Online Now 1532

Off-Topic

On this Board 360
Record: 1825 (5/20/2013)

Online now 1057
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

UVA Lacrosse Murder--New Trial Request

  • then i clarified it...but hey, at least I am not totally misrepresenting the facts of the case to bolster my argument like, say, you did. Who can keep track of whether the prosecution says something or the defense does...fuck it just make it fit your argument!

    Keep in mind, "Lawrence" is the defense counsel, and the defense counsel is blaming the victim. I do not believe that is necessary to a conduct a proper defense. Please read below and attempt to comprehend.

    "Lawrence acknowledged that Huguely had physically battled with Love several months before her death but stopped short of calling it a choke hold, and he said there was violence on both parts.

    "Both had folks they were hooking up with during the relationship, and it created drama," Lawrence said, arguing that the "first strike" — as in blow — actually came from Love, less than a week before her death, when she threw her purse at Huguely. At the time, she believed he had cheated on her, attorneys said."

    Testimony shows volatile relationship between lacrosse player, girlfriend

    Two months before Yeardley Love's bruised body was found by a roommate in a pool of blood in her off-campus apartment near the University of Virginia in 2010, she called her mom in Cockeysville and asked to come home for a night.

    www.baltimoresun.com

    BrotherAbstract ●

  • BrotherAbstract said...

    i did already, not my fault your dumb ass cannot read written english!

    as opposed to being able to read spoken english?

    RDurr

  • RDurr said...

    as opposed to being able to read spoken english?

    you seem to have difficulty with both.

    BrotherAbstract ●

  • yes, i have a hard time reading the spoken word. lol.

    RDurr

  • I think the attorney is simply stating that their relationship was turmoil filled and that things could boil over either way, thus bringing into doubt that there was premeditation on his part to kill her. It made me think of the movie Revolutionary Road. We often want to side with a victim and an aggressor but often in relationship it takes two to tangle. This doesn't excuse his crime but it brings into question that he went there specifically to kill her.

    TerpPride

  • BrotherAbstract said...

    then i clarified it...but hey, at least I am not totally misrepresenting the facts of the case to bolster my argument like, say, you did. Who can keep track of whether the prosecution says something or the defense does...fuck it just make it fit your argument!

    Keep in mind, "Lawrence" is the defense counsel, and the defense counsel is blaming the victim. I do not believe that is necessary to a conduct a proper defense. Please read below and attempt to comprehend.

    "Lawrence acknowledged that Huguely had physically battled with Love several months before her death but stopped short of calling it a choke hold, and he said there was violence on both parts.

    "Both had folks they were hooking up with during the relationship, and it created drama," Lawrence said, arguing that the "first strike" — as in blow — actually came from Love, less than a week before her death, when she threw her purse at Huguely. At the time, she believed he had cheated on her, attorneys said."

    Both sides have said that both parties cheated on each other. Why is it okay for the prosecution to state the facts of their relationship but when the defense does it, they are "blaming the victim?"

    Why did you quote the defense attorney saying these things and not the prosecution. Fuck it if it doesn't fit your argument.

    Baldwin

  • sugarmag said...

    Guessing that was a huge part of the questionnaire, probably almost as important as impartiality.

    Im not sure your point. Pretty limited what you can ask in Voir Dire in Virginia. (Also....not a questionaire in state court. You do it live the old fashion way. You also dont get long. This case was "long" jury selection for Virginia...took almost a day. States like Cal...it can take days and days/weeks.

    Most of the time...you get 3 or 4 hours max.

    rthhokie92 ●

  • BrotherAbstract said...

    then i clarified it...but hey, at least I am not totally misrepresenting the facts of the case to bolster my argument like, say, you did. Who can keep track of whether the prosecution says something or the defense does...fuck it just make it fit your argument!

    Once again, you're showing a poor understanding of criminal law, which is bolstered by the media's horrendous understanding of criminal law. (There's no reason for you to be an expert in criminal law, just like there's no reason for me to be an expert in whatever you do, but your insistence that you're right on this one is somewhat remarkable for a person who has stated some pretty naive things about the criminal process so far).

    Opening arguments of a lawyer aren't evidence. Nothing the defense said in its opening is evidence for the jury to consider.

    The prosecution's witness testified yesterday. The prosecution's witness confirmed the fact that the victim cheated on the defendant (which is actually helpful for the prosecution because it helps establish motive and intent).

    The defense may or may not present its own evidence about the victim cheating on the defendant, but the only people who have testified so far are prosecution witnesses.

    I'm not sure how all of this led to your conclusion that the defense is calling her a whore and basing its entire case on trashing her, when the fact that she cheated on him is arguably as beneficial to the prosecution as the defense at the current time.

    This post was edited by terps99 on 2/9/2012 at 3:02 PM

    terps99

  • By the way, I don't know this defense lawyer, but he'd have to be a pretty big moron (in addition to being a pretty big scumbag) to blame the victim here. Do you think the defense lawyer is of the opinion that trashing a murder victim will endear him to the jury? I'm not sure the "SHE'S A WHORE AND WAS ASKING TO BE KILLED!" defense is a brilliant tactic...

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by terps99 on 2/9/2012 at 3:19 PM

    terps99

  • rthhokie92 said...

    Im not sure your point. Pretty limited what you can ask in Voir Dire in Virginia. (Also....not a questionaire in state court. You do it live the old fashion way. You also dont get long. This case was "long" jury selection for Virginia...took almost a day. States like Cal...it can take days and days/weeks.

    Most of the time...you get 3 or 4 hours max.

    I was thinking they'd ask "could you convict someone of a lesser charge in a case involving a fatality.". Maybe wrong liken of thought.

    sugarmag ●

  • sugarmag said...

    I was thinking they'd ask "could you convict someone of a lesser charge in a case involving a fatality.". Maybe wrong liken of thought.

    The jury has a legal obligation to convict on the highest charge that is proven. If the prosecution meets its burden on the highest charge, the jury must convict on that charge. If the prosecution doesn't meet its burden, the jury cannot convict on that charge and must convict on a lower charge (assuming, of course, that the prosecution met its burden on the lower charge).

    Put differently, even assuming voir dire was allowed on this question, I'm not sure how someone would answer that question. Isn't saying "no" pretty much saying "I would vote to convict this guy of first degree murder no matter what the proof is?"

    terps99

  • Maybe he is talking about some sort of jury nullification. I dont see the Defendant (Rich kids, Lax player, bad history) coming across as sympathetic to the point nullification would be a likely strategy.

    rthhokie92 ●

  • sugarmag said...

    I was thinking they'd ask "could you convict someone of a lesser charge in a case involving a fatality.". Maybe wrong liken of thought.

    Here's the question they asked that is kind of along my line of thought, and probably exactly how I'd answer. Pretty interesting article here.

    I was willing to give Huguely the benefit of the doubt. But I also couldn’t pretend that I hadn’t read that he admitted to kicking in Love’s bedroom door and beating her head against the wall. The last question that the defense attorney asked us as a group was whether we believed that a defendant was more likely to be guilty just because he’d been charged with a crime. We all paused.

    “It’s hard to say,” I said. “There are a lot of charges here, and you can be guilty of some and not others.” Meaning: You can be the sort of monster who beats people half your size, but it’s still conceivable that you didn’t kill her.

    http://www.readthehook.com/102802/juror-206-sad-tale-two-charlottesville-cases

    sugarmag ●

  • sugarmag said...

    Here's the question they asked that is kind of along my line of thought, and probably exactly how I'd answer. Pretty interesting article here.

    I was willing to give Huguely the benefit of the doubt. But I also couldn’t pretend that I hadn’t read that he admitted to kicking in Love’s bedroom door and beating her head against the wall. The last question that the defense attorney asked us as a group was whether we believed that a defendant was more likely to be guilty just because he’d been charged with a crime. We all paused.

    “It’s hard to say,” I said. “There are a lot of charges here, and you can be guilty of some and not others.” Meaning: You can be the sort of monster who beats people half your size, but it’s still conceivable that you didn’t kill her.

    http://www.readthehook.com/102802/juror-206-sad-tale-two-charlottesville-cases

    That's a horrendous question and I'm not sure I'd let attorneys ask that type of stuff if I was a judge. As a statistical matter, it probably IS more likely that you're guilty if you've been charged with a crime. That question is a confusing way, at best, to try probing the issue of whether jurors believe in the presumption of innocence.

    terps99

  • terps99 said...

    As a statistical matter, it probably IS more likely that you're guilty if you've been charged with a crime.

    And you wouldn't need a courtroom or jury if you WEREN'T charged with a crime.

    sugarmag ●

  • terps99 said...

    That's a horrendous question and I'm not sure I'd let attorneys ask that type of stuff if I was a judge. As a statistical matter, it probably IS more likely that you're guilty if you've been charged with a crime. That question is a confusing way, at best, to try probing the issue of whether jurors believe in the presumption of innocence.

    It is a pretty standard question to ask because a juror who answers "yes" is not properly respecting the presumption of innocence. Indeed, courts sometimes give an instruction to jurors along the lines of:

    You may believe in general that if a person is charged by the State with committing a crime, he is more likely to be guilty of the charge than any person chosen at random from the street, but the very meaning of the presumption of innocence is that you so discipline yourselves that as you sit as a juror in this case, you do presume that this defendant is innocent, just as innocent as any person chosen at random from the street.

    Of course, empirically speaking, the person charged with the crime is far likelier to be guilty of the charge than a person chosen at random from the street.

    NoFearCavailer

  • NoFearCavailer said...

    It is a pretty standard question to ask because a juror who answers "yes" is not properly respecting the presumption of innocence. Indeed, courts sometimes give an instruction to jurors along the lines of:

    You may believe in general that if a person is charged by the State with committing a crime, he is more likely to be guilty of the charge than any person chosen at random from the street, but the very meaning of the presumption of innocence is that you so discipline yourselves that as you sit as a juror in this case, you do presume that this defendant is innocent, just as innocent as any person chosen at random from the street.

    Of course, empirically speaking, the person charged with the crime is far likelier to be guilty of the charge than a person chosen at random from the street.

    Is that an actual jury instruction?? If so, I'm pretty surprised courts in any state sign off on that. That's terrible. Of course someone accused of a crime is more likely to be guilty of that crime than a random person from the street.

    I much prefer the Mass. instruction on the presumption of innocence:

    The complaint against the defendant is only an accusation. It is not evidence. The defendant has denied that he (she) is guilty of the crime(s) charged in this complaint.

    The law presumes the defendant to be innocent of (the charge) (all the charges) against him (her). This presumption of innocence is a rule of law that compels you to find the defendant not guilty unless and until the Commonwealth produces evidence, from whatever source, that proves that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof
    never shifts. The defendant is not required to call any witnesses or produce any evidence, since he (she) is presumed to be innocent.

    The presumption of innocence stays with the defendant unless and until the evidence convinces you unanimously as a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires you to find the defendant not guilty unless his (her) guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable
    doubt.

    This post was edited by terps99 on 2/13/2012 at 2:08 PM

    terps99

  • The initial questions to the jurors during voir dire are also standardized in Mass. and are much better formulations IMO:

    [1.] Are any of you related to the defendant? Do any of you know the defendant, either of the lawyers, or any of the witnesses in this case?
    [2.] Do any of you have an interest or stake of any kind in this case?
    [3.] To the extent that you have heard anything about this case, have any of you expressed or formed any opinions about it?
    [4.] Are any of you aware of any bias or prejudice that you have toward either the defendant or the prosecution?
    [5.] Do any of you not understand that in a criminal case the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty?
    [6.] Do any of you not understand that the prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant does not have to present any evidence in (his) (her) behalf?
    [7.] Finally, do any of you know of any reason why you would not be impartial in this case, and be able to render a true and just verdict, based solely on the evidence and the law?

    This post was edited by terps99 on 2/13/2012 at 2:09 PM

    terps99

  • You lawyer-types have to do a lot of reading. That must suck.

    classlessthug: I have too much on my plate to worry about the fact that my junk intimidates some needle D undergrad.

    eamhokie94 ●

  • terps99 said...

    Is that an actual jury instruction?? If so, I'm pretty surprised courts in any state sign off on that. That's terrible. Of course someone accused of a crime is more likely to be guilty of that crime than a random person from the street.

    I much prefer the Mass. instruction on the presumption of innocence:

    The complaint against the defendant is only an accusation. It is not evidence. The defendant has denied that he (she) is guilty of the crime(s) charged in this complaint.

    The law presumes the defendant to be innocent of (the charge) (all the charges) against him (her). This presumption of innocence is a rule of law that compels you to find the defendant not guilty unless and until the Commonwealth produces evidence, from whatever source, that proves that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof never shifts. The defendant is not required to call any witnesses or produce any evidence, since he (she) is presumed to be innocent.

    The presumption of innocence stays with the defendant unless and until the evidence convinces you unanimously as a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires you to find the defendant not guilty unless his (her) guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Yes, that's from an actual case in Oregon. Meanwhile, here's the relevant portion of California's jury instruction:

    You must not be biased against a defendant because [he] [she] has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime, or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt and you must not infer or assume from any or all of them that a defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.

    I agree with you that the instructions from Massachusetts are much better.

    NoFearCavailer

  • eamhokie94 said...

    You lawyer-types have to do a lot of reading. That must suck.

    READING IS FUNdamental, amirite my legal brethren!?

    terps99

  • terps99 said...

    The initial questions to the jurors during voir dire are also standardized in Mass. and are much better formulations IMO:

    [1.] Are any of you related to the defendant? Do any of you know the defendant, either of the lawyers, or any of the witnesses in this case? [2.] Do any of you have an interest or stake of any kind in this case? [3.] To the extent that you have heard anything about this case, have any of you expressed or formed any opinions about it? [4.] Are any of you aware of any bias or prejudice that you have toward either the defendant or the prosecution? [5.] Do any of you not understand that in a criminal case the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty? [6.] Do any of you not understand that the prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant does not have to present any evidence in (his) (her) behalf? [7.] Finally, do any of you know of any reason why you would not be impartial in this case, and be able to render a true and just verdict, based solely on the evidence and the law?

    Federal Court in Virginia is very much that way...Judge reads all the questions. In Virginia, its little more old school/common law. Its more art than science. I like it...little more challenging. You call also make some very important, but subtle, arguments in your questions.

    rthhokie92 ●

  • I have jury duty tomorrow, advice? Don't want to be there at all, I imagine it will be awful. Would rather be at my school working with the kids.

    swemm

  • swemm said...

    I have jury duty tomorrow, advice? Don't want to be there at all, I imagine it will be awful.

    Play

    Larry David :: Jury Duty

    Larry tries to get out of jury duty ...

    http://www.youtube.com/v/94zkBGm1IoU

    HungryHerman

  • If I get called for jury duty I can get out of it by just repeatedly screaming the n word right? Keep in mind I live in Baltimore City.

    strOterp ●

Maryland
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports