hatred for Trump can affect local juries - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
 96Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-13-2020, 06:06 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: erie, pa
Posts: 14,730
Back To Top
hatred for Trump can affect local juries

just went thru jury selection today. as usual i didnt get picked. but during the question and answer session the defense attorney stated that according to law his client does not have to take the stand and testify, he doesnt have to produce any witnesses to prove that he is innocent, he also does not have to introduce and evidence that proves he is innocent. the burden is on the prosecution to prove his client is guilty, does anyone have any problems with that, or will it affect the way you render a verdict ?

one guy raised his hand and then said: if he doesnt testify or have to prove he is innocent, he must be guilty !!

this is what the Demonrats are doing to America. they tried to claim that Trump had to testify, he has to prove his innocence. he has to show evidence that he didnt do it.

if you or someone you know is going to trial, be very sure they ask this question and watch the prospective jurors very close

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com
go here click on the pink square, beat breast cancer
bohunr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-13-2020, 06:09 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: conestoga,pa/Mills,Pa
Posts: 4,155
Back To Top
thanks for the information and thanks for posting.
bohunr, Pa-Guy and ruger300 like this.
NorthernPotterCo is offline  
post #3 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-13-2020, 06:19 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
bucksnort1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Huntingdon Co, PA
Posts: 3,300
Back To Top
They didn't want him to testify because they knew he would lie. They wanted the witnesses to testify.
jimbridger, dragman and SlickShot like this.
bucksnort1 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-13-2020, 06:22 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: erie, pa
Posts: 14,730
Back To Top
but...again, the defense doesnt have to produce any witness or evidence...NONE !!

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com
go here click on the pink square, beat breast cancer
bohunr is offline  
post #5 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-13-2020, 06:37 PM
Senior Member
 
yellodog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: springfeild twp,mercer co
Posts: 12,623
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucksnort1 View Post
They didn't want him to testify because they knew he would lie. They wanted the witnesses to testify.
The house impeached him, meaning they had enough evidence to do so, right? Why listen to more witnesses, they said they had enough evidence, no?

The Senate followed the law, and found there wasn't enough evidence, they were not required to find more, just use what the house said was enough to impeach him, but apparently....wasn't.

The law was followed, the fact that many didn't like the outcome doesn't mean the law should have been disregarded or changed.

Pence/Putin 2024
yellodog is offline  
post #6 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-13-2020, 06:51 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,811
Back To Top
They could have called 100 more “witnesses” and all they would have gotten in more opinions and speculation. That stuff wouldn’t fly in a criminal court case and they know it. The only physical evidence was the transcript of the call, and the almighty Vindman himself blew the conspiracy theories about the “real” transcript being “hidden” on a super secret server when he confirmed that the transcript was accurate.

This would be like a criminal case in which the “witnesses” never actually witnessed anything and instead just all gave their opinions that the defendant was a bad dude and was probably at least THINKING about doing something if he didn’t actually do what he was accused of.
bohunr, yellodog, loridr and 3 others like this.
BUGLE BOY is online now  
post #7 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-16-2020, 10:21 AM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Central PA
Posts: 2,936
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellodog View Post
The house impeached him, meaning they had enough evidence to do so, right?
Yellodog....I get what you are saying here, but truth be told, the House impeached him because they had a majority.....

Evidence, or lack there of, had nothing to do with it.

“I prefer my kid hunt and fish rather than steal and deal,”
Takemrarely is offline  
post #8 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-16-2020, 10:41 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: erie, pa
Posts: 14,730
Back To Top
AND, the only info the "witnesses" had was all second hand hearsay !! none of it would ever be allowed in any court anywhere in America and that must never change.
hearsay is not evidence.
LIVTOHUNT and ruger300 like this.

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com
go here click on the pink square, beat breast cancer
bohunr is offline  
post #9 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-16-2020, 03:07 PM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,166
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by bohunr View Post
Just went thru jury selection today. As usual I got picked. But during the question and answer session the defense attorney stated that according to law his client does not have to take the stand and testify, he doesn’t have to produce any witnesses to prove that he is innocent. He also does not have to introduce and evidence that proves he is innocent. The burden is on the prosecution to prove his client is guilty. Does anyone have any problems with that, or will it affect the way you render a verdict?

One guy raised his hand and then said: “If he doesn't testify or have to prove he is innocent, he must be guilty!!”

This is what the Demonrats are doing to America. They tried to claim that Trump had to testify, he has to prove his innocence. He has to show evidence that he didn't do it.

If you or someone you know is going to trial, be very sure they ask this question and watch the prospective jurors very closely.
That prospective juror should have been excused for saying what he said.
jimbridger and ruger300 like this.
Trout Traveler is offline  
post #10 of 56 (permalink) Old 02-16-2020, 03:45 PM
The Man
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 5,103
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takemrarely View Post
Yellodog....I get what you are saying here, but truth be told, the House impeached him because they had a majority.....

Evidence, or lack there of, had nothing to do with it.
...and he was acquitted because the Senate had a majority (thankfully).

It was all a pre-ordained partisan affair.

The only true surprise is what the whole thing did to rule of law and the damage to the Constitution. Both sides hold responsibility for that.
jimbridger, bohunr and ruger300 like this.
simoncool is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome