near agreement.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #61 on: July 13, 2013, 04:48:49 PM »
Seems to be regarding a question of law, and they can't just  give general help, asking for a more specific question that they might be able to answer.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #62 on: July 13, 2013, 04:49:45 PM »
Instructions of manslaughter. Law of manslaughter.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #63 on: July 13, 2013, 04:50:47 PM »
I think the recess may be to allow the judge and lawyers to research case law.

That's what it was.  I just figured that because the jury's question was so general, that the only response from the court would be something along the lines of "please be more specific with your question."  From Mantei's presentation, that seemed to be the indicated nature of the response; and O'Mara appeared to agree.  We'll know the exact wording shortly.

Edit to add, I can see why research would be necessary.  If the court is not allowed to answer a more specific question, beyond "re-read the instructions," it would be necessary (wise, at least) to know that before asking for a more specific question.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 04:54:37 PM by cboldt »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #64 on: July 13, 2013, 04:53:56 PM »
That's what law school is for. Learn to take half an hour to come up with a question a lay person would ask in two seconds.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #65 on: July 13, 2013, 04:54:10 PM »
Diana Tennis says manslaughter is one of the simplest laws there is, so if they want clarification of it it sounds to her like there's one or two jurors stuck on manslaughter, the point of the question is to jolt that one (or two) out of her stuckness.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2013, 04:55:10 PM »
That's what law school is for. Learn to take half an hour to come up with a question a lay person would ask in two seconds.

The half hour was for the lawyers to gather case law and come to some kind of agreement on how to answer it.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2013, 04:59:47 PM »
Diana Tennis says manslaughter is one of the simplest laws there is, so if they want clarification of it it sounds to her like there's one or two jurors stuck on manslaughter, the point of the question is to jolt that one (or two) out of her stuckness.

The manslaughter instruction in this case is more complex that just the two elements that make manslaughter, and includes language about when the killing of another human being is excusable.

Proposed answer "The court cannot engage in general discussion, but may be able to address a specific question ... if you have a specific question, please submit."

Nelson tells the court that the jury has ordered dinner, and counsel may take an hour for dinner, but starting 15 minutes from now (in case the jury comes right back with a specific question)

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2013, 05:00:26 PM »
Guy and Bernie don't look happy. I mean--none of the lawyers look thrilled, but those two actually look angry or disturbed.

Sending the answer back.

The jurors have ordered dinner. She was going to let the lawyers go to dinner but O'Mara suggested they hang out to see if the jurors came up with a specific question.

Recess 15 minutes.


Talking heads  suggesting this question coupled with ordering dinner (not going back to hotel at 6) shows the jurors might be heading toward the finish line.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #69 on: July 13, 2013, 05:01:49 PM »
The manslaughter instruction in this case is more complex that just the two elements that make manslaughter, and includes language about when the killing of another human being is excusable.


I believe that was included in what she was saying.

Offline Meni

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #70 on: July 13, 2013, 05:02:56 PM »
So counsel wants to ask the jury a question before answering their question?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #71 on: July 13, 2013, 05:04:02 PM »
Talking heads  suggesting this question coupled with ordering dinner (not going back to hotel at 6) shows the jurors might be heading toward the finish line.

Or just that they are diligent workers.  Work until it sucks to be working, then retire.  They may not know if they can work tomorrow, or they may know.  I don't think we know if they are allowed to work tomorrow or not.

Separately, I wonder how the court handles any desire on the part of a juror to attend a worship service.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2013, 05:04:29 PM »
So counsel wants to ask the jury a question before answering their question?

They can't answer general questions of law, they can only provide answers to the jury on specific questions.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #73 on: July 13, 2013, 05:05:30 PM »
I believe that was included in what she was saying.

Well then, "simple for Diana Tennis."  I share her opinion, FWIW, but I have more than a few hours of focused study on that issue under my belt.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Verdict Watch
« Reply #74 on: July 13, 2013, 05:06:00 PM »
Or just that they are diligent workers.  Work until it sucks to be working, then retire.  They may not know if they can work tomorrow, or they may know.  I don't think we know if they are allowed to work tomorrow or not.

Separately, I wonder how the court handles any desire on the part of a juror to attend a worship service.

I believe they know they can work tomorrow, as JDN has said they can if they want to. I think they're SOL regarding church though.


 

Site Meter
click
tracking