Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105
Thanks Tree74Thanks

Thread: Is a DA Allowed To Give The Defendant The Stink Eye During Trial?

  1. #101
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,618
    Thanks
    31319

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    Fluid leaking out of the body.
    Unnecessarily cumulative (also excludable under Rule 403), since the coroner's testimony would cover that (i.e., that he bled out).

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    I get that you are doing everything you can to try and portray Madeline as the victim here. Face it, this is just another thread defending murderers over prosecutors.
    These statements are just ideological bullshit. Madeline is not a "victim," and neither is either of us. And there is no "defending murderers over prosecutors," since the defendant is not properly called a "murderer" until convicted. Your position requires that you assume her guilty before the trial, when in fact she is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the discussion revolves around what evidence is or is not admissible to make that proof. The discussion is about the law, not political ideology; and the former is what governs the conduct of the parties in the course of litigation, not political ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    The murder happened on that bed. The bed was part of the murder because she tied the victim to the bed. The sheets were part of the evidence because his blood were on them.
    The question is what point the blood stains prove.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    The judge allowed it. The case went to appeal and the appellate court allowed it. Now, you come back and tell us that they all were wrong.
    I have not read the appellate decision (and in fact I do not know the names involved, and so cannot look up the case), but I can certainly opine in that direction. You are arguing from a position of ideology, not law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    She killed him, she will be eligible for parole again in a few years.
    The question at trial was whether the killing constituted self-defense. Based on the facts I do know, that was probably the right decision, given her behavior subsequent to the killings.

    I suspect that the appellate court's reasoning for affirming the trial court's admission of the evidence was probably that the other evidence sufficed for a reasonable jury to have found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and so the admission was what would be called "harmless error." That, not your political ideology, is a position argued from law, and is a proper gauge of whether the trial court's actions were appropriate.
    Thanks from Madeline and Leo2

  2. #102
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,280
    Thanks
    32302

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    And someone actually said that I was being hard on Madeline when I said that she was on the side of criminals. This post totally proves my point.
    No, it does not. Your biased view of what "someone like me" says about criminal justice is making it too hard for you to take on board what I ACTUALLY said.

    This makes communication between us impossible. Kindly pause and reflect on how your yearning for a Billy Badass badge is unhelpful, unhealthy and unflattering.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  3. #103
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,280
    Thanks
    32302

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    So you really agree with Madeline when she wants to hobble prosecutors? She wants to bar the use of autopsy photos, and evidence that could inflame a jury? Susan Wright killed her husband in cold blood. She wasn't defending herself because her husband was tied up, helpless. Then she tried to hide the body afterward. She took out a restraining order AFTER he was dead. She's a cold blooded, murderous bitch who deserves to serve out her sentence.

    The prosecutor should be allowed to use evidence to prove the case.
    I could be wrong, SD. I started this thread to DISCUSS an IDEA.

    Prosecutorial misconduct is appalling to me because it often results in conviction of innocent people and FAILURE to IMPRISON THE GUILTY.

    The man who actually committed the rape that the Central Park 5 were wrongly convicted of remained free for several years, raping in ever-more vicious fashion, killing at least one woman.

    If the DA and cops had not bungled the original investigation, those people would have been safe from that sadistic psychopath.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #104
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,280
    Thanks
    32302

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    Loads of stuff - The Office (orig Brit show), Sherlock, Wolf Hall, Dr Who, The IT Crowd, Top Gear, The Thick of It, Black Books, The Inbetweeners, Doc Martin, Rev, Extras, Silk, Endeavour, Skins, Hustle, Foyle's War, Inspector George Gently, Miranda, Death in Paradise, Outnumbered, and My Family, are just some I remember.

    Did any of those make it across the pond?
    InBetweeners is pee my pants laughing funny. I have watched every episode of Silk at least 5 times.

    My favorite British crime tv show is Happy Valley. Woman in her 50's kicks ass and helps every vulnerable person in town.

    I could go on about your tv shows for days.
    Last edited by Madeline; 11th March 2018 at 07:45 PM.

  5. #105
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,813
    Thanks
    3725

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    InBetweeners is pee my pants laughing funny. I have watched every episode of Silk at least 5 times.

    My favorite British crime tv show is Happy Valley. Woman in her 50's kicks ass and helps every vulnerable person in town.

    I could go on about your tv shows for days.
    Lol, yes - I loved the In Betweeners, but I was a bit younger then, and I was mildly shocked at a TV show with young guys talking about sex and their dicks and stuff. And I like Silk too - it seems to be a better representation of the British court system than say - Judge John Deed (where this old guy is getting off with all these young women, and still staying on the bench - and even he title is wrong, it would be Justice John Deed). And Maxine Peak (who is really quite old at 44 to play a young woman,) is awfully good in her part. And even Rupert Penry-Jones her caddish counterpart, plays his part convincingly. Not to mention Phil Davis as Micky Joy and Neil Stuke as Billy Lamb (both quite complex and difficult characters to portray convincingly).

    Not all British TV shows are good though. A lot of it is quiz shows, and pretty lame stand up comics, and cooking shows. The best however, are pretty good, as with the best British cinema. As one commentator once put it - British and European film is about life as it is, whereas Hollywood is about life as we would like it to be. I guess it just depends on one's personal preferences.
    Thanks from Madeline and Ian Jeffrey

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 233
    Last Post: 29th November 2014, 03:04 AM
  2. BIRTHER filth TO stink up GOP CONVENTION
    By Stefan Bandera in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25th August 2012, 02:14 PM
  3. Chicago bomb defendant is cleared
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 14th December 2007, 09:59 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed