aggiehawg said:

---

TitanAGGIE09 said:

---

News just quoted the judge saying this after his dismissed first count.

"What that means is you're now free to consider count 2. Whether that makes a difference I have no idea" - Judge

---

What an a-hole judge!

---

He should have stopped at the first sentence.

Are jurists in high profile cases some of the dumbest people in the country? Clearly they can't come in with a lot of knowledge on the crime and little if any bias.

Daniel Penny judge dismissed Count 1, manslaughter, after a hung jury — BUT he is going to allow the jury to consider Count 2, negligent homicide, on Monday.

Look at the instructions. Count 2 consideration was contingent on Count 1 deliberations. The decision to allow… pic.twitter.com/ghf75ksjCM

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) December 6, 2024

HTownAg98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TitanAGGIE09 said:

---

News just quoted the judge saying this after his dismissed first count.

"What that means is you're now free to consider count 2. Whether that makes a difference I have no idea" - Judge

---

What an a-hole judge!

---

He should have stopped at the first sentence.

---

If the judge doesn't know the difference how can the jury be expected to?

Because unless you find that the judge was taking money from the DA's office, having the DA's office write his decisions, or other things like that, they have immunity. Making bad decisions rarely results in anything except getting overturned on appeal.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Look at the instructions. Count 2 consideration was contingent on Count 1 deliberations. The decision to allow consideration of Count 2 removes the defense-protective obstacles from the instruction. If Penny is convicted as a result, the defense will have a field day on appeal.

---

Man, the judge really screwed the pooch here.

---

What an assbackwards set of instructions.

In this case, what do they even mean by "justified"? Justified in what? Justified in putting him in a choke hold? Justified in protecting other transiters? Justified in doing anything but silently waiting for someone to die?

It could literally mean anything. No wonder everyone is confused.

Got to assume at this point that the defense will file a motion for mistrial (dismissal?) on Monday.

Neely's Dad just defamed the hell out of Jo-Ellan Dimitrious, the jury consultant, calling her a white supremacist!

Just want to point out that she was the one who picked to OJ jury. She also worked on the Rittenhouse trial.

aggiehawg said:

---

Neely's Dad just defamed the hell out of Jo-Ellan Dimitrious, the jury consultant, calling her a white supremacist!

Just want to point out that she was the one who picked to OJ jury. She also worked on the Rittenhouse trial.

---

Gotham's gonna Gotham. I'm just shaking my head at this point...

This judge. And the troll prosecutor.

aggiehawg said:

---

Neely's Dad just defamed the hell out of Jo-Ellan Dimitrious, the jury consultant, calling her a white supremacist!

Just want to point out that she was the one who picked to OJ jury. She also worked on the Rittenhouse trial.

---

Dad gonna get a civil settlement and have to pay it to a jury consultant

The problem with this (and the prosecution knows it) is that any appeal would likely take longer than the sentence.

The judge will do what they did to Kim Potter and give him a short enough prison sentence that he has less chance of being overturned on appeal.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The problem with this (and the prosecution knows it) is that any appeal would likely take longer than the sentence.

The judge will do what they did to Kim Potter and give him a short enough prison sentence that he has less chance of being overturned on appeal.

---

Rikers Island is a little different than county lock-up in Minnesota on the Potter case.

I submit the judge has messed up this case so much, they can get an expedited appeal.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The problem with this (and the prosecution knows it) is that any appeal would likely take longer than the sentence.

The judge will do what they did to Kim Potter and give him a short enough prison sentence that he has less chance of being overturned on appeal.

---

The only just thing would be for the judge to hold off on sentencing until the appeal runs its course. Not sure he can do that, or if he even would.

So let me get this straight, unless the jury asks about it, they likely have no idea that Penny can be retried for the more serious charge since it was a hung jury. Therefore, to "compromise" they'll likely convict Penny on the lesser charge and the Soros DA can STILL retry him later for the more serious charge and probably will.

Oh, and Trump can't pardon him later since it's not a federal crime, it would require Kathy Hochul, a Dem, to do it.

What a disgrace.

HTownAg98 said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The problem with this (and the prosecution knows it) is that any appeal would likely take longer than the sentence.

The judge will do what they did to Kim Potter and give him a short enough prison sentence that he has less chance of being overturned on appeal.

---

The only just thing would be for the judge to hold off on sentencing until the appeal runs its course. Not sure he can do that, or if he even would.

---

He's already **** all over the judicial process. I think he could do anything he wants. That's a given now. But it's more likely he'll do what he can to make it as hard on Penny as he can.

Prosperdick said:

---

So let me get this straight, unless the jury asks about it, they likely have no idea that Penny can be retried for the more serious charge since it was a hung jury. Therefore, to "compromise" they'll likely convict Penny on the lesser charge and the Soros DA can STILL retry him later for the more serious charge and probably will.

Oh, and Trump can't pardon him later since it's not a federal crime, it would require Kathy Hochul, a Dem, to do it.

What a disgrace.

---

If I'm reading this right, Bragg dismissed the charges. A jury has already been sat so jeopardy attaches and he shouldn't be able to bring the other charges again. It is New York and laws are just pesky annoyances there so we'll see.

If jury is hung on count 2 they could retry that still.

Prosperdick said:

---

So let me get this straight, unless the jury asks about it, they likely have no idea that Penny can be retried for the more serious charge since it was a hung jury. Therefore, to "compromise" they'll likely convict Penny on the lesser charge and the Soros DA can STILL retry him later for the more serious charge and probably will.

Oh, and Trump can't pardon him later since it's not a federal crime, it would require Kathy Hochul, a Dem, to do it.

What a disgrace.

---

No. He can't be retried on the manslaughter charge at this point, as jeopardy has attached and it was dismissed, not a mistrial. (At least I think that's what happened here. Judge managed to even confuse himself.)

aggiehawg said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

So let me get this straight, unless the jury asks about it, they likely have no idea that Penny can be retried for the more serious charge since it was a hung jury. Therefore, to "compromise" they'll likely convict Penny on the lesser charge and the Soros DA can STILL retry him later for the more serious charge and probably will.

Oh, and Trump can't pardon him later since it's not a federal crime, it would require Kathy Hochul, a Dem, to do it.

What a disgrace.

---

No. He can't be retried on the manslaughter charge at this point, as jeopardy has attached and it was dismissed, not a mistrial. (At least I think that's what happened here. Judge managed to even confuse himself.)

---

I hope you're right...if not it's a complete and utter screw job. Since it's New York I'm going to think it's a screw job unless it's stated definitively.

I read Penny's lawyers were objecting to the dismissal of the manslaughter charge but I guess even if he couldn't be retried they didn't want the jury to think "well, we have to get him with SOMETHING."

There's a dead body, somebody has to be held accountable and we all know we'll never hold the victim accountable.

aggiehawg said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

So let me get this straight, unless the jury asks about it, they likely have no idea that Penny can be retried for the more serious charge since it was a hung jury. Therefore, to "compromise" they'll likely convict Penny on the lesser charge and the Soros DA can STILL retry him later for the more serious charge and probably will.

Oh, and Trump can't pardon him later since it's not a federal crime, it would require Kathy Hochul, a Dem, to do it.

What a disgrace.

---

No. He can't be retried on the manslaughter charge at this point, as jeopardy has attached and it was dismissed, not a mistrial. (At least I think that's what happened here. Judge managed to even confuse himself.)

---

You got it right, he dismissed the charge. And since double jeopardy attached, it's done.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

The judges instructions basically said if they couldn't find guilt on the first charge, they couldn't consider the second.

So, because it was hung, the judge dropped the first charge in cahoots with the prosecution so the second could be considered. It goes completely against the jury instructions the judge gave.

---

So almost as bad, total screw job either way. Pro tip, NEVER visit a deep blue city.

Quote:

---

I read Penny's lawyers were objecting to the dismissal of the manslaughter charge but I guess even if he couldn't be retried they didn't want the jury to think "well, we have to get him with SOMETHING."

---

As they should have objected. Their point was that it was mistrial. DA wanted to dismiss and the judge granted their request while saying it wasn't a mistrial yet. (That actually should be to Penny's benefit, that it was dismissed pursuant to Bragg's designated attorney's request.)

But the real problem starts with the manner in how the jury instructions were drafted.

Without getting too far into the weeds, To the charges Penny interposed the justification affirmative defense (self defense or defense of others) which the jury then had to decide if the DA had negated that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Burden shifts to them, the state, to poke holes in that contention.

But then judge also suggested that the justification defense was applicable to both charges. So if the jury was unanimous that the state had failed to convince them Penny's actions were unjustified on manslaughter, that would also apply to criminally negligent charge. (Don't ask me why, that is just how this judge was seeing it.)

However upon being advised twice that the jury was deadlocked on manslaughter, the judge could have sent a singular interrogatory to the jury asking if the justification defense was the cause of the deadlock? Because according to his own instructions, if that was the issue, it wouldn't be a deadlock on one charge and not on the other as they were related according to the judge. They reply it was, then mistrial.

As to criminally negligent homicide, it comes down to a reasonable person standard. Well, there was a subway car full of reasonable people who said they were in fear for their lives or serious bodily harm. To find Penny guilty of that charge, they would need to determine all of those people were not credible as eye-witnesses, which included POC.

The cherry on the sundae for jury confusion was when the judge calls them back in. Tells manslaughter charge is dismissed and then they have to come back on Monday to deliberate on the lesser charge of CNH and then tells them that he doesn't know if that will even make a difference.

Say what? You don't know but we are supposed to know as the jury? I'm a retired trial attorney and even I was massively confused by what has come out regarding the jury instructions and exactly what was the judge's intention, implication? Nutty as squirrel crap.

Quote:

---

You got it right, he dismissed the charge. And since double jeopardy attached, it's done.

---

Ultimately, I think that was very bad move by the DA to request dismissal of that charge, if they ever intended to retry him in case of a mistrial being declared.

But now I know why this state trial was not televised.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

The judges instructions basically said if they couldn't find guilt on the first charge, they couldn't consider the second.

So, because it was hung, the judge dropped the first charge in cahoots with the prosecution so the second could be considered. It goes completely against the jury instructions the judge gave.

---

That is the way he phrased it but then he said they could not find him guilty on BOTH counts.

Because the justification defense applied to both.

Quote:

---

and a case against the DA.

---

Section 1983, Bivens action. Deprivation of due process and civil rights. Sorry, NY taxpayers as you get what yu vote for

Unless this SCOTUS has a rapid change of heart, Bivens has been gutted almost to the point of being overturned.

this is absolute insanity.

what the **** kind of bull**** country is this now?

The real question is would a reasonable and ordinary person ride the subway in New York City? Like asking if a reasonable person getting a bj from a king cobra would act in a particular manner