Fogbow

Wowwwwwww....

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:45 am The juror who was removed from the case for misconduct apparently told people there was nothing that could be said to change her mind and she would have "hung the case".

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/al ... r-AA18big9

I saw the report about this juror. Your post has the details. Tx

I also saw that the jurors visiting the scene had impact.

Following is a juror interview plus from before sentencing. Not much new but interesting.
Presumably more jurors will fill the airwaves:

This is interesting. The court appointed attorney in charge of discovering and liquidating his assets talks with Dan Abrams.

pjhimself wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:02 pm

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:45 am The juror who was removed from the case for misconduct apparently told people there was nothing that could be said to change her mind and she would have "hung the case".

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/al ... r-AA18big9

I saw the report about this juror. Your post has the details. Tx

I also saw that the jurors visiting the scene had impact.

Following is a juror interview plus from before sentencing. Not much new but interesting.
Presumably more jurors will fill the airwaves:

This is interesting, I had seen parts of this, but not everything that is in this video.

I bet CNN will try to get the whole group of jurors, they've done that before. That would be interesting, but I worry that if they focus on the lies during their discussion of why they found him guilty, that could jeopardize the verdict. I'm not sure if it really could. Many of the lies that were presented during the trial had to do with financial stuff, but the prosecution was (at least for me) clear about tying those lies to all the lies that he told during the investigation as well as multiple lies he told right there on the witness stand. But jurors can be inarticulate, and I worry sometimes when they talk.

The defense attorneys response:

Dr Kinsey testified as a rebuttal witness and he just obliterated the defense "experts". He was one of the most impressive witnesses I've ever seen in a trial.

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:45 am The juror who was removed from the case for misconduct apparently told people there was nothing that could be said to change her mind and she would have "hung the case".

This should be concerning for the prosecution.

Jurors are allowed, heck, encouraged, to form their own opinions. "12 Angry Jurors" works because the holdout wasn't removed.

There's a difference between "I refuse to deliberate" and "I've considered the evidence and come to a conclusion."

With this particular juror, however, talking about the case with non-jurors will likely be sufficient to affirm the judge's booting this juror.

* * *

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:16 pmThat would be interesting, but I worry that if they focus on the lies during their discussion of why they found him guilty, that could jeopardize the verdict. I'm not sure if it really could. Many of the lies that were presented during the trial had to do with financial stuff, but the prosecution was (at least for me) clear about tying those lies to all the lies that he told during the investigation as well as multiple lies he told right there on the witness stand. But jurors can be inarticulate, and I worry sometimes when they talk.

I would be less concerned about that. How jurors evaluate evidence is basically immune from later nitpicking.

The exception is if jurors essentially tattle on themselves or each other by describing something forbidden, e.g., "So then I told everyone that I drove to the crime scene again by myself and looked around...."

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:35 pm Dr Kinsey testified as a rebuttal witness and he just obliterated the defense "experts". He was one of the most impressive witnesses I've ever seen in a trial.

Well, I'm in .

He was a fabulous witness. When asked if he was being paid for his testimony, he responded in his folksy way, "Well, I'm a Baptist, so I'd better be." I didn't understand the joke but everyone else in the courtroom did.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:54 pm

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:45 am The juror who was removed from the case for misconduct apparently told people there was nothing that could be said to change her mind and she would have "hung the case".

This should be concerning for the prosecution.

Jurors are allowed, heck, encouraged, to form their own opinions. "12 Angry Jurors" works because the holdout wasn't removed.

There's a difference between "I refuse to deliberate" and "I've considered the evidence and come to a conclusion."

With this particular juror, however, talking about the case with non-jurors will likely be sufficient to affirm the judge's booting this juror.

* * *

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:16 pmThat would be interesting, but I worry that if they focus on the lies during their discussion of why they found him guilty, that could jeopardize the verdict. I'm not sure if it really could. Many of the lies that were presented during the trial had to do with financial stuff, but the prosecution was (at least for me) clear about tying those lies to all the lies that he told during the investigation as well as multiple lies he told right there on the witness stand. But jurors can be inarticulate, and I worry sometimes when they talk.

I would be less concerned about that. How jurors evaluate evidence is basically immune from later nitpicking.

The exception is if jurors essentially tattle on themselves or each other by describing something forbidden, e.g., "So then I told everyone that I drove to the crime scene again by myself and looked around...."

thanks for weighing in on that.

The juror that was dismissed was determined to have talked about the case to at least three other people. The initial complaint that she was talking to people came before the end of the case, according to the judge's statement when he put it all on record, they had spent several days interviewing her and the people she had talked to. So, before all the evidence was even presented she was already "dug in", telling those people that nothing any juror could say to her in deliberations would make her change her mind.

She denied having made any such statement, but the judge apparently believed the person(s) who shared details of her discussions with the judge and attorneys while they were in chambers. Not that her specific opinion of the case is what got her booted. She was booted because she was under instructions as all jurors were not to speak about the case to anyone until time to deliberate with fellow jurors. I'm saying that because of the statements the judge made when he brought her out and put his decision to boot her on the record.

One funny thing that happened, apparently someone on the jury brought other jurors fresh eggs. So, when asked if there was anything left in the jury room that needed to be retrieved for her she said "Yes, a dozen eggs".

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 6:39 pm The juror that was dismissed was determined to have talked about the case to at least three other people. The initial complaint that she was talking to people came before the end of the case, according to the judge's statement when he put it all on record, they had spent several days interviewing her and the people she had talked to. So, before all the evidence was even presented she was already "dug in", telling those people that nothing any juror could say to her in deliberations would make her change her mind.

Saying you've "dug in" before deliberations have even started likely will be considered "refusing to deliberate" and not "coming to a conclusion after a reasonable amount of time." (And this is a difference between paper and real law: by necessity, the law presumes jurors walk into the jury room without fixed conclusions.)

But the discussing the case with non-jurors should be enough for the appellate court to reject this claim. Heck, discussing the case with other jurors but outside of the jury room has led to jurors being dismissed.

She denied having made any such statement, but the judge apparently believed the person(s) who shared details of her discussions with the judge and attorneys while they were in chambers.

Sounds like the judge did a good job of protecting the record and made credibility findings. A judge saying, "these other people said..." could lead to problems, but "these other people, whom I find more credible than the juror, said..." will protect the verdict.

The juror was dismissed and replaced with an alternate prior to the defense closing arguments. The judge said the complaint had been made several days prior, they spent several days talking to the parties. It was determined that she discussed the case with a minimum of three people. That was really dumb. But once she made the comments that she was already "dug in" and the jury had not even gotten the case yet, that is just head shaking bad. Thank goodness someone informed the judge. I don't know if the informant knew that she was "dug in", that came out after she was dismissed, but she wasn't dismissed because of her opinion, but because jurors had been told over and over again not to discuss the case, even with their fellow jurors. They are supposed to wait until they get jury instructions and go to the jury room for actual deliberations.

So glad this case is over with. Murdaugh is a real creep.

Since I don't know what are valid grounds for appeal and what is absolute excrement. . .

His lawyers claimed post conviction that they had several sound reasons for appeal including admitting the financial crimes as evidence and if push comes to shove going to the Supremes about some sort of Constitutional issue with the Doyle ruling from decades past. Something about his statements to law enforcement that should not be considered as evidence because the Miranda lines are sometimes blurred. Too lawyerly for me to comprehend.

They said they had something like 14 days to file a notice of appeal and then another 60(?) days to file their appeal.

Now we wait. Then we wait some more.

I don't think there was ever a question that there would be an appeal.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 6:05 pm He was a fabulous witness. When asked if he was being paid for his testimony, he responded in his folksy way, "Well, I'm a Baptist, so I'd better be." I didn't understand the joke but everyone else in the courtroom did.

Baptist believe that all the good they do will be rewarded in Heaven. No earthly amount of money or goods tops that.

This is very interesting. Many trial watchers were afraid the prosecutor got too far into the weeds with financial stuff. But this juror says pretty much (paraphrasing) "no, not too much into the weeds. Even though motive wasn't necessary to prove it helped us understand. Plus it was interesting".

This juror interview is way more interesting and fulsome than the first juror interview.

Having not followed this case closely:

humblescribe wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 6:38 pm His lawyers claimed post conviction that they had several sound reasons for appeal including admitting the financial crimes as evidence

My WAG says this is probative (and not unduly prejudicial) evidence about motive, which goes to intent.

The jurors' commentary about the effectiveness of this evidence is legally irrelevant (as the jurors' opinions will never see the inside of a courthouse), but probably does reflect how a reviewing court will treat such evidence.

going to the Supremes about some sort of Constitutional issue with the Doyle ruling from decades past.

In Doyle v. Ohio, SCOTUS ruled, for a defendant who invoked Miranda but then later testified at trial, a prosecutor can't ask about or comment on the defendant's initial silence.

Again, not knowing the details of this case, Doyle error rarely leads to reversals. And the lawyer's comments suggest they know that, so the goal is get SCOTUS to reconsider how much error is required for a reversal. My WAG is this SCOTUS won't be interested in this issue.

They said they had something like 14 days to file a notice of appeal and then another 60(?) days to file their appeal.

That sounds about right. But the first order of business in the appellate court will be to file for an extension of time to file the appeal. So the actual appeal probably won't be filed for months and months.

Yes, bob is right about why the financial stuff was allowed in.

here is a good discussion by another lawyer on that point, he goes through the the judge's actual ruling and explains it well for those of us who are not lawyers. This man is an appellate lawyer and he talks about why Murdaugh probably doesn't have a very good chance for appeal. Pretty much agrees with what bob has already mentioned.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ty-exhumed

Two weeks after South Carolina lawyer Alex Murdaugh was convicted in the brutal murders of his wife and son, the body of a teenager who was found dead on a country road near the murder scene six years earlier is now set to be exhumed.

Sandy Smith confirmed that the remains of her son Stephen, 19 at the time of his death, will undergo a private autopsy after a GoFundMe campaign raised $43,000 to pay for exhumation.

“It’s Stephen’s year,” Smith told NBC News and thanked donors for “not allowing Stephen’s story to be swept under a rug”.

Stephen Smith’s death has long puzzled South Carolina investigators, who reopened the case into what was originally ruled a hit-and-run accident last year after Murdaugh, 54, was charged in the murders of wife Maggie, 52, and son Paul, 22, last year.

I hope justice will come for his family.

And the walls come tumbling down; and how the lawyers get paid:

Authentic ? Seems plausible though.

I has a HUGE crush on Judge Newman!!!!!!! Y'all can have Stephen Richer!!! I got dibs on Judge Newman!!!!!