Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40277
    17 Jun '19 19:54
    @duchess64 said
    My relative was highly regarded (received high work evaluations) at a federal law
    enforcement agency, which was why he often testified as an expert witness.

    He said that defense lawyers typically preferred the least-educated jurors because
    they would be easier to deceive.
    Well, he doesn't know what he is talking about though I'm not surprised that someone who primarily works with prosecutors would believe such tripe.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Jun '19 19:574 edits
    @no1marauder said
    You're lying as usual; I never expressed any hope at all for "jury nullification" - I was merely trying to cure your profound ignorance of how the legal system works.

    Every case is different, so it's hard to say. Haven't examined the indictment or the pre-trial motions or been at the court for hearings and jury selection (neither have you), so I can't tell you for sure ...[text shortened]... yers say.

    I suspect even if he got acquitted in this trial, he'd face murder charges in Illinois.
    The habitually lying lawyer No1Marauder dishonestly distorts the context and
    making another of his countless false accusations.

    First of all, No1Marauder claimed that he could NOT comment upon Brendt Christiansen's defense strategy.
    So I wrote, in effect, OK, but surely No1Marauder can comment upon his own experiences, right?

    So I suggested a *hypothetical case* in which No1Marauder supposedly would make
    an opening statement conceding that his client was responsible for a person's death
    when No1Marauder still intended to argue that his client was actually innocent of all charges.

    Now it seems to me that in this *hypothetical case*, No1Marauder *apparently*
    could hope for jury nullification, though *not necessarily* as his *only* hope.
    I was wondering for *what else* No1Marauder might be hoping.

    Then No1Marauder falsely accused me of lying about what he wrote about the
    Brendt Christiansen case, which I *already had agreed not to discuss in that post*.
    I was discussing a *hypothetical case*.

    As usual, No1Marauder seems more eager to hurl insults or lies than to provide
    any *objective* insight in his supposed legal strategy.

    "I suspect even if he got acquitted in this trial, he'd face murder charges in Illinois."
    --No1Marauder

    So no 'double jeopardy'?
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Jun '19 19:591 edit
    @no1marauder said
    Well, he doesn't know what he is talking about though I'm not surprised that someone who primarily works with prosecutors would believe such tripe.
    Does No1Marauder take the position that the defense lawyers are intrinsically
    more knowledgeable and honest than lawyers who work for the prosecution?

    I would appreciate having No1Marauder's acknowledged bias put on the record.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Jun '19 20:01
    @mott-the-hoople said
    I suspect the major reason is not being able to provide for yourself a qualified defense team more than anything else.
    Note that the extremely prejudiced Mott-the-Hoopie prefers to ignore the part
    about "control for other variables in the cases studied".

    "A bias towards white-victim cases has been found in almost all of the sophisticated
    studies exploring this area over many years. These studies typically *control for other
    variables in the cases studied*, such as the number of victims or the brutality of the crime,
    and still found that defendants were more likely to be sentenced to death if they
    killed a white person."
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Jun '19 20:101 edit
    @no1marauder said
    You're lying as usual; I never expressed any hope at all for "jury nullification" - I was merely trying to cure your profound ignorance of how the legal system works.

    Every case is different, so it's hard to say. Haven't examined the indictment or the pre-trial motions or been at the court for hearings and jury selection (neither have you), so I can't tell you for sure ...[text shortened]... yers say.

    I suspect even if he got acquitted in this trial, he'd face murder charges in Illinois.
    "I'm sure he [Brendt Christiansen's lawyer] said far more that didn't get a headline."
    --No1Marauder

    In fact, a transcript of Brendt Christiansen's lawyer's complete opening statement
    (along with other proceedings) has been published online, and at least some
    major newspapers have linked to it.

    If No1Marauder's attempting to insinuate that Brendt Christiansen's being unfairly
    treated on account of a biased media's dishonest reporting. then he's wrong.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40277
    17 Jun '19 20:10
    @duchess64 said
    Does No1Marauder take the position that the defense lawyers are intrinsically
    more knowledgeable and honest than lawyers who work for the prosecution?

    I would appreciate having No1Marauder's acknowledged bias put on the record.
    No, but many have a habitually lower opinion of their protagonists than is factually warranted.
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Jun '19 20:121 edit
    @no1marauder said
    No, but many have a habitually lower opinion of their protagonists than is factually warranted.
    Does No1Marauder believe that only lawyers who work for the prosecution are biased
    while defense lawyers are not? If so, then his self-congratulations are in order!
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40277
    17 Jun '19 20:131 edit
    @duchess64 said
    The habitually lying lawyer No1Marauder dishonestly distorts the context and
    making another of his countless false accusations.

    First of all, No1Marauder claimed that he could NOT comment upon Brendt Christiansen's defense strategy.
    So I wrote, in effect, OK, but surely No1Marauder can comment upon his own experiences, right?

    So I suggested a *hypothetical case* in ...[text shortened]... ed in this trial, he'd face murder charges in Illinois."
    --No1Marauder

    So no 'double jeopardy'?
    Interestingly, the SCOTUS announced a decision a few hours ago bearing on this point:

    The Supreme Court on Monday said a person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for the same conduct without running afoul to the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-clause-case/index.html

    EDIT: The full case is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf

    It reaffirms the "dual sovereignty" rule which the SCOTUS has adopted since the 1840s.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40277
    17 Jun '19 20:17
    @duchess64 said
    Does No1Marauder claim that only lawyers who work for the prosecution are biased
    while defense lawyers are not? If so, then his self-congratulations are in order!
    I made no such claim as you are perfectly aware.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Jun '19 20:24
    @no1marauder said
    I made no such claim as you are perfectly aware.
    I have amended the wording.
    "Does No1Marauder believe that only lawyers who work for the prosecution are biased
    while defense lawyers are not?"

    My question is about what No1Marauder believes now, not what he can deny claiming earlier.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40277
    17 Jun '19 20:35
    @duchess64 said
    I have amended the wording.
    "Does No1Marauder believe that only lawyers who work for the prosecution are biased
    while defense lawyers are not?"

    My question is about what No1Marauder believes now, not what he can deny claiming earlier.
    Some prosecutors are biased against defense lawyers.

    Some defense lawyers are biased against prosecutors.

    Even if not "biased" i.e. unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something - there are some natural antipathies felt by individuals on one side towards individuals on the other.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40277
    17 Jun '19 21:321 edit
    @duchess64 said
    "I'm sure he [Brendt Christiansen's lawyer] said far more that didn't get a headline."
    --No1Marauder

    In fact, a transcript of Brendt Christiansen's lawyer's complete opening statement
    (along with other proceedings) has been published online, and at least some
    major newspapers have linked to it.

    If No1Marauder's attempting to insinuate that Brendt Christiansen's being unfairly
    treated on account of a biased media's dishonest reporting. then he's wrong.
    A link would have been nice but I found it on my own.https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/article/file-attachments/JT%20CHRISTENSEN%20%20VOLUME%208A%20%28Redacted%29.pdf at p. 9

    As to the Opening Statement, PD Tasseff says this:

    Now, moreover, while we have acknowledged
    that Brendt is responsible for the death of
    Miss Zhang, we take serious issue with various
    aspects of the government's version of what it
    claims happened, and how those things happened, and
    why those things happened. So there are several
    factual issues and disputes that will require your
    resolution in a trial of this case and that is the
    reason we are proceeding through this first phase of
    this case.

    pp. 45-6

    What exactly does that mean? It's unclear at this point. Perhaps they will dispute the kidnapping aspect (this is a kidnapping, not a murder, trial), perhaps they will dispute that a cellphone and/or automobile are "instrumentalities" of interstate commerce, perhaps who knows? All of the elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In any event, he certainly didn't argue or suggest anything like jury nullification.

    And as I suspected the Judge charged this:

    Statements arguments and questions by
    lawyers are not evidence.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Jun '19 21:431 edit
    @no1marauder said
    A link would have been nice but I found it on my own.https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/article/file-attachments/JT%20CHRISTENSEN%20%20VOLUME%208A%20%28Redacted%29.pdf at p. 9

    As to the Opening Statement, PD Tasseff says this:

    Now, moreover, while we have acknowledged
    that Brendt is responsible for the death of
    Miss Zhang, we take serious issue with var ...[text shortened]... uspected the Judge charged this:

    Statements arguments and questions by
    lawyers are not evidence.
    Google 'transcript', 'opening statement', 'Brendt Christiansen'--how hard is that?

    https://news.wttw.com/2019/06/13/read-full-transcript-opening-statements-brendt-christensen-trial

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

    "Jury nullification generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe
    that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit them anyway because the jurors
    also believe that the law itself is unjust,[1][2] that the prosecutor has misapplied
    the law in the defendant's case,[3] or that the potential punishment for breaking
    the law is too harsh. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own
    prejudices in favour of the defendant."

    Even if a defense lawyer privately hopes for jury nullification, one would hardly be
    candid enough to declare openly that jury nullification is one's only hope for acquittal.

    I note that many white Americans have claimed that O. J. Simpson's acquittals
    for murder were an example of jury nullification, even though his defense never
    claimed to be arguing for jury nullification.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40277
    17 Jun '19 22:07
    @duchess64 said
    Google 'transcript', 'opening statement', 'Brendt Christiansen'--how hard is that?

    https://news.wttw.com/2019/06/13/read-full-transcript-opening-statements-brendt-christensen-trial

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

    "Jury nullification generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe
    that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the ...[text shortened]... of jury nullification, even though his defense never
    claimed to be arguing for jury nullification.
    I've heard people claim the OJ verdict was wrong, but I've never heard it claimed it was "jury nullification". Having heard the jurors, I don't think they thought laws against murder were "unjust" or too "harsh" nor did they exhibit any prejudice one way or other regarding the defendant or his alleged victims.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Jun '19 22:172 edits
    @no1marauder said
    I've heard people claim the OJ verdict was wrong, but I've never heard it claimed it was "jury nullification". Having heard the jurors, I don't think they thought laws against murder were "unjust" or too "harsh" nor did they exhibit any prejudice one way or other regarding the defendant or his alleged victims.
    When expedient, No1Marauder likes to turn a blind eye toward American racism.
    I certainly have heard white Americans (including at least one right-wing lawyer)
    claim that most jurors *knew* that O. J. Simpson was guilty but voted to acquit him
    anyway as revenge (or 'payback' ) for white racism against blacks in other cases.

    Contrary to No1Marauder's apparent denial that jury nullification ever has been
    considered an issue in discussing the O. J. Simpson trial, when one Googles
    'O. J. Simpson trial' and 'jury nullification', one can easily find articles (including in
    major newspapers or academic articles) discussing the *perception* of the verdict
    as jury nullification. No1Marauder's wrong if he denies that this is an issue.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

    "The acquittals of Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson were occasionally labeled
    as jury nullification by the media, whether or not they actually were."

    I regard the O. J. Simpson trial as more of a popular celebrity trial than a purely 'racial' trial.
    O. J. Simpson *was* a popular celebrity, including among white Americans.
    So the prosecution needed to prove his guilt beyond about all possible doubt.
    The LAPD or the prosecution made some embarrassing errors, and they were
    enough for the jury to find (at least) reasonable doubt.
Back to Top