Steve Bannon

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ho ... ffd7c2ceae

NEW YORK — The trial of a Steve Bannon associate accused of stealing donations from a fund to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border has been thrown into chaos by a juror claiming the case is a government “witch hunt” and that his fellow jurors are biased New York liberals.

Colorado businessman Timothy Shea is on trial in Manhattan Federal Court for his alleged role siphoning money from the “We Build the Wall” charity, which collected cash from supporters of President Donald Trump’s signature policy to combat illegal immigration. The money was supposed to go to a privately funded section of border wall, but prosecutors allege Bannon, Shea and others raided the charity.

Since deliberations began Tuesday, notes from the jury have indicated Juror No. 4 is questioning why the case is charged in the Southern District of New York.

The juror believes “government tried (Shea) in SDNY because they knew people here vote differently, should have been tried in a southern state,” read one note sent to Judge Analisa Torres late Thursday.

The jurors said they were deadlocked because of the holdout juror who has alleged a “government witch hunt” against Shea. The juror cast his fellow panelists as biased liberals and wondered, “What if more evidence exists?” according to the note.

[Ben-Prime]

The juror believes “government tried (Shea) in SDNY because they knew people here vote differently, should have been tried in a southern state,” read one note sent to Judge Analisa Torres late Thursday.

The jurors said they were deadlocked because of the holdout juror who has alleged a “government witch hunt” against Shea. The juror cast his fellow panelists as biased liberals and wondered, “What if more evidence exists?” according to the note.

[/quote]

Since the jurors are forbidden to look for more evidence, can this be used to disempanel the juror and seat an alternate?

[Dave from down under]

Clear that the juror could not put his/her personal bias aside..

[Volkonski]

Not an expert but if venue was an issue would not have Shea's defense counsel have raised that it during the trial?

[tencats]

Jury says it’s deadlocked in “We Build The Wall” fraud trial against Castle Rock man
The Associated Press
7:34 PM MDT on Jun 2, 2022
https://coloradosun.com/2022/06/02/timo ... cked-jury/

A jury said it was deadlocked Thursday in its deliberations of charges against a Colorado businessman accused of defrauding thousands of investors in a wall along the southern U.S. border hours after 11 jurors turned against one juror, accusing him of “political bias” and saying he’d labeled the rest of them liberals.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres rejected a defense request to declare a mistrial and instead read a so-called “Allen charge,” designed to spark productive deliberations Friday in the trial of Timothy Shea. Jurors were then sent home.


The original four defendants in the case included Steve Bannon,

Earlier Thursday, 11 jurors said in a note to the judge that they were unanimously requesting that one juror be replaced by an alternate juror because the juror had shown anti-government bias and had accused all the others of being liberals.

In their lengthy note, the jurors told Torres that the juror had said things such as “government witch hunt” and accused the government of bringing the case in New York City because it “knew people here vote differently.” The note said the juror added that the trial “should have been tried in a southern state.”

The jurors also accused the juror of saying: “Tim Shea is a good man. He doesn’t beat his wife.”

After the jurors requested that the juror be replaced, Torres interviewed him in her robing room with lawyers from both sides present. She asked him several questions aimed at determining if he was biased.

The hearing, which wasn’t open to the public, produced answers that caused the judge to order jurors to resume deliberations. Ninety minutes later, they returned a note that said: “We cannot agree on a unanimous verdict on any of the counts.”

[bob]

Not an expert but if venue was an issue would not have Shea's defense counsel have raised that it during the trial?

Counsel could have, yes. And jurors shouldn't be speculating about venue.

* * *

Since the jurors are forbidden to look for more evidence, can this be used to disempanel the juror and seat an alternate?

It is unclear whether this juror actually was seeking extrajudicial evidence, but:

The hearing, which wasn’t open to the public, produced answers that caused the judge to order jurors to resume deliberations. Ninety minutes later, they returned a note that said: “We cannot agree on a unanimous verdict on any of the counts.”

This all but says the judge was not persuaded the juror was violating the jury's oath, or was refusing to deliberate.

A juror who uses poor reasoning to come to the conclusion the defendant is not guilty is, in fact, deliberating.

[Ben-Prime]

Not an expert but if venue was an issue would not have Shea's defense counsel have raised that it during the trial?

Counsel could have, yes. And jurors shouldn't be speculating about venue.

* * *

Since the jurors are forbidden to look for more evidence, can this be used to disempanel the juror and seat an alternate?

It is unclear whether this juror actually was seeking extrajudicial evidence, but:

The hearing, which wasn’t open to the public, produced answers that caused the judge to order jurors to resume deliberations. Ninety minutes later, they returned a note that said: “We cannot agree on a unanimous verdict on any of the counts.”

This all but says the judge was not persuaded the juror was violating the jury's oath, or was refusing to deliberate.

A juror who uses poor reasoning to come to the conclusion the defendant is not guilty is, in fact, deliberating.

Ah, okay. I thought the question "What if more evidence exists?" violated what I believed to be the usual instruction to consider only the evidence in front of them. How fractally wrong is that supposition?

[bob]

I thought the question "What if more evidence exists?" violated what I believed to be the usual instruction to consider only the evidence in front of them. How fractally wrong is that supposition?

This issue isn't so much the supposition, but the remedy. Removing a juror during deliberations will draw intense scrutiny from an appellate court. And one of the questions that will be asked is whether the trial judge could have used lesser methods, such as reminding the jury to consider only the evidence before it, and not to speculate about the evidence not before it.

And, to be fair, this is often a no-correct-answer/only-least-bad-answer problem for trial judges.

[Maybenaut]

I thought the question "What if more evidence exists?" violated what I believed to be the usual instruction to consider only the evidence in front of them. How fractally wrong is that supposition?

This issue isn't so much the supposition, but the remedy. Removing a juror during deliberations will draw intense scrutiny from an appellate court. And one of the questions that will be asked is whether the trial judge could have used lesser methods, such as reminding the juror to consider only the evidence before it, and not to speculate about the evidence not before it.

And, to be fair, this is often a no-correct-answer/only-least-bad-answer problem for trial judges.

That's what should've happened in the Bundy trial rather than replacing the juror with an alternate. The result in that case likely would have been a hung jury rather than an acquittal, but in my view that would have been infinitely preferable to replacing a juror just because he disagreed with the others.

[bob]

The result in that case likely would have been a hung jury rather than an acquittal, but in my view that would have been infinitely preferable to replacing a juror just because he disagreed with the others.

"Twelve Angry Men Jurors" would have been a lot shorter if the prosecutor had moved to excuse Henry Fonda because he "wasn't deliberating."

[pipistrelle]

And I bet that juror lied his arse off to the judge.

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d7a07a9e2e

Former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has reportedly subpoenaed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and members of the committee in an attempt to push back at the contempt charges he faces, according to CNN. Bannon is scheduled to go on trial next month in the contempt charges the Justice Department brought against him last year for failing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 Select Committee’s investigation.

Late last year, Bannon was charged with two counts of contempt of Congress follow his refusal to comply with the committee’s subpoena. Bannon pleaded not guilty.

In an effort to fight the contempt charges he’s facing, Bannon’s legal team reportedly subpoenaed 15 lawmakers and congressional staffers to testify at his trial next month, one of Bannon’s attorneys and copies of the subpoenas obtained by CNN indicated. The subpoenas reportedly target all nine members of the committee, three committee staffers and House general counsel Douglas Letter. Additionally, Bannon reportedly subpoenaed Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders such as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC).

The subpoenas by Bannon’s attorneys also request documents related to the establishment of the committee, the decision to refer Bannon for criminal contempt, and communications between the panel and one of Bannon’s lawyers. Additionally, Bannon’s legal team specifically requested documents related to recently published books by committee members Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

[Phoenix520]

Is this the Congressional Hearing version of a SLAPP suit? And is that the correct term?

[Kendra]

As the Jan 6 Committee hearings resume this week... something else is on the calendar

Steve Bannon appears in DC court Wednesday in criminal Contempt of Congress case for defying committee

Peter Navarro appears in court Friday

[Phoenix520]

Whaddya think, will Navarro scream at the judge? Something like “Don’t you KNOW who I am?”

[tek]

Whaddya think, will Navarro scream at the judge? Something like “Don’t you KNOW who I am?”

Only if cameras are rolling.

[Chilidog]

Whaddya think, will Navarro scream at the judge? Something like “Don’t you KNOW who I am?”

“I’m Moe Greene, Damnit!”

[Ben-Prime]

Whaddya think, will Navarro scream at the judge? Something like “Don’t you KNOW who I am?”

“I’m Moe Greene, Damnit!”

"My dude, you're not even Moe Szyslak."

[northland10]

Whaddya think, will Navarro scream at the judge? Something like “Don’t you KNOW who I am?”

“I’m Moe Greene, Damnit!”

I suppose it would be bad form for the judge to mention that the guy standing off in the corner is named, Al Neri.

[Maybenaut]

Whaddya think, will Navarro scream at the judge? Something like “Don’t you KNOW who I am?”

“I’m Moe Greene, Damnit!”

"My dude, you're not even Moe Szyslak."

[Kendra]

Steve Bannon isn’t happy with Bill Barr: “We’re coming for you bro! We’re gonna deconstruct this, and then we’re gonna rub your nose in it .. The days of the deplorables and the days of MAGA just sitting there” are over.

[roadscholar]

Surely Mr. Barr is losing lots of sleep over that warning.

Sweating boots and shivering in his bullets.

[Kendra]

The "ratings"

Steve Bannon outside court just now: "The Jan 6 committee is totally irrelevant. The ratings stink"

[neonzx]

I watched the primetime J6 hearing on TV Thursday from my over-the-air local PBS affiliate (no cable/no tracking) and watched a movie simultaneously on Netflix with my computer. Was I counted?

[Volkonski]