Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
These are posts I can relate to. Well said, and definitely worth quoting.
I don't know about the "slam dunk" on appeal, but if he ever had a chance of one, yes, his chances of getting one are definitely higher on appeal. In fact I like his chances now that this lower juristictional court has given his side several grounds for appeal. I can already spot several instances where the jury pool was tainted or allowed to be tainted. Makes me wonder what else the judge said or did or allowed that was prejudicial.
|
There was alot that will be grounds for appeal.
For instance in closing arguments, the prosecution said the jury could "send a message" with a conviction, even though the judge specifically forbade them from implying that the jury could send a message with a conviction.
Sirkin moved for a mistrial, denied.
The fact that the judge herself had to have her arm twisted until it broke before she would allow all of the videos to be played in their entirety, and then they had to be played by the defense, not the prosecution, tells me that the judge had prejudice against the content.
The fact that a juror wrote a note to the judge asking to not have to watch the rest of the videos but only excerpts, and that juror was not dismissed.
Lots of stuff like that when put into the hands of jurists who care about the law (instead of a jury who was sick to their stomachs) makes me think Max will be ok.