• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Indictments coming...

Page 139 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the majority would vote to convict, there is at least one holdout, and the majority is trying to define the holdout's doubt as unreasonable.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
What are your thoughts on the jury needing to define reasonable doubt given some of the theatrics by the judge throughout the trial?
Click to expand...
It’s not great.

However, it’s not an uncommon question for a jury to ask.

They could be making sure they get the conviction right. They need some reassurance they aren’t wrongfully sending a man to jail. It’s a big deal that they will have to live with the rest of their lives.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
What are your thoughts on the jury needing to define reasonable doubt given some of the theatrics by the judge throughout the trial?
Click to expand...
Meh. The jury in the Cosby trial also asked to define reasonable doubt and many speculated it meant a mistrial.

It didn’t end well for Billy in the end but did result in a mistrial. I’d say one or two are struggling with a guilty verdict. If it were the other way around the question would probably not arise.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Meh. The jury in the Cosby trial also asked to define reasonable doubt and many speculated it meant a mistrial.

It didn’t end well for Billy in the end but did result in a mistrial. I’d say one or two are struggling with a guilty verdict. If it were the other way around the question would probably not arise.
Click to expand...
True, but there weren’t broader political implications to the Cosby trial that even the most honest of jurors would struggle to filter in their decision making.
 
Regarding the reasonable doubt clarification. I was on a jury and one woman kept thinking beyond a reasonable doubt = absolute proof.
The trial was a long time ago but I remember us (the jury) asking the Judge to define beyond a reasonable doubt for us to get her onboard.
I forgot how he defined it but it wasn’t you need to be on camera for it to beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Manafort only needs to be convicted on ONE count for it to be a win for Mueller and a loss for Team Treason.

DkxM-lpWsAAMp4z
 
It would require a very strange twist of fate for Manafort to ever see daylight again other than thru executive clemency. This jury might fail to reach a verdict on some of the charges but that won't invalidate conviction on the rest. Other than that, only jury nullification can save him.

And there's more to come next month.
 
More noise coming from Mrs Papadopoulos on Twitter and the media.

I’m not sure what to make of this shit other than the legal bills are mounting.

B62AE1E8-8E39-4BE8-A2D9-737166B52A17_zpshh4yagqh.png

36BCF593-1A3E-474E-AD4B-2130321CFA88_zpskcny04ip.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top