#jury trial

[tilbageidanmark]

A list of cognitive biases

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Trump has so many charges against him that he's almost certainly going to be convicted of something. Not everything, probably not even a majority, but something. He knows he won't get unanimous acquittals across the board, so his only hope will be to slip loyalists onto some of the juries to hang them. A mistrial means months or years of delays as prosecution works each case through the system all over again.

In New York, he'd be retried over and over until a unanimous verdict is reached, guilty or not guilty, however long that takes, and every state level Republican candidate from now on will campaign on promises to drop the charges or pardon him or help him in some way, shape, or form.

In Georgia (he hasn't been indicted yet, but it's coming), he's going to be pardoned almost immediately. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets pardoned before it even goes to trial. Yeah, the governor refused to find 11,000 votes for him, but he's still a Republican and trump is still the leader of his party. If he didn't pardon trump, he would be crucified by his voters and shamed out of office, and his successor would pardon him instead. If he stood his ground and couldn't be bullied into resigning, then just as in New York every Republican candidate would run on the pardon promise platform. Trump will NEVER face justice in Georgia.

In the federal case in Florida, a mistrial means the judge, a trump appointee, could drop the charges and prevent the DOJ from retrying it. Best case scenario, it would get delayed into 2025 or 2026 and a different judge in the southern district of Florida will be randomly assigned to it, but that's assuming Biden wins re-election in 2024. If trump wins, he'd immediately pardon himself, or invoke the 25th to have his loyalist VP pardon him to avoid a Supreme Court decision on a self-pardon's validity. If Biden wins, the 2028 Republican candidates will all run on promises to pardon him, so he'll be out of prison the second the White House goes red. I don't trust Democrats to hold the line long enough for him to die in prison.

The federal case in Washington, DC looks open and shut, the best chance for a conviction. Trump only has four appointees in that district, so the odds of him getting off on a retrial in case of a hung jury are 4 in 13, 30.77% (4/15, 26.67% if Biden can fill the two remaining vacancies). Again, all this does is kick the can down the road until 2025 or 2026. He will walk free whenever the Republicans take back power.

The only way donald trump faces long term consequences for his crimes is if New York stays solid blue for the rest of his life, something like the next 15 or 20 years. The federal charges will disappear the second one of his allies gets elected president; I don't think the party would nominate him for a fourth time in 2028 if he loses 2024 for them, so it's looking like it's gonna be ron desantis vs Kamala Harris (God help us all). Then again, who knows? A lot can happen in the next 5 years, so maybe some nobody will be frontrunner by then and desantis will have slinked away into post-gubernatorial obscurity like Jeb and Charlie Crist. Whoever trump endorses will be the nominee, so whoever strokes his ego the hardest will have hometeam advantage. My money says it'll be some blonde woman or a lightskinned black guy for diversity points (whoever it is, they'll be even farther right than trump himself)

[remembertheplunge]

What are your 3 words for 2023

Grinder poll at 3am 12/14/2017

What are your 3 words for 2017?

I replied:

Harsh

Beautiful ]

Extreme 

In 2017, I got very involved with the homeless, letting several of them live for brief times in my house and passing out bags of food in over 10 cities.

I wrote the 2017 "3 words" in the margin  of the December 14 page of the book “A Year with Hafiz”.

As the years passed I wrote 3 word for other years in the margin on that page as follows:

2019.  12/14/2019

Revealing 

Answered

Harvest

In 2019 my death penalty client Rigo Gomez entered a felony plea, was released in October to rehab  and then went to work for Community Resource Initiative, a mitigation team that assists on some of my cases, including Rigo’s.

2021

12/14/2021

Journals

Stockton 

Gym

By 2021, I had begun work on the book from my journals and started work as a criminal defense attorney in Stockton.

I hit the gym most days

2022

12/14/2022

Open

Water

Swim

In July 2022 I began swimming in the ocean in Aquatic Park in San Fransisco. In September 2022 I did my first swim from just off Alcatraz island to the San Fransisco Yacht Harbor. Rigo Gomez did the swim with me.

Swimming in the ocean is known as open water swimming.

2023

12/15/2023

Shock

Blog 

Victory

In 2023, my Sister Zoe died in May. I am still in shock.

My Tumblr Blog began on February 5, 2023

I got a not guilty  victory in a Felony Jury Trial on November 3, 2023

Note:

Grinder is a Gay Dating app.

[jhsharman]

we, the jury

Trial date delays and all, it almost would make sense to keep it at September even as the cover date for a later printing is January -- meaning a November release. The date September 10 is a bit jarring, though. The release for the second version here was cover November, release September, which is odd -- I would think they would have decided on an earlier month.

Some important deviations from "solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God". They have rolled out this narration a number of times over the decades -- some covers, some dream sequences, some whole stories, stories that are dream sequences. And I don't know if Al Hartley ever ran with this one, but I can be assured if he did Jughead's is not the oath given in Hartley's story. On the main part of this oath -- it is a funny change, but I think the word balloon is at its size limit.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“FOR THIRD TIME VINKLE JURY HAS DISAGREED,” Kingston Whig-Standard. February 23, 1933. Page 2. ---- Case to Be Called to the Attention of the Attorney-General of Ontario ---- For the third time in five month, a jury in Supreme Court has been unable to agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty, in the case of Hess Vinkle, of the Township of Olden, charged with setting fire to Ross McGinnis’ barn. Yesterday evening after deliberating for more than seven hours, the jury found that they could not agree on a verdict and accordingly were discharged by Justice Raney, the case being put over til the next court; it will also be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General. Sir Alfred Morine acted for the Crown and A. E. Day represented Vinkle. 

The jury in the case retired shortly after eleven o'clock on Wednesday morning and at four o'clock returned with the announcement that they could not agree on a verdict.

"You have, of course," said Justice Raney, "heard of the two previous disagreements. I wish that you would try and reach a verdict and if I send you back I wonder if you can come to an agreement?"

“Well, your Lordship," said W. M. Campbell, foreman, "we can only try.” 

Whereupon the jury again retired and remained locked up for two hours more. At the end of that time they returned and Mr. Campbell announced that the jurymen were all unable to reach an agreement.

"I wonder if I sent you back there with your suppers, if you could finally agree," asked Justice Raney.

“I don't think there is any chance at all," replied Mr. Campbell. 

"Are you sure you are not following precedent, as the lawyers do?” 

"No" replied Mr. Campbell, "we have been deliberating most thoroughly and there seems hardly a chance at all of an agreement.” 

Justice Raney then said that be would discharge the jury and would traverse the case to the next court at the same time bringing the matter to the attention of the Attorney-General.

“What did you say, Mr. Day?" asked Justice Raney.

“I merely said thank you, my Lord," replied Mr. Day. "Don't thank me," remarked Justice Raney. 

Vinkle appeared in Supreme Court in September last on the same charge and the jury disagreed, while again December the jury failed to come to a decision.

[captainfanoftheceiling]

If you are in jury selection with someone like this: do not react. They are not going to be selected, but the prosecutors are watching everyone else for their reactions. Don't clap, laugh, or show support. Then get on the jury and vote either not guilty or nullification.

[confusedguytoo]

thinking about it: I think juries exist for the express purpose of jury nullification

I mean what's more likely? Someone decided that a group of people in some way similar to you are going to be able to properly play detective to decide if you're actually the person that did a crime based on what they've been told? Or that a group of people like you can decide whether you deserve to be punished for that?

[robertbrancatelli]

"Juror #2," Movie Review

by George Young Cynicism. Not the finest of human traits. However, a manageable dose of it helps when undertaking reviews of creative product. Symphony concertos. Broadway plays. Jazz performances. Books. Television. Anything with the influence of the right brain is the subject of scrutiny, subjectivity, and scorn. Professional and amateur movie and TV critics are known to be anything but…

[ulkaralakbarova]

In small-town Texas, affable and popular mortician Bernie Tiede strikes up a friendship with Marjorie Nugent, a wealthy widow well known for her sour attitude. When she becomes controlling and abusive, Bernie goes to great lengths to remove himself from her grasp. Credits: TheMovieDb. Film Cast: Bernie Tiede: Jack Black Marjorie Nugent: Shirley MacLaine Danny Buck Davidson: Matthew McConaughey Scrappy Holmes: Brady Coleman Lloyd Hornbuckle: Richard Robichaux Don Leggett: Rick Dial Sheriff Huckabee: Brandon Smith Rev. Woodard: Larry Jack Dotson Molly: Merrilee McCommas Carl: Mathew Greer Townsperson: Marjorie Dome Townsperson: Tim Cariker Townsperson: Fern Luker Townsperson: Jack Payne Townsperson: Sonny Carl Davis Townsperson: Chris Humphrey Mourner: Jesse Lucio Townsperson: Ann Reeves Townsperson: Kay Epperson Townsperson: Ira Bounds Townsperson: James Baker Townsperson: Kay McConaughey Townsperson: Kristi Youngblood Townsperson: Kenny Brevard Townsperson: Margaret Bowman Townsperson: Mollie Fuller Townsperson: Tanja Givens Townsperson: Glenda Jones Townsperson: Travis Blevins Townsperson: Sylvia Froman Townsperson: Martha Long Townsperson: Jo Perkins Townsperson: Reba Tarjick Townsperson: Dale Dudley Townsperson: James Wilson Townsperson: Teresa Edwards Townsperson: Billy Vaticalos Townsperson: Rob Anthony Larry Brumley: Tommy G. Kendrick Townsperson: Pam McDonald Townsperson: Kathy Gollmitzer Townsperson: Cozette McNeely Professor Fleming: Richard Andrew Jones Friend of Deceased: Charles Bailey Mrs. Pebworth: Suzi McLaughlin Mr. Estes: Grant James Mrs. Estes: Juli Erickson Dwayne Nugent: J.D. Young Dwayne Jr.: Charlie m Stewart Lewie: Joe Stevens Esmerelda: Raquel Gavia Church Goer: Amparo García Oil Worker: Toby Metcalf Chainsaw Artist: Doug Moreland Pianist: Edward Ji Guys & Dolls Performer: Jill Blackwood Mel: David Blackwell Kevin: Gabriel Luna Photographer: Deana Newcomb Assistant Director: David Steakley Bank Manager: Peter Harrell Jr. Deputy Sheriff: Joe Leroy Reynolds Truck Driver: Christian Stokes Generator Operator: John Hornbuckle Sheriff’s Deputy #2: Wray Crawford Café Waitress: Margaret Hoard IRS Agent: Charles Allen Eskew TV Reporter: Quita Culpepper Cashier: Mona Lee Fultz Judge: Jerry Biggs Lead Juror: Robert Works Community Theater Group: Chris Barfield Community Theater Group: Taylor Bryant Community Theater Group: Colin Bevis Community Theater Group: Jacqui Bloom Community Theater Group: Joshua Denning Community Theater Group: Ellie Edwards Community Theater Group: Alaina Flores Community Theater Group: Jennifer Foster Community Theater Group: Leslie Hethcox Community Theater Group: Jordan Hill Community Theater Group: Berkley Jones Community Theater Group: Trevor McGinnis Community Theater Group: Mika Odom Community Theater Group: Chell Parkins Community Theater Group: David Ponton Community Theater Group: Gray Randolph Community Theater Group: Rachel Hull-Ryde Community Theater Group: Ian Saunders Community Theater Group: Madelyn Shaffer Community Theater Group: Larissa Slota Community Theater Group: Daniel Rae Srivastava Community Theater Group: Ellen Stader Community Theater Group: Lara Wright Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Betty Andrews Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Marcia Bailey Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Umpy Bechtol Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Nita Bouldin Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Nellie Hickerson Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Jeanette Kloppe Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Geraldine Miller Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Sharon Rigsbee Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Debbie Shaw Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Flo Weiershausen Mrs. Senior Carthage Pageant Contestant: Gina Wooten Juror: Gary Askins Juror: Ben Bachelder Juror: Meredith Beal Juror: Stacey Bruck Juror: Michelle Briscoe Juror: Lesa Brooks Juror: Gayla Bruce Juror: Brenda Bunton Juror: Kristi Copeland Juror: Jeff Davis Juror: Orion Gallagher Juror: Kenneth C. Liverman Juror: Linda Rudwick Juror: Mary Stifflemir...

[masterofd1saster]

J. Gorsuch is right! Jury trial means 12 jurors.

= Before the conquest, we can discover the clearest vestiges of a jury qualified by an oath, and consisting of twelve men. The most ancient, says Selden, are to be found in a law of King Ethelred. The Works of the Honourable James Wilson. (1804). Vol II.

= "juries in criminal cases consisted of twelve in the time of Alfred; and the number twelve is so often mentioned in the Saxon laws" John Reeves's History of the English Law, from the Time of the Romans to the End of the Reign of Elizabeth. (1869).

= Welsh juries were composed of 12 men in 725. Forsyth, W. (1875). History of Trial by Jury. New York. Cockcroft & Co

Sadly, SCt refused to consider Cunningham v. Florida, 23-5171 . J. Gorsuch chastised his peers:

“For almost all of this Nation’s history and centuries before that, the right to trial by jury for serious criminal offenses meant the right to a trial before 12 members of the community.” Khorrami v. Arizona, 598 U. S. , (2022) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 9). Acutely concerned with individuals and their liberty, the framers of our Constitution sought to preserve this right for future generations. See id., at – (slip op., at 2–3); Art. III, §2, cl. 3; Amdt. 6. Yet today, a small number of States refuse to honor its promise. Consider this case: A Florida court sent Natoya Cunningham to prison for eight years on the say of just six people.*** We had understood “the jury referred to in the original Constitution and in the Sixth Amendment is a jury constituted, as it was at common law, of twelve persons.”*** Pointing to academic studies, Williams tepidly predicted that 6-member panels would “probably” deliberate just as carefully as 12-member juries. 399 U. S., at 100–102. But almost before the ink could dry on the Court’s opinion, the social science studies on which it relied came under scrutiny. See, e.g., H. Zeisel, . . . And Then There Were None: The Diminution of the Federal Jury, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 710, 713–715 (1971). Soon, the Court was forced to acknowledge “empirical data” suggesting that, in fact, “smaller juries are less likely to foster effective group deliberation” and may not produce as reliable or accurate decisions as larger ones. Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U. S. 223, 232–235 (1978) (plurality opinion). All in all, Williams was an embarrassing mistake—“wrong the day it was decided.” Khorrami, 598 U. S., at _ (slip op., at 1).***

[smstrouse]

The Nightmare of Jury Duty Redux

Much has been written, discussed, and debated about jury selection for the New York trial of He Who Shall Not Be Named. Things have died down a bit since the actual trial began this week, but I’m still feeling empathy for those eighteen brave souls. In 2011, I posted “When the Jury is Judged” in the aftermath of the Casey Anthony trial. In 2013, I posted “The Nightmare of Jury Duty” after the…

[truecrimeandtrials]

Trigger and content warnings: senior abuse, murder, swear words (motherfucker, fuck, bitch)

Disclaimer: I have done my best to summarize the testimony from the Georgia versus Hannah Payne trial. I linked a playlist for the trial so you can go watch it if you wish to get all of the information and form your own opinion.

Defendant Hannah Payne witnessed a man named Kenneth Herring crash into a semi-truck and flee in 2019. She called 911, and despite being told not to, she followed Mr. Herring. She allegedly told him to return to the scene before fatally shooting him in his car. Miss Payne, now 25, is charged with “malice murder, two counts of felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime”, according to Law and Crime’s description boxes of their live stream of the trial.

State’s Opening Statement

Prosecutor Bonnie Smith gave the opening statements for the State. She went over what she believed the evidence would show happened on May 7th, 2019. She said that Hannah Payne had “the audacity to chase after, shoot, and kill” Kenneth Herring. Miss Payne was almost hit by Mr. Herring, who ultimately hit a semi-truck. A man who witnessed the accident observed that Mr. Herring seemed confused. The witness believed it was related to diabetes instead of drugs or alcohol. Although there was extensive damage to his vehicle, Mr. Herring managed to drive away twenty minutes after the accident. There were no arguments on the scene in those twenty minutes, especially between Miss Payne and her alleged victim. Despite not being a police officer and having no authority to arrest anyone, Miss Payne followed Mr. Herring and confronted him with a gun. Witnesses said that he was unarmed and only tried to defend himself.

Defense’s Opening Statement

According to Miss Payne’s defense lawyer, Matthew Tucker, the evidence will show that Mr. Herring was the aggressor, not his client.

Vickie Lynn Herring’s Testimony

Vickie Lynn Herring is Mr. Herring’s little sister. She testified that her brother had diabetes and was insulin-dependent.

Terry Robinson’s Testimony

Terry Robinson works in Georgia’s Department of Corrections in the infirmary operations. He was off duty when he witnessed Mr. Herring hit a semi-truck. He didn’t smell any alcohol on him but noticed that he was extremely confused. Working around medical professionals, Mr. Robinson started recognizing symptoms of different medical problems. He believed that Mr. Herring was experiencing diabetic shock. He was shocked when Mr. Herring left the scene, because his vehicle was totaled. He told Miss Payne to follow him, but only to get his license plate. He never told her to stop or apprehend him.

Christy Supperer’s Testimony

Christy Supperer is a 911 call center supervisor. Through her testimony, the prosecution introduced Miss Payne’s second call to 911.

Teauna McCranny’s Testimony

Teauna McCranny was taking a co-worker home when they came upon Miss Payne approaching Mr. Herring. She testified that the defendant was immediately aggressive towards her victim. Miss McCranny also testified that she calmly gave the first police officer her gun.

Darnell Rolling’s Testimony

Darnell Rolling was the detective at Clayton County Police Department (CCPD) who took a known DNA sample from Miss Payne.

Ashley Haas’s Testimony

Ashley Haas is a latent print examiner at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, or GBI for short. She processed the firearm, magazine, and a singular cartridge. Miss Haas found no latent prints on the gun that were suitable for comparison, but did find one on the magazine and cartridge.

Emily Kuruc’s Testimony

Emily Kuruc is also a latent print examiner at GBI. She examined the prints that Miss Haas found, but her results were inconclusive.

Shakonda Rosser’s Testimony

Shakonda Rosser witnessed the scene while on her way to a friend’s house. Although she didn’t hear what was said, she saw Miss Payne swinging and yelling at Mr. Herring. What made her stop, however, was when she saw that he didn’t react. Miss Rosser testified that others stopped as well. She observed Miss Payne pull a gun out after she stopped punching Mr. Herring. She heard the gunshot after the defendant tried to open the driver’s side door.

Stacey Des Amours’ Testimony

Stacey Des Amours is the chief medical examiner in DeKalb County and performed Mr. Herring’s autopsy. There was no way to tell if he had low blood sugar when he died, because it automatically starts to lower upon death. A comprehensive toxicology report was done, which came back completely negative. Mr. Herring’s blood alcohol level was also nonexistent. Miss Des Amours said that there was a gunshot wound in his abdomen. The gun had to be at least a few inches from the entry point based on the stippling found. She concluded that his manner of death was homicide.

Cameron Williams’ Testimony

Cameron Williams was on his way to a real estate seminar when he witnessed the scene. He pulled out his phone and recorded the incident. He remembered there being some sort of tussle over the gun between Miss Payne and Mr. Herring. When Mr. Williams heard a gunshot, he got out to check on the man. Other than telling her that he was a witness, he never made contact with the defendant. He provided his video to the police.

Christie Lavoie’s Testimony

Christine Lavoie is a DNA analyst at GBI. She got buccal swabs from the defendant, as well as swabs taken from the gun. She found a sufficient amount of DNA to create a mixed profile of at least three individuals. Miss Lavoie couldn’t perform a manual analysis of the profile, so sent it off to be tested by a program called TruAllele.

Cynthia Seguin’s Testimony

Cynthia Seguin is a forensic biology analyst at GBI, specializing in human bodily fluids. She explained that TruAllele is used when more than one DNA profile is found on evidence. It helps determine who contributed to the mixture and how much they contributed. Miss Seguin received a known sample from both the defendant and victim to compare to the mixture that Miss Lavoie found. Through TruAllele, she found a major female contributor that she matched to Miss Payne. She also found that a male made a minor contribution to the mixture, but she couldn’t conclusively match it to Mr. Herring. The third profile was found to be too inconclusive to know if it belonged to a male or female.

Tracy Moore’s Testimony

Tracy Moore is a detective at CCPD in the Criminal Investigation Division. She responded to the hospital that Mr. Herring was taken to so she could confirm his status. Upon her arrival, he was deceased. Miss Moore also helped execute a search warrant on both the defendant's and victim’s vehicles.

Ryan Richie’s Testimony

Ryan Richie as a sergeant at CCPD. He was nearby when he was alerted to the situation at hand and responded. He asked who shot Mr. Herring. Miss Payne said that it was her as she handed her gun to him. After properly receiving the gun, he went to render assistance to Mr. Herring. Sergeant Richie was unable to open the driver’s side door, so he went around to the passenger’s side. He testified that Mr. Herring was alive but unresponsive while he was being attended to.

Ashley Jackson’s Testimony

Ashley Jackson was on her way home from work when Miss Payne almost ran her off the road. She then came upon the scene where the defendant had confronted Mr. Herring. Miss Jackson tried to record the incident, but it all happened too fast and she couldn’t pull up her camera in time. She saw Miss Payne being very aggressive and showed no remorse. She heard the defendant yell at Mr. Herring to “get out the car motherfucker”. Miss Jackson then saw her pull out a gun and immediately heard a gunshot.

The State replayed the 911 calls, as the audio was low the first time. They rested afterwards.

Hannah Payne’s Testimony

Defendant Hannah Payne decided to testify in her own defense. Before this case, Miss Payne was in property management for different apartments. She got a valid permit to carry a gun, which her employers knew about. She said that Mr. Herring almost hit her before colliding with the semi-truck. She also said that Mr. Robinson identified himself as a state officer instead of a correctional officer. He told her and the driver of the semi that Mr. Herring was inebriated. When he started to drive away, Mr. Robinson told Miss Payne to follow him and get the tag number. Both were on the phone with 911. She remembers the 911 operator only telling her once or twice to return to the scene, which she interpreted as meaning both her and Mr. Herring. When she stopped, she got out of her car and took her phone up to his window to show him that she was on the phone with 911. When Miss Payne got close enough, Mr. Herring allegedly knocked her phone out of her hand, grabbed her wrist, and pulled her into his vehicle. She said that he kept saying “I have something for you, bitch”. Miss Payne was scared and tried to pull herself away. The only reason she pulled her gun out was for self-defense. Mr. Herring went for the gun and tried taking it from her. She demonstrated with a toy gun what he was doing to get it. During this struggle, the gun went off and shot him. When the police arrived, Miss Payne willingly handed the gun over.

The defense rested after calling Miss Payne.

Keon Hayward’s Testimony

Keon Hayward is the State’s only rebuttal witness. Mr. Hayward currently works security at a Quik Trip in North Carolina, but was a detective at CCPD when the alleged crime occurred. He was one of the detectives who interrogated Miss Payne. He advised her of her Miranda Rights, which she freely understood and accepted. Mr. Hayward nor Detective Moore threatened or coerced her into agreeing. The important parts of her interrogation video were shown to the jury. By important, I mean parts with anything of significance to the case. He testified that he had not listened to the 911 calls or interviewed any of the witnesses before interrogating Miss Payne.

Defense’s Closing Arguments

The State deferred their first closing argument, so the defense got to go first. Mr. Tucker immediately told the jury to disregard the evidence that the State presented to them. He then tried to discredit witness testimony one last time. Miss Payne was young and didn’t know that such evil existed.

State’s Closing Arguments

Prosecutor Kim Myers (please correct me if I am wrong) delivers the closing arguments for the state. She went over what Miss Payne was charged with and what they meant. She also said that you “don’t get the death penalty for a traffic infraction”. Prosecutor Myers tells the jury that the witnesses may not have had all of the details, but their recollections stayed consistent when it came to the major events. The only story that was inconsistent was Miss Payne’s story.

Verdict and Sentencing

Malice murder: guilty

Count one of felony murder: guilty

Count two of felony murder: guilty

Aggravated assault: guilty

False imprisonment: guilty

Count one of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime: guilty

Count two of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime: guilty

Count three of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime: guilty

Miss Payne was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after forty-three years.

Personal Opinions

These are just my opinions. Feel free to disagree, but keep it as respectful as possible. Mr. Tucker was a terrible attorney. I understand that it was his job to defend her and that he didn’t have a lot to work with, but he did a terrible job at it. He kept badgering witnesses and asking the same questions over and over again. He also misspoke several times, like saying “radiation fluid” instead of “radiator fluid”. Like, wtf is radiation fluid?!😂 Hannah should’ve taken the plea deal that the state offered.

[remembertheplunge]

7 minute verdict

8/29/1989. Friday. Should be, anyway. I’ve lived a week in these last two days.

It’s a really windy Tuesday. Thought I saw the wind blowing the stars around like sparks flying up from a fire.

The day of the 7 minute verdict.

7 minutes to give a guy 7 years.

One year per minute.

How do I feel?

Humiliated and happy.

Glad I ain’t got a death grip on it.

I poured my soul into the trial but managed to hang loose, too.

And, that’s good.

And, to have all of that work and lust 

Crash down in 7 minutes.

Amazing.

In a way, a blessing. No lingering torture (waiting for a verdict).

I think “Am I losing my touch?”

God, 7 minutes.

A blind dog could have probably kept them out 8.

Obviously my whole participation in that trial was moot.

The foreman was an old coot.

He’s been on 2 jurys before.

Next time “he’s” out. (A potential juror like him)

The 2 girls who didn’t like tattoos (client must have had visible tattoos)

Next time “out”.

They were honest.

I should have listened

It does hurt in such a way that I must keep silent myself.

Nice hiding tucked away at Mom and Dad’s tonight.

End of entry

Note:

I was a deputy public defender in Stanislaus County when I lost that jury trial. I had completely forgotten that trial. If I hadn't recorded the trial experience, it would have been lost forever.

I'm in a jury trial in Stockton now. I just completed another November 3rd, 2023. That one resulted in a not guilty verdict as to car jacking and robbery with a gun. Completely different post trial experience than i had in the 1989 case above.. I will blog that trial experience as soon as the client's cases are finished. She had one other active case other than the one that resulted in the jury trial.

[fedorah-the-explorah]

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Judge Summed Up In Arson Action,” Kingston Whig-Standard. February 22, 1933. Page 14. ---- Pointed Out Law and Reviewed Evidence — “Use Your Sense," He Said --- Addressing the jury this morning at length, Mr. Justice Raney reviewed all the evidence in the case of Hess Vinkle, accused of arson, and pointed out the law in the case. He referred to the fact that the firebug is a serious menace to the farmer, but indignation against the offence must not prejudice the fair trial of anyone accused. The burden of proving guilt lay on the Crown, he said, the prisoner being considered innocent until proven guilty. 

“No one saw this fire started,” said His Lordship. “The Crown, however, says there is such a body of circumstantial evidence that conviction should result. The Crown says that it matters not whether Pappa or Vinkle actually set the fire, they are equally guilty, if they had the common desire and were partners in the crime. And I must say that is the law. You must decide if you believe the evidence of Wilson and Young and the Crown says if you do you must return verdict of guilty.” 

Justice Raney went into the evidence of all the witnesses In detail and told the jury that to a great extent they had to use their own common sense in considering this evidence. 

“Vinkle said he passed north and south of the barn,” said Justice Raney “and said he didn't see it burning and didn’t know of the fire till the next morning. Is that logical to you? How did Vinkle get past the McGinnis place and not see it burning? There has been an allegation of drunkenness. Was Vinkle conveniently drunk? Is Vinkle lying and is Jackson lying to help him out? You, I think, can use common tense of practical men as to where the truth is, Even if a man was under influence of liquor, that does not excuse him from guilt.’

His Lordship cautioned the jury that they were not to be swayed by sympathy either for the owner of the barn or the accused. 

The jury retired to consider a verdict.

[sharas]

they indicted luigi mangione on terrorism charges. interesting how they never seem to do that for school shooters. nikolas cruz killed 17 people and somehow didn’t get charged with terrorism.