Blago Jury has 120 PAGES OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/c...agojevich-juryJurors who have spent the last 11 days deliberating in the corruption trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich have been able to listen to more than 100 excerpts of wiretap tapes, look through any notes they took during testimony and refer to some 120 pages of jury instructions.
The federal jury system is a complete joke. 99% of federal trials are complete bull . Free Blago!
I'd feel quite certain that a substantial number of those instructions were requested by Blago's own lawyers on his behalf, with the intent of helping the jury to acquit him. And a significant number of them are boilerplate sorts of instructions that are given in almost any criminal prosecution.
I'm also curious if there has ever -- anywhere -- been a criminal conviction that Galileo agrees with. It seems unlikely.
Most people in the United States haven't read a 100 page book in the past 10 years. If you think this is a good way to seek truth and find justice, then you are a complete idiot.
Leggo my Blaggo!!
What would you suggest? Should the court not define the elements of the charged crimes? Should it not advise the jury of the elements of defenses that your guy Blago might have? Should it not tell the jury anything?
Or if the instructions are going to be really long, should the Court just dismiss the case?
Really, is there any criminal conviction that you've ever agreed with?
You are aware, of course, that the judge read all of the instructions to the jury -- alleviating the concern that they might somehow not read them all -- and did so in about an hour, right?
http://wbbm.cbslocal.com/2010/07/29/...irst-full-day/"On Wednesday, after more than an hour of jury instructions, Judge Zagel excused five alternates and sat the six men and six women who will decide the fates of the former governor, and his brother, Robert. They deliberated for about five hours Wednesday."
The jury should look at the statute. If the statute is too long or convoluted, they should acquit the defendant, and convict the judge, prosecutor and legislature of stupidity.
great, were they committed to memory?
Of course. Most of the instructions in this case have nothing to do with the specifics of the charged crime and a whole lot to do with what evidence the jury can consider or explaining particular things about the evidence. But rather than fully advise a jury of supposed illiterates, it would just be better to let them run amok without any guidance.The jury should look at the statute. If the statute is too long or convoluted, they should acquit the defendant, and convict the judge, prosecutor and legislature of stupidity.
They were surely handed to the jury as they entered the deliberation room. Of course, since you're convinced they can't read, I'm sure they're just using the papers as coasters or napkins or something.great, were they committed to memory?
Think of it this way -- at least if that group convicts your boy (and you do keep some interesting company in these discussions), you'll have years of conspiratorial bombs to throw as Blago rots in jail. Alternatively, this jury that you're so convinced is incapable of understanding these instructions may be so confused by the sheer number that it will remain unable to reach a verdict and will hang. Or maybe they'll be REALLY confused, and just acquit him.
Great, and then try to keep 7 weeks of evidence straight. The judge wouldn't even give the jury some transcripts they asked for. You are an apologist for a police state.
That's bunk. Jury instructions should be short and simple. The actual law allegedly violated should speak for itself.
Free Rod Blogojevich
http://www.freerodblagojevich.org/
I disagree. I have been on two juries. The joke is that most intelligent working people can get out of jury duty if they want, and most unemployed or welfare cases cannot, making the jury pool tainted for civil suit awards.
Instructions get complicated when you have attorneys who will game the system if they can squeeze any improper actions out.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is just that. I would say he will likely be found guilty on about 2/3rds the charges, but I am not privy to the evidence. Even if I was, I wouldn't want to waddle through that deep . The jury I was apart of for a few days was enough of an information overload. I feel for this jury.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-13-2010 at 04:35 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
