blindey said:

---

My guess is that lunch break is the inflection point.

They make it to close of business tomorrow and I think the prosecution really starts to sweat.

I've seen juries that are clearly not agreeing on answers get through much longer charges in much less time, but those were all civil.

But again, juries are fickle. They could deliberate for 2 full weeks for all we know and come back with guilty across the board.

---

Asking about reasonable doubt is never a good question from a jury vis a vis the prosecution (as reported).

That is just one of those things that juries have a hard time grasping. As in, "If I have some doubt, is that "reasonable"??"

So would you consider that as bad as being on the defense side of a civil case and getting, "can we have a calculator?"

Disagree completely. Question really could go either way. A juror could think "reasonable doubt" means "zero doubt at all"

First 2 questions do seem defense friendly though

BMX Bandit said:

---

Disagree completely. Question really could go either way. A juror could think "reasonable doubt" means "zero doubt at all"

First 2 questions do seem defense friendly though

---

Agree. They could go either way.

Example, didn't the jury ask to define reasonable doubt in Scooter Libby's case? And then he was convicted. I could be wrong though

blindey said:

---

So would you consider that as bad as being on the defense side of a civil case and getting, "can we have a calculator?"

---

Yeah! Oh hell yeah!

The story I relayed about that antitrust case where we goaded the Plaintiff's attorneys to put their manager, who was a complete goofball, on the stand had a twist. Jury took about 4 hours to deliberate but later found out most of that time was spent arguing about whether they could use the Plaintiffs' methods for calculating damages to award damages to the defense. As there was no counter-claim the answer was no but they still sent a note to the judge to ask that. That's how much the jury hated the Plaintiffs' attorneys and their clients.

blindey said:

---

So would you consider that as bad as being on the defense side of a civil case and getting, "can we have a calculator?"

---

Seems clear the prosecution did not make clear, concise summaries of the evidence, nor did they discuss the definitions during closing arguments.

Sarge 91 said:

---

blindey said:

---

So would you consider that as bad as being on the defense side of a civil case and getting, "can we have a calculator?"

---

Seems clear the prosecution did not make clear, concise summaries of the evidence, nor did they discuss the definitions during closing arguments.

---

Not really. Reasonable doubt is hammered by the defense and the judge and is repeated in the written jury instructions. Juries often still don't get it however and confuse themselves. Does any doubt rise to reasonable doubt? How much? When?

If I'm guessing the struggle here is the Gates' testimony. How much credibility should he get if he's a liar and an embezzler who deceived Manafort for years?

ETA: And how could they conspire together if Gates is lying to Manafort? The conspiracy charge is too vague given the evidence adduced at trial.

MASAXET said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

This is that grey area of time where I think reading one way or the other is a mistake. If they are still out tomorrow at lunch, I agree that is a bad sign for the prosecution.

---

Definitely reading too much into it right now. I wouldn't even be overly concerned one way or another come lunch tomorrow. I could certainly see a guilty verdict on most counts come back after lunch

---

Not sure about "most", but I think they could get him on the tax evasion (all or most) and the FBAR for '11 (acquitting for the years he owned 50% and didn't meet the threshold to declare them), and acquitting on the bank fraud. That could easily get them to lunch tomorrow.

Hah classic.

blindey said:

---

Hah classic.

---

That case had some of the most bizarre crap I ever saw. Plaintiffs' attorneys tried to "serve" a subpoena to testify at trial to someone who was out of state over the phone in the middle of the night. I s*** you not.

Then they filed a pleading that was obviously dictated but not proof read as it stated "there was not a chinchilla of evidence".....

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey said:

---

Hah classic.

---

That case had some of the most bizarre crap I ever saw. Plaintiffs' attorneys tried to "serve" a subpoena to testify at trial to someone who was out of state over the phone in the middle of the night. I s*** you not.

Then they filed a pleading that was obviously dictated but not proof read as it stated "there was not a chinchilla of evidence".....

---

Yeah, chief. I'll have a CHINCHILLA!

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey said:

---

Hah classic.

---

That case had some of the most bizarre crap I ever saw. Plaintiffs' attorneys tried to "serve" a subpoena to testify at trial to someone who was out of state over the phone in the middle of the night. I s*** you not.

Then they filed a pleading that was obviously dictated but not proof read as it stated "there was not a chinchilla of evidence".....

---

So a chinchilla should overcome a "no evidence" challenge, but what about an "insufficient evidence" challenge?

Guess I should explain that for the IANAls. The legal term is "scintilla" of evidence. In transcription it became "chinchilla."

https://saraacarter.com/breaking-bruce-ohr-texts-emails-reveal-steeles-deep-ties-to-obama-doj-fbi/

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey said:

---

Hah classic.

---

That case had some of the most bizarre crap I ever saw. Plaintiffs' attorneys tried to "serve" a subpoena to testify at trial to someone who was out of state over the phone in the middle of the night. I s*** you not.

Then they filed a pleading that was obviously dictated but not proof read as it stated "there was not a chinchilla of evidence".....

---

I don't know how I'll make it work but I'm getting a chinchilla of evidence into summary judgment briefing as soon as I can. Or maybe I'll pull the Super Troopers move and at least get it on the record at a hearing.

May even have to be an office mascot.

What is on your chinchillas head?

Is that a Chinchildo?

Quote:

---

I don't know how I'll make it work but I'm getting a chinchilla of evidence into summary judgment briefing as soon as I can. Or maybe I'll pull the Super Troopers move and at least get it on the record at a hearing.

May even have to be an office mascot.

---

Question for all the lawyers on this forum. Say Trump did conspire with the Russia. But it also came out that the way the SC went about getting this information was illegal. Would they throw all the evidence the SC had collected or would it all be fair game in court?

IANAL

But pretty sure any evidence illegally collected is tossed.

More sure that no such collusion happened.

And even more sure that had it happened, it's not a crime.

aggie2812-2 said:

---

Question for all the lawyers on this forum. Say Trump did conspire with the Russia. But it also came out that the way the SC went about getting this information was illegal. Would they throw all the evidence the SC had collected or would it all be fair game in court?

---

Trump cannot be tried criminally while in office. Only remedy for a sitting President is impeachment by the House and a vote for removal by 2/3rds of the Senate. After removal he could be tried but he would have all of the due process protections including fruit of the poisonous tree should Mueller have obtained evidence by extralegal means. And that could include fraudulent FISA warrants.

ETA: And collusion is not a crime.

Thank you aggiehawg, always enjoy reading your post. I know nothing about law so I was just curious. It seems everyday we are finding out more and more about the previous administrations curroupt doings.

No problem. Media these days tend to be more sensational than fact driven and put out a ton of misinformation.

If Mueller even tries to subpoena President Trump it will end up in SCOTUS before anything actually takes place.

Interesting tidbit. I wonder if a transcript will be publicly available, revealing more Glenn Simpson lies.

So perhaps Bruce Our was a media leaker too.

Secolobo said:

---

---

Bill Clinton Eagle

• Hillary Clinton Evergreen
• Chelsea Clinton Energy

George W. Bush Tumbler later Trailblazer

• Laura Bush Tempo
• Barbara Bush Turquoise
• Jenna Bush Twinkle

Barack Obama Renegade

• Michelle Obama Renaissance
• Malia Obama Radiance
• Sasha Obama Rosebud

Donald Trump Mogul

• Melania Trump Muse
• Donald Trump Jr. Mountaineer
• Ivanka Trump Marvel
• Eric Trump Marksman

Looks like the jury has made it to lunch on day 2. Let the speculation begin.

Nah...imported prime rib payed for via....wire transfer!

scottimus said:

---

Nah...imported prime rib payed for via....wire transfer!

---

Only if it is from a foreign bank, though.

And... there it is

VegasAg86 said:

---

Looks like the jury has made it to lunch on day 2. Let the speculation begin.

---

Four to five o'clock is the witching hour, methinks. If they are close they'll push on to finish to avoid weekend deliberations.

If there is no verdict today, things get really interesting.

No lawyer, but my 'gut' is screaming that if no verdict by 4:00 PMish on a Friday, I'm calling it a "hung jury". Don't think "acquittal" is remotely possible. Either one is a major loss for Team Muller and a direct hit on the SC.