quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:...
Who is selling these lies to these leftist idiots???...

They buy their own product.

It's performative self-patronage.

I like this guy:

https://x.com/EdPaltzik/status/2102265600097636755

The Looney Tunes motion filed yesterday by Kevin "Shooter McGavin" Reddington to investigate Michael is not just an attack on Michael for being the courageous lone holdout juror. Reddington's motion is actually a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution. Because if the new normal is that jurors are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye.

To anyone who thinks that Reddington's motion is OK, just remember that the tables will inevitably turn. Imagine a similar trial sometime in the not too distant future where it is the reverse scenario: 11-1 in favor of guilty, with one holdout favoring not guilty by reason of insanity. I doubt you folks would be alright if the District Attorney then filed a motion to investigate that lone holdout standing in the way of a conviction.

That's why this is actually not a partisan issue. Really, this is a "do we still want to have a Sixth Amendment" issue. If you are like me and believe steadfastly in the Constitution, it's easy to see how, regardless of your party affiliation, this is an absolutely terrible path of ruin Reddington wants to take us down.

If we follow his destructive proposal to its logical conclusion, we're going to have an endless cycle of prosecutors investigating holdouts who oppose "guilty" and defense attorneys investigating holdouts who oppose "not guilty." Pretty soon we'll end up with with a retrograde justice system that will look a lot like the Hatfield-McCoy Feud: a cycle of carnage so malignant that its origins will fade in importance, replaced by the hopeless death spiral of the cycle itself.

Kevin Reddington's disgusting motion to investigate Michael is worthy of nothing but universal condemnation. This is certainly not the final word from us on this subject, but merely our first words. It's all going to backfire spectacularly on sore loser Reddington.

The links in the chain of the Constitution were hand forged by the founding fathers with much sweat and backbreaking effort.

On the floor, were links ankle deep, discarded for their weakness.

The chain was near flawless and has steady anchored, this Mighty Columbia, weathering storms unimagined.

Yet, there are evil people within, who have done all they can to weaken and break the links of this chain, to the peril of all.

-sm
12:00PM
9/22/2026

Jonathan Turley on Reddington’s assault on both the Constitution and Desronvil.

quote:

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington appears to be moving from zealous advocacy to virtual stalking in the Lindsay Clancy case. Reddington is seeking phone records, surveillance, and criminal records of Michael Desronvil, the now-identified juror who held out in the 11-1 hung jury decision. Reddington’s demand follows his unprofessional attack on the juror on the courthouse steps after the trial.

In his filing, Kevin Reddington seeks to question Desronvil after reviewing his records to see whether he lied on his juror questionnaire, violated court rules by using his cellphone in the jury room, and failed to pay attention during jury deliberations.

From Holdout to Hunted

More Soros and his like fighting the constitution and feeding dissension.

And not just an attack on the Constitution because I do not believe the issue is spelled out there, but the entire system of justice.

I would wish for the comet, but that would also take out the ones who are outraged by such antics.

Isn't there something the Bar can do? Reddington seems to be unhinged somehow. Can he be involuntarily committed for everyone's protection? They can put him in the room next to Lindsay's.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...nanimity-of-the-jury

The above is a link to discussion of 6th and 14th amendments concerning unanimous jury decisions. My reading is that to be found guilty requires unanimous - not guilty not so much. Depends on state laws...

Real lawyers please comment...

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...nanimity-of-the-jury

The above is a link to discussion of 6th and 14th amendments concerning unanimous jury decisions. My reading is that to be found guilty requires unanimous - not guilty not so much. Depends on state laws...

Real lawyers please comment...

I think the difference in this case is she was guilty or guilty by reason of insanity.

Either way - put her in gen-pop for the remainder of her days, ensure she is sterilized, has a non-retractable restraining order to never be around any person under the age of 15 while unsupervised (in case she should ever be paroled or released from a hospital for the criminally insane), AND ensure every person in gen-pop is fully aware she murdered her own children to include while one was presumed to be watching whilst the other was struggling to breath and stay alive.