Sorry: Obviously mean "judge" here
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
how did Ellis blow voir dire? I must have missed that
-
This jury should not have had anyone so ardently pro or anti Trump that they had a MAGA hat in the car.
-
He totally messed up... didn't ask the right questions, underestimated the gravity of the trial, prohibited certain terms. Not good.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So you don't think he's not pleading out because he's afraid of Russian retribution?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
If I only wanted one opinion, I would have DM'ed.
I agree with you. I don't think loyalty to Trump is motivating him nearly as much as fear of the Russians for himself and his family. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Isn’t it weird for her to come out and say she went into the trial wanting to find him not guilty? I mean, props for setting that aside and all, but every time I see an interview with an actual juror it shakes any faith I have in the wisdom of trial by jury.
-
I'm a bit torn on this. On one hand, you could ascribe it to a strong belief in "innocent until proven guilty" and a skeptical mind - especially when considering charges under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Go too far, though, and it becomes problematic.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Where I can read the story you're talking about here?
-
thanks
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No, you're obviously caught in a happy happy sunshine time warp. This is 2018. What's going to happen is this will be spun as a "Democratic jury," and every conviction from here on will be labeled a partisan witch hunt.
-
Person interviewed made a point that she had voted for trump
-
And plans to do so again in 2 years...
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
How she got through voir dire is a mystery. Though not all that improbable.
-
Sounds like the judge severely limited voir dire...which is fairly typical in fed ct vs state court
-
I've done voir dire in fed court and I understand the more limited q&a, but "Do you believe politics affect prosecutions?" should have made the cut. Hopefully they'll do that in Manafort II and subsequent trump familia prosecutions.
-
No b/c they follow that question w/"can you set aside politics for evidence?" and that answer always carries the day. Sure, you can use a peremptory challenge but you don't get enough of those to strike everyone w/political opinions.
-
One group question leads to a show of hands and may support a for cause dismissal of the whole group who agree, like a race bias. I haven't picked a jury in years though so I am rusty on the rules. I'll defer to more current practitioners now.
-
Idk if the judge even asked about pretrial publicity here, he said earlier he had no idea how high profile the case would become. Look for this question next trial in DC.
-
Typical to ask if you know or "know of" defendant, would be interesting for
@maddow to get the transcript of voir dire to see how this was handled.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.