• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Media heads getting ready to explode over Weinstein trial jury results

OldFatGuy

OldFatGuy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
13,794
Reaction score
7,497
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Major sources at the State Supreme Court House in Manhattan have rumored the jury has deadlocked at 8 for acquittal. The judge has urged the jury to reconvene, work out their differences to avoid a mistrial. Acquittal or mistrial, Harvey Weinstein walks. Trial by media fails, along with the Me Too movement. Expect accusations of a fix, cowardice, and so forth in the media, echoed by protests. But Harvey walks away with his walker, free. Dumps the California case as expected low hanging fruit, right in the trash. He won't even need to make a personal appearance in the California courts.

It is difficult to get a rape conviction when both complainants maintained relationships, long after the supposed rapes, with the accused. One even claiming, in writing, he gave her the best orgasms of her life. Regretted sex acts are not rape.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Major sources at the State Supreme Court House in Manhattan have rumored the jury has deadlocked at 8 for acquittal. The judge has urged the jury to reconvene, work out their differences to avoid a mistrial. Acquittal or mistrial, Harvey Weinstein walks. Trial by media fails, along with the Me Too movement. Expect accusations of a fix, cowardice, and so forth in the media, echoed by protests. But Harvey walks away with his walker, free. Dumps the California case as expected low hanging fruit, right in the trash. He won't even need to make a personal appearance in the California courts.

It is difficult to get a rape conviction when both complainants maintained relationships, long after the supposed rapes, with the accused. One even claiming, in writing, he gave her the best orgasms of her life. Regretted sex acts are not rape.
Click to expand...

The jury has not begun deliberations yet. They begin tomorrow.

I question how any "major source" could possibly know how the jury is leaning.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Major sources at the State Supreme Court House in Manhattan have rumored the jury has deadlocked at 8 for acquittal. The judge has urged the jury to reconvene, work out their differences to avoid a mistrial. Acquittal or mistrial, Harvey Weinstein walks. Trial by media fails, along with the Me Too movement. Expect accusations of a fix, cowardice, and so forth in the media, echoed by protests. But Harvey walks away with his walker, free. Dumps the California case as expected low hanging fruit, right in the trash. He won't even need to make a personal appearance in the California courts.

It is difficult to get a rape conviction when both complainants maintained relationships, long after the supposed rapes, with the accused. One even claiming, in writing, he gave her the best orgasms of her life. Regretted sex acts are not rape.
Click to expand...

Please tell me why y'all think Harvey Weinstein is still a story.
Is it your collective prurient interests?
Is it because you like the movies he produced?
Is it because you are thinking he is getting a raw deal?
Is it because you want to see him drawn and quartered in a public square?

My feeling is that Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein are from the same toilet.
Why are those stories still being thrown out the public?
 
There was always that chance, that despite what has played out in the court of public opinion we end up seeing a different outcome inside of a courtroom.

Sad as it is everything is up to an argument made and there were a few things that Weinstein's lawyers were able to exploit. Unfortunately, it may have worked.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Major sources at the State Supreme Court House in Manhattan have rumored the jury has deadlocked at 8 for acquittal. The judge has urged the jury to reconvene, work out their differences to avoid a mistrial. Acquittal or mistrial, Harvey Weinstein walks. Trial by media fails, along with the Me Too movement. Expect accusations of a fix, cowardice, and so forth in the media, echoed by protests. But Harvey walks away with his walker, free. Dumps the California case as expected low hanging fruit, right in the trash. He won't even need to make a personal appearance in the California courts.
Click to expand...

Big difference between a mistrial and acquittal.

It is difficult to get a rape conviction when both complainants maintained relationships, long after the supposed rapes, with the accused. One even claiming, in writing, he gave her the best orgasms of her life. Regretted sex acts are not rape.
Click to expand...

Dear god dude, just don't. We heard enough crap like that during the Kavanaugh hearings, and we don't need any more. :doh
 
OldFatGuy said:
Major sources at the State Supreme Court House in Manhattan have rumored the jury has deadlocked at 8 for acquittal. The judge has urged the jury to reconvene, work out their differences to avoid a mistrial. Acquittal or mistrial, Harvey Weinstein walks. Trial by media fails, along with the Me Too movement. Expect accusations of a fix, cowardice, and so forth in the media, echoed by protests. But Harvey walks away with his walker, free. Dumps the California case as expected low hanging fruit, right in the trash. He won't even need to make a personal appearance in the California courts.

It is difficult to get a rape conviction when both complainants maintained relationships, long after the supposed rapes, with the accused. One even claiming, in writing, he gave her the best orgasms of her life. Regretted sex acts are not rape.
Click to expand...

I do not know if Mr. Weinstein is innocent or guilty of the alleged acts.

However, I accept the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law.

In this Forum we have people who have determined his guilt solely based on the allegations as reported in the Media. The same is true of much of the Public at large.

But that is the problem with the Court of Public Opinion. The media smears, the public hears, then reacts with condemnation and jeers...all on the presumption of guilty until proven innocent.

As I pointed out in a blog, the job of a Defense Attorney is not to prove their client innocent. That presumption already exists; at least in OUR Courts of Law.

The job is to show reasonable doubt.

Why? Whether it be Blackstone's Ratio ("It is better that 10 go free rather than one innocent suffer"), or Ben Franklin's "Better 100 guilty go free than one innocent person should suffer," the ideal is the same.

That based on a principle of required proof, such that no innocent person need be subjected to imprisonment or death.

My favorite movie is "12 Angry Men." It demonstrates both the basic expectations of evidentiary review one would hope to see in a jury deliberation, and the importance of keeping in mind the decision being made is life-changing. Thus the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

So if this story turns out to be true (the OP provided no links) I applaud the Jury, and the defense that has led to this situation.

But in the spirit of "12 Angry Men," I would agree with the Judge insisting that the Jury continue to see if they can hash out a final decision.
 
Last edited:
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The jury has not begun deliberations yet. They begin tomorrow.

I question how any "major source" could possibly know how the jury is leaning.
Click to expand...

There are oral by the judge's law secretary, pre-deliberation polls, ask the court officers.
 
jaypatriot said:
Please tell me why y'all think Harvey Weinstein is still a story.
Is it your collective prurient interests?
Is it because you like the movies he produced?
Is it because you are thinking he is getting a raw deal?
Is it because you want to see him drawn and quartered in a public square?

My feeling is that Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein are from the same toilet.
Why are those stories still being thrown out the public?
Click to expand...

They make headlines, regardless of your "superior" moral compass.
 
Phys251 said:
Big difference between a mistrial and acquittal.

Dear god dude, just don't. We heard enough crap like that during the Kavanaugh hearings, and we don't need any more. :doh
Click to expand...

I ain't your dude. This conversation between you and I ended with your insult.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I do not know if Mr. Weinstein is innocent or guilty of the alleged acts.

However, I accept the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law.

In this Forum we have people who have determined his guilt solely based on the allegations as reported in the Media. The same is true of much of the Public at large.

But that is the problem with the Court of Public Opinion. The media smears, the public hears, then reacts with condemnation and jeers...all on the presumption of guilty until proven innocent.

As I pointed out in a blog, the job of a Defense Attorney is not to prove their client innocent. That presumption already exists; at least in OUR Courts of Law.

The job is to show reasonable doubt.

Why? Whether it be Blackstone's Ratio ("It is better that 10 go free rather than one innocent suffer"), or Ben Franklin's "Better 100 guilty go free than one innocent person should suffer," the ideal is the same.

That based on a principle of required proof, such that no innocent person need be subjected to imprisonment or death.

My favorite movie is "12 Angry Men." It demonstrates both the basic expectations of evidentiary review one would hope to see in a jury deliberation, and the importance of keeping in mind the decision being made is life-changing.

So if this story turns out to be true (the OP provided no links) I applaud the Jury, and the defense that has led to this situation.

But in the spirit of "12 Angry Men," I would agree with the Judge insisting that the Jury continue to see if they can hash out a final decision.
Click to expand...

I made no claims of efficacy, only rumor. Not much different than the media, which is truly on trial with this case. Along with the court of public opinion and would be lynchers. The last I truly hate.
 
Hell, if it were easy to get a rape conviction we'd have a different president.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Major sources at the State Supreme Court House in Manhattan have rumored the jury has deadlocked at 8 for acquittal. The judge has urged the jury to reconvene, work out their differences to avoid a mistrial. Acquittal or mistrial, Harvey Weinstein walks. Trial by media fails, along with the Me Too movement. Expect accusations of a fix, cowardice, and so forth in the media, echoed by protests. But Harvey walks away with his walker, free. Dumps the California case as expected low hanging fruit, right in the trash. He won't even need to make a personal appearance in the California courts.

It is difficult to get a rape conviction when both complainants maintained relationships, long after the supposed rapes, with the accused. One even claiming, in writing, he gave her the best orgasms of her life. Regretted sex acts are not rape.
Click to expand...

1. No link posted, so... :shrug:

2. No, mistrial and prosecution can have another go. Bars to retrial are rare. (ie, egregious prosecutorial misconduct that irreparably damages the defense).

3. He'd be happy either way because if that's true, it means at least one juror is ignoring explicit instructions by not only communicating about trial, but about deliberations, and about deliberations with the media or someone reporting to them.

4. But #3 would seem rather difficult because, and I will provide a link, deliberations are expected to start TOMORROW:

"The jury is expected to begin deliberating on Tuesday"

Deliberations will soon begin in Weinstein trial – WKRG News 5
 
OldFatGuy said:
There are oral by the judge's law secretary, pre-deliberation polls, ask the court officers.
Click to expand...

TheDoctorWasIn said:
"Pre-deliberation polls"?

When were these polls taken?
Click to expand...

He's lying.

Standard instructions are for the jurors to not think about or discuss the case, not even amongst themselves, until they are sent back for deliberations following final instructions. There is no "pre-deliberation poll". That would be one of the few things I'd say was a safe bet for getting reversal on appeal.

There is a post-verdict poll, given if the judge agrees after a party's request, where he/she asks each juror on record to confirm the verdict(s).
 
Mr Person said:
He's lying.

Standard instructions are for the jurors to not think about or discuss the case, not even amongst themselves, until they are sent back for deliberations following final instructions. There is no "pre-deliberation poll".
Click to expand...
Sshhhhh.

I know that. I wanted to see how long I could keep him going.
 
He is not making it up, he just did not link to his source: Harvey Weinstein rape case expected to end in acquittal, hung jury: Analyst | Fox Business

"I expect jury deliberations to continue probably into the end of the week, maybe into next," Weber said. "We might see an acquittal, we might see a hung jury. That's my expectation, given what I've seen from both sides. I've been there almost every day and me, on the outside, who has the benefit of more information and analysis, I'm even torn."
Click to expand...

Yup, one guy claims it, so it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
OldFatGuy said:
Major sources at the State Supreme Court House in Manhattan have rumored the jury has deadlocked at 8 for acquittal. The judge has urged the jury to reconvene, work out their differences to avoid a mistrial. Acquittal or mistrial, Harvey Weinstein walks. Trial by media fails, along with the Me Too movement. Expect accusations of a fix, cowardice, and so forth in the media, echoed by protests. But Harvey walks away with his walker, free. Dumps the California case as expected low hanging fruit, right in the trash. He won't even need to make a personal appearance in the California courts.

It is difficult to get a rape conviction when both complainants maintained relationships, long after the supposed rapes, with the accused. One even claiming, in writing, he gave her the best orgasms of her life. Regretted sex acts are not rape.
Click to expand...

Beat the rush, get that outrage out before the result. Why wait for facts or actually anything to cry about happens?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
"Pre-deliberation polls"?

When were these polls taken?
Click to expand...

This morning. Common custom in the Manhattan and Brooklyn City and State courts for notorious cases. The purpose, allegedly, for flushing bought (or un-bought) jurors. Dates back to the 1890's. A democratic party reform instituted by Tammany Hall. Today, accomplished with a phone call by the judge's law secretary, no court presence required. Extra court communications. :)

Now whether or not to take them seriously, or adjust thinking for rumor, you get to make your own decisions.
 
OldFatGuy said:
This morning. Common custom in the Manhattan and Brooklyn City and State courts for notorious cases. The purpose, allegedly, for flushing bought (or un-bought) jurors. Dates back to the 1890's. A democratic party reform instituted by Tammany Hall. Today, accomplished with a phone call by the judge's law secretary, no court presence required. Extra court communications. :)

Now whether or not to take them seriously, or adjust thinking for rumor, you get to make your own decisions.
Click to expand...

This morning?

And this is a common practice in New York, you say?

Amazing.
 
OldFatGuy said:
This morning. Common custom in the Manhattan and Brooklyn City and State courts for notorious cases. The purpose, allegedly, for flushing bought (or un-bought) jurors. Dates back to the 1890's. A democratic party reform instituted by Tammany Hall. Today, accomplished with a phone call by the judge's law secretary, no court presence required. Extra court communications. :)

Now whether or not to take them seriously, or adjust thinking for rumor, you get to make your own decisions.
Click to expand...

You would think you could find some evidence of them on the internets, but no joy. It is almost as if you made the **** up to cover for getting caught in a lie...
 
Redress said:
He is not making it up, he just did not link to his source: Harvey Weinstein rape case expected to end in acquittal, hung jury: Analyst | Fox Business



Yup, one guy claims it, so it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

That someone claimed that is the likely outcome of trial is not made up, but only that much. But that's an attorney court observer talking.


It's the claim that this so-called knowledge comes from a "pre-deliberation poll" that revealed the numbers of jurors supposedly for acquittal that is completely absurd. Jurors are instructed every damn day not to discuss anything about the case with anyone, even each other, until they are sent to deliberate after final instructions from the judge. The idea that court officers would poll jurors about how they thought they'd vote before they began deliberating (or at any time) is absurd.

The only polling of a jury that happens is after the verdict, and only if the judge agrees with the request by one of the parties to do it. That's on record in open court. And it's just the judge asking them to confirm that their vote was as the foreman said it was.


I cannot think of many better ways to prejudice a jury than the idea of a "pre-deliberation poll"
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That link makes no mention of the "analyst" hearing from any of the jurors, as you said, it was the opinion of one observer who simply claimed to have more information.
Click to expand...

Correct. He made that part up I am sure, especially since I can't find any evidence of those pre-deliberation polls.
 
Redress said:
Correct. He made that part up I am sure, especially since I can't find any evidence of those pre-deliberation polls.
Click to expand...

Yep, maybe he simply guessed what that "more information" was or has another (unnamed) source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom