Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require transfer to another district where
Even if the Court funds transfer is required, it doesn’t necessarily mean she gets to be tried in Texas. The government might offer some other place as a proper venue.the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.
x5I think that’s exactly what she’s trying to do. Maybe the Court will say, fine, we’ll move the trial, but now it’s going to be in Virginia. I’d be OK with a trial in Alexandria.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:34 pm Is there another side to the coin, as in, "I want to be tried in an area where the jury pool will mostly consist of people who hate Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence so I'll be sure NOT to be convicted?" cuz that seems like it could be a problem for victims.
So if she actually believed the whole 'stolen election -> landslide' thing, would it not be irrelevant where she was tried since everywhere is pro-trump?somerset wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:44 pmLM K wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:39 pm"The facts of this case center around Donald Trump and his supporters. The evidence, in this case, is emotionally political in every respect," Medvin wrote, adding that the jury would be "the most politically prejudiced jury in the entire country."
Cudd has, on multiple occasions, claimed that she is a victim of "cancel culture." This was echoed by her lawyer, Medvin, who said that potential jurors would face "social pressure" to "punish Cudd for being politically incorrect" and that any verdict "could be readily based on pretrial media affiliation of Ms. Cudd with 'white supremacy.'"
Thanks Maybenaut! It will be interesting to see how this plays out.Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:56 pmRule 21 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require transfer to another district where
Even if the Court funds transfer is required, it doesn’t necessarily mean she gets to be tried in Texas. The government might offer some other place as a proper venue.the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.
Scranton is in Pennsylvania...my parents are from the area...
The Justice Department and FBI are gathering evidence to try to build a large conspiracy indictment against members of the Oath Keepers for their roles in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the matter, but the group’s sometimes fractious and fantasy-laden internal workings may complicate efforts to bring such a case.
In the wake of the short-lived insurrection, the Oath Keepers is the most high-profile self-styled militia group in the country. While members use the jargon and trappings of a paramilitary organization, in daily practice the group is often more akin to a collection of local chapters with a similar, disinformation-fueled ideology about what they view as the inevitable collapse of the U.S. government as it becomes more tyrannical.
The Oath Keepers group is a major target of the sprawling FBI investigation into the riot at the U.S. Capitol, along with another militant group, the Proud Boys, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. How aggressively the Justice Department pursues such extremists will be a major test not only of the Biden administration’s pledge to combat domestic terrorism, but also the law and the courts.
Twelve alleged Oath Keepers members or associates have already been arrested on charges related to the Jan. 6 riot. In court documents, the group’s founder, Stewart Rhodes, is usually referred to not by name but as “Person One.” The people familiar with the case said agents are working to see if a conspiracy case can be made against Rhodes and other senior members of the group.
Yeah. She wants to change the venue from one highly prejudiced jury pool to another highly prejudiced jury pool.AndyinPA wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:11 am https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz
Jenny Cudd, 36, a florist and former mayoral candidate from Midland, Texas, notoriously bragged on a Facebook Live stream about storming the Capitol on Jan. 6.
In the live stream, she said that "we (broke) down Nancy Pelosi's door." She also declared that she was "proud of (her) actions" while praising and defending Trump, her fellow "patriots," and "the patriot party."
According to court documents seen by Insider, Cudd is requesting a change of trial venue "due to significant prejudice in the District of Columbia." She is now requesting for the case to be moved to western Texas so that she can have a "fair and impartial trial."
Defendants are usually required by law to be tried in the state where the crime occurred.
And rightly so. I think the Democrats should do with January 6th what the Republicans did with Benghazi. IIRC, there were nine separate Congressional investigations, and one of the QOP critters said that even though none of them resulted in finding that Hillary Clinton did anything wrong, the cumulative effect was that we ended up with a deranged moron in the White House for four years."The investigation and prosecution of the Capitol Attack will likely be one of the largest in American history."
Prosecutors Expect To Start Offering Plea Deals To Alleged Capitol Rioters In The Next 30 Days
Plea deals would mean a swifter resolution of the hundreds of Capitol riot prosecutions, and could reveal which defendants are cooperating with the investigation.
The Justice Department and FBI are gathering evidence to try to build a large conspiracy indictment against members of the Oath Keepers for their roles in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the matter, but the group’s sometimes fractious and fantasy-laden internal workings may complicate efforts to bring such a case.
In a Friday morning filing, prosecutors spelled out the gargantuan scope of the case, saying the “investigation and prosecution of the Capitol Attack will likely be one of the largest in American history, both in terms of the number of defendants prosecuted and the nature and volume of the evidence.”
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department asked a federal judge Friday for more time to investigate the Capitol riot before having to proceed to trial in several cases, including the prosecution of nine people accused of being followers or members of the Oath Keepers and joining in the attack.
"The investigation and prosecution of the Capitol attack will likely be one of the largest in American history," a court filing said, both in terms of the number of defendants and the sheer volume of evidence. The failure to get more time to prepare the case "would be likely to make a continuation of this proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice."
A Justice Department official said 320 people have been charged so far, and the Friday court filing said prosecutors expect that charges will be filed against at least 100 more.
The court document also disclosed new details about the sprawling nature of the riot investigation.
More than 900 search warrants have been executed in nearly all 50 states and Washington, D.C. And investigators have received a huge volume of material, including more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and police body camera video, 1,600 electronic devices, more than 80,000 reports of interviews with witnesses and suspects, and more than 210,000 tips from members of the public.
Wouldn't this open up a can of worms? We'd have over 400 folks requesting to have a change of venue.Maybenaut wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:56 pmRule 21 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require transfer to another district where
Even if the Court funds transfer is required, it doesn’t necessarily mean she gets to be tried in Texas. The government might offer some other place as a proper venue.the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.
I am interested to see how the DOJ handles this. 300 charged so far and another 100 possible, as I understand it. Many will plead guilty, but many won’t. Then they’ll have to decide how to group them (I doubt each person is going to get a separate trial). I imagine that they’ll try to find things in common - like those folks who all communicated with each other before, during and after. Or people who can all be seen in the same video. I’m speculating, obviously, but whatever DOJ does, it will likely have some logic behind it.
Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:43 pmI am interested to see how the DOJ handles this. 300 charged so far and another 100 possible, as I understand it. Many will plead guilty, but many won’t. Then they’ll have to decide how to group them (I doubt each person is going to get a separate trial). I imagine that they’ll try to find things in common - like those folks who all communicated with each other before, during and after. Or people who can all be seen in the same video. I’m speculating, obviously, but whatever DOJ does, it will likely have some logic behind it.
Wikipedia:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... QPIR2KSASQFederal officials estimate that about 10,000 rioters entered the Capitol grounds,[206] and more than 800 breached the building.[206]
