https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...050086694#3050086694

quote:

It seems that most people in our society equate musical talent or acting ability or being really good at running with a little ball, with a high degree of intelligence and I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so. Plenty of fine actors are stupid- Robert DeNiro for instance, and I'm not just saying that because he's a Trump hater. If you've ever listened to DeNiro being interviewed, he comes across as not too bright. During one of the brilliant Truman Capote's appearances on The Tonight Show, Capote told Carson that he felt Marlon Brando to be one of the greatest actors, but that we was "dumb as a rock."

It is only in the last 120 years or so, that the profession of acting has risen out of the gutter.

One of my favorite comments about actors before Hollywood:

quote:

Crude studios and outdoor sets were thrown up over a 300-square-mile area from 1908 on. Hollywood—then a bucolic settlement of 5,000—became the principle focus. It was conveniently close to the hills and to downtown L.A., but its first settlers—staid Midwesterners who had outlawed saloons and theaters—were unfriendly. Recalled pioneer director Allan Dwan: ‘We were beneath them. If we walked in the streets with out cameras, they hid their girls under their beds, closed doors and windows, and shied away.’ ‘No dogs, no actors,’ read a sign at the Hollywood Hotel.”

https://screenwritingfromiowa....rs-hollywood-c-1908/

i heard that there are two lawyers on the jury. if they have any intellectual integrity at all, no way will they let a verdict of guilty go down

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
i heard that there are two lawyers on the jury. if they have any intellectual integrity at all, no way will they let a verdict of guilty go down

New York lawyers?
Integrity?
Surely you jest.

Trump's response to today's prosecution closing arguments. Gotta love his moxie.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Trump's response to today's prosecution closing arguments. Gotta love his moxie.

I can't see this. Can someone post a different link or a different image host?

I agree with Joe DiGenova...guilty. Of what, I don't think anyone knows, but I'm expecting a conviction and sooner rather than later.

Hopefully at least one of the jurors has some backbone, but I believe that there's a few things going through their minds: How much money they can make on talk shows selling their story, and the fact that they are too scared to go against the machine that will destroy their lives if they don't convict. Sadly, integrity is an archaic trait.

It should be not guilty but I expect a quick guilty decision.

There's more fame, notoriety, accolades and book deals with a guilty finding than incurring the wrath of the Left over a not guilty.

But the real partisan hack in all of this is the judge. In many years of appearing in court, I've never seen someone so in the bag for one side than Marchan. It boggles the mind to think what goes on in his head when he sustains or overrules objections or even comes up with the jury instructions. It's just stunning that all pretense of fair and impartial is gone.

The quicker the verdict comes back, the more likely we can assume that it will be guilty. If it drags out more than a day, then that is better news for Trump for a hung jury. But the judge I think will just keep sending the jury back to "try again" if they are deadlocked. How long can the Judge do that? Is there a limit or can he keep the Jury indefinitely until they come up with a verdict one way or another? If there is one holdout, I could definitely see the judge wage a war of attrition on that juror until he breaks.

I just don't see an acquittal being possible, unless a 12 angry men scenario unfolds in the jury room.

When it comes to Trump, I'm hopefully optimistic he will be acquitted or at least a mistrial. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in people, but the whole affair is so insanely false and unjust, even New Yorkers can see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The quicker the verdict comes back, the more likely we can assume that it will be guilty.

That's generally not true. Quicker verdicts in a criminal case, where there are multiple counts, usually mean Not Guilty.

That's because for each count, the jury needs to agree on foundational elements for each alleged crimes before it answers on guilt or innocence. It will take a lot of time to go through all 34 counts and agree on the necessary elements.

If you remember from the OJ trial, defense attorney Carl Douglass figured how long it would take to fill out the jury forms for guilt and it would have much taken much longer. When they announced they'd arrived at a quick decision, he knew OJ was walking. Not enough time.

Jury forms are kind of like filling out forms in general. "If you answer Yes to question No.1, go to question 2 and follow the instructions. If you answer No to question 1, go to the bottom of the form and check the box Not Guilty and sign the form."


The jury will have to do this 34 times.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The quicker the verdict comes back, the more likely we can assume that it will be guilty.

That's generally not true. Quicker verdicts in a criminal case, where there are multiple counts, usually mean Not Guilty.

For most cases, sure. But I believe it's the opposite for this one. If this Jury actually intends to take these charges seriously, how can they come back with anything but not guilty?

But I'm just a layman. I had forgotten there are actually 34 counts here. You're likely right.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
When it comes to Trump, I'm hopefully optimistic he will be acquitted or at least a mistrial. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in people, but the whole affair is so insanely false and unjust, even New Yorkers can see it.

I'm hopefully optimistic as well... at least for a mistrial. I don't think he will be acquitted because I don't think the jury will all agree. Everyone knows this is a political trial, which surely affects the jurors. I just hope a few are strong enough to do the right thing.

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
i heard that there are two lawyers on the jury.
<snip>

I doubted that any lawyers would be empaneled, let alone two of ‘em, but it appears that you’re correct:

https://www.politico.com/news/...ury-lawyers-00152839

Both are male corporate lawyers. Color me surprised. Lawyers are usually excused in the jury selection process.

having two lawyers may be their 'get out of jail' card

In my state lawyers are permitted to be on a jury, rule change decades ago, but can get weeded out by the judge or attorneys.

Most lay people have no idea how any of this works, so the attorneys could give some insight on how ridiculous the case is, if they have some background on it.

More importantly, attorneys should be able to explain how ridiculous the jury instructions are, which is unavoidable given the convoluted charges. But, the attorneys could be also be political hacks just like anyone else.

As far as elapsed time of deliberations, either outcome could be quick or after a long time. The OJ verdict was reached within just a few hours, which was surprising given the lengthy trial and evidence. In that case the jurors had their minds made up before the trial started, probably didn't understand much of the evidence, so they didn't care.

quote:

That's because for each count, the jury needs to agree on foundational elements for each alleged crimes before it answers on guilt or innocence. It will take a lot of time to go through all 34 counts and agree on the necessary elements.

Based on the jury instructions I'm seeing online, it doesn't sound like that's part of the what's happening here, we shall see.

ETA:

https://x.com/JonathanTurley/s.../1795829624502681688

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

That's because for each count, the jury needs to agree on foundational elements for each alleged crimes before it answers on guilt or innocence. It will take a lot of time to go through all 34 counts and agree on the necessary elements.

Based on the jury instructions I'm seeing online, it doesn't sound like that's part of the what's happening here, we shall see.

ETA:

https://x.com/JonathanTurley/s.../1795829624502681688

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&lang=en&theme=&id=1795829624502681688" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 499px; display: block; border: none; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-image: url('https://codejanitor.net/embeds/images/bgmessage.png'); background-position: 50% 85px; background-size: 200px; overflow: hidden;" title="Twitter Tweet"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Wow...

Yeah, this is quite the show. All pretense of unbiased and fair is gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Wow...

Yeah, this is quite the show. All pretense of unbiased and fair is gone.

In case you missed it, if you've been watching/listening to whats been going on in this trial... That pretense went out the window a LONG time ago. This "judge" is as biased as they come, can't see how anyone paying attention wouldn't have noticed.

I believe I mentioned jury instructions at least a week+ ago.