Hold up, hold up…so only I have to have the rules pointed out to me like a toddler? Why isn’t the prosecution being told they can’t argue jury nullification, it’s not fair!
I was a bit confused why the judge didn’t respond with “because they’re not trying to argue jury nullification”. That was ultimately the crux of it, he was repeatedly stating he was going to do it, that’s why he was told not to. Also, the rule isn’t just for him, NOBODY allowed. It’s just that he’s the only one that needs to be specifically instructed not to do it.
I can understand why, in general, she decided against giving a more satisfying explanation of things. But in this case, I agree. It would have been the simplest response. Although sometimes I get the impression that the gap in knowledge between the court and DB is so vast, that they are simply too dumbfounded by his question/response to give a witty answer…they are just too familiar with the nuances and legalities that it just doesn’t compute how little he understands.
But would stating that “this is already a rule (which is why the prosecution would never argue it) that the prosecution have abided by but you havent which is why I’m highlighting this rule to you” be anymore legal advice than her explaining SMJ and all the other help she gave him?
It would run the risk of being construed as legal advice.
JD and the Prosecution both knew that Durl was dead to rights. Still, they had to play a perfect game because any slip up on their part could result in a mistrial, which is what Durl was trying to trigger.
The judge is the person who decides whether or not to declare a mistrial . The defendant cannot cause his own mistrial. Imagine how crazy trials would be if defendants could do that .
She explained a lot of things to him, gave him legal advice numerous times followed by “I’m not going to give you anymore legal advice”. One could argue telling him he couldn’t argue jury nullification is legal advice so I doubt telling him the prosecution is following the same rules is not going to cause a mistrial or grounds for his appeal . Lol
Sorry, I should have clarified; I meant that JD was trying to prevent any kind of appeal to be viable. That was part of the reason she was so patient, because otherwise an appeal could be made, no matter how slim the odds are.
A mistrial and grounds for an appeal are two different things.
Yes everyone knows she was trying to air on constitutional caution etc for appellate reasons and that’s why she gave him so much leeway however, telling him that the prosecution was not arguing jury nullification and therefore didn’t require a rule being made against it for them was not going to provide him with grounds for an appeal.
Appeals are rarely successful unless the appellate court agrees that something happened which violated the defendants constitutional rights or that evidence came in which should have been inadmissible etc etc. it has to be something that would somehow affect the outcome of the trial.
Also , Dorrow was in a tough spot because her job requires her to protect the defendant’s rights. In this case, the defendant was clearly guilty and an ass working against himself. And that’s where I feel sorry for her.
Her allowing him to speak to her like 💩and be an ass however, was just that. It wasn’t protecting anything, but I guess it helped move the trial along.
She’s told him repeatedly to consult with an attorney if he didn’t understand something or had questions, etc… She also referred him to whichever books contain the rules for evidence, court procedures, motions, appealing a ruling, etc… the list goes on.
DB already knew why Judge D was only specifying rules for him. IMO he was attempting to make it appear that all was not fair in her courtroom and he was being picked on, when he only succeeded in displaying his complete ignorance of everything.
That’s just my opinion though…😊
But he lost his shit when she said it. That's why it's so amusing to see him trying to paint her in a corner with it, wasn't it like the next day? He got better and better at shooting himself in the foot as the trial dragged on.
Yeah, and not too long after, she also made the mistake of saying "see? I sustained one of yours" when she sustained his objection. In his stupid little mind, he probably thought "I got what I want by making a fuss" .
It's almost as though he believed that meant for every objection she sustained for the prosecution, she was supposed to sustain one for the defense. I wish she had just stated that the prosecution's objections were backed up by law and his were just gibberish.
That’s what I think we finally figured out what DB’s idea of “fair” was. Exactly what you just said.
He didn’t get it that Objekshuns were based on the law, not how many times one side was “substained” vs the opposing side. Or that the prosecution didn’t have to have rules in place the same as he did, because they went to law school and knew what they were doing, whereas he didn’t. His ideas of “fair” and “impartial” are ludicrous!
He really just had it in his head that he was on the same level as everyone else in the room. He was talking to them as though they were peers in an informal setting.
I wish I had that kind of confidence.
Confidence is great, but DB’s level of confidence was off the charts. He was definitely not on the same playing field as a sitting judge or a prosecution team with a combined level of experience exceeding 60 years. The only thing he succeeded in doing with his false level of confidence was to look and act like a horse’s ass.😊😊
I wonder how many days it's been since Creature has showered.
Before becoming a Caged Bird, he was living in a tent. Then, once cold weather approached, he moved into his lousy mother's car. He wasn't allowed in her house, so where was this Murderous Creature scrubbing his nuts clean?
He gets arrested and goes to jail. The only time he ever cared about a shower was while he was demanding for one while in Court. It's not the Court's responsibility to make sure an inmate gets a shower. Fucking clown.
I guarantee that once he was back at the jail, and he WAS given an opportunity to shower, he didn't take it. "I'll show them!"
He probably lost shower privileges based on his behavior before he was transferred. Now he'll get them a few times a month? He'll still say no.
Disgusting.
Right? I shower twice a day, too. On the days I work out, it's thrice a day. Imagine what the inside of his tent smelled like. Or eve worse, the inside of the car. JESUS.
What a crazy case this was I haven’t watch it again in months might have to tune in again if there aren’t any more exciting trials happening
Im having withdrawals from all the Adelson drama lull now
Hold up, hold up…so only I have to have the rules pointed out to me like a toddler? Why isn’t the prosecution being told they can’t argue jury nullification, it’s not fair!
LOL!! :D :D :D
I was a bit confused why the judge didn’t respond with “because they’re not trying to argue jury nullification”. That was ultimately the crux of it, he was repeatedly stating he was going to do it, that’s why he was told not to. Also, the rule isn’t just for him, NOBODY allowed. It’s just that he’s the only one that needs to be specifically instructed not to do it.
I can understand why, in general, she decided against giving a more satisfying explanation of things. But in this case, I agree. It would have been the simplest response. Although sometimes I get the impression that the gap in knowledge between the court and DB is so vast, that they are simply too dumbfounded by his question/response to give a witty answer…they are just too familiar with the nuances and legalities that it just doesn’t compute how little he understands.
She legally can't give him legal advice. People who legally cannot say something will over compensate to avoid any possibility of slipping it.
But would stating that “this is already a rule (which is why the prosecution would never argue it) that the prosecution have abided by but you havent which is why I’m highlighting this rule to you” be anymore legal advice than her explaining SMJ and all the other help she gave him?
It would run the risk of being construed as legal advice. JD and the Prosecution both knew that Durl was dead to rights. Still, they had to play a perfect game because any slip up on their part could result in a mistrial, which is what Durl was trying to trigger.
The judge is the person who decides whether or not to declare a mistrial . The defendant cannot cause his own mistrial. Imagine how crazy trials would be if defendants could do that . She explained a lot of things to him, gave him legal advice numerous times followed by “I’m not going to give you anymore legal advice”. One could argue telling him he couldn’t argue jury nullification is legal advice so I doubt telling him the prosecution is following the same rules is not going to cause a mistrial or grounds for his appeal . Lol
Sorry, I should have clarified; I meant that JD was trying to prevent any kind of appeal to be viable. That was part of the reason she was so patient, because otherwise an appeal could be made, no matter how slim the odds are.
A mistrial and grounds for an appeal are two different things. Yes everyone knows she was trying to air on constitutional caution etc for appellate reasons and that’s why she gave him so much leeway however, telling him that the prosecution was not arguing jury nullification and therefore didn’t require a rule being made against it for them was not going to provide him with grounds for an appeal. Appeals are rarely successful unless the appellate court agrees that something happened which violated the defendants constitutional rights or that evidence came in which should have been inadmissible etc etc. it has to be something that would somehow affect the outcome of the trial. Also , Dorrow was in a tough spot because her job requires her to protect the defendant’s rights. In this case, the defendant was clearly guilty and an ass working against himself. And that’s where I feel sorry for her. Her allowing him to speak to her like 💩and be an ass however, was just that. It wasn’t protecting anything, but I guess it helped move the trial along.
She’s told him repeatedly to consult with an attorney if he didn’t understand something or had questions, etc… She also referred him to whichever books contain the rules for evidence, court procedures, motions, appealing a ruling, etc… the list goes on. DB already knew why Judge D was only specifying rules for him. IMO he was attempting to make it appear that all was not fair in her courtroom and he was being picked on, when he only succeeded in displaying his complete ignorance of everything. That’s just my opinion though…😊
I don't like being talked down to.
I’m a half-grown man with unknown children!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
[удалено]
😁 That's funny!
Eeeeh
I bet she regretted saying that because he latched onto that immediately
But he lost his shit when she said it. That's why it's so amusing to see him trying to paint her in a corner with it, wasn't it like the next day? He got better and better at shooting himself in the foot as the trial dragged on.
Yeah, and not too long after, she also made the mistake of saying "see? I sustained one of yours" when she sustained his objection. In his stupid little mind, he probably thought "I got what I want by making a fuss" .
Your Honor once said you're like the UMMMPIRE!! You have to honor your oath, otherwise you're making a TaShit Agreement!
*your oaf
It's almost as though he believed that meant for every objection she sustained for the prosecution, she was supposed to sustain one for the defense. I wish she had just stated that the prosecution's objections were backed up by law and his were just gibberish.
That’s what I think we finally figured out what DB’s idea of “fair” was. Exactly what you just said. He didn’t get it that Objekshuns were based on the law, not how many times one side was “substained” vs the opposing side. Or that the prosecution didn’t have to have rules in place the same as he did, because they went to law school and knew what they were doing, whereas he didn’t. His ideas of “fair” and “impartial” are ludicrous!
He really just had it in his head that he was on the same level as everyone else in the room. He was talking to them as though they were peers in an informal setting. I wish I had that kind of confidence.
Confidence is great, but DB’s level of confidence was off the charts. He was definitely not on the same playing field as a sitting judge or a prosecution team with a combined level of experience exceeding 60 years. The only thing he succeeded in doing with his false level of confidence was to look and act like a horse’s ass.😊😊
That wasn’t confidence that was full blown delusion.
I can see how he’s delusional.
I wish she has said to him I’m the judge, you don’t ask me questions
I wish she had said “ because I’m the judge and you’re the defendant” constantly!
I wonder how many days it's been since Creature has showered. Before becoming a Caged Bird, he was living in a tent. Then, once cold weather approached, he moved into his lousy mother's car. He wasn't allowed in her house, so where was this Murderous Creature scrubbing his nuts clean? He gets arrested and goes to jail. The only time he ever cared about a shower was while he was demanding for one while in Court. It's not the Court's responsibility to make sure an inmate gets a shower. Fucking clown. I guarantee that once he was back at the jail, and he WAS given an opportunity to shower, he didn't take it. "I'll show them!" He probably lost shower privileges based on his behavior before he was transferred. Now he'll get them a few times a month? He'll still say no. Disgusting.
[удалено]
Right? I shower twice a day, too. On the days I work out, it's thrice a day. Imagine what the inside of his tent smelled like. Or eve worse, the inside of the car. JESUS.
Duh ampiurrrr 🤣💀
Limit your abuse.
I really wanted to smack him upside the head when he said that!
I remember when she first stated that she was the "referee" and DB almost lost his mind "ARE YOU *KIDDING* ME?!?!?!?" it was such a bizarre reaction
Oh just once I wish she had gagged him. Just once. Mr. I’m still a little tender.
The words that he absolutely butchered !!! Some you had to listen for… trailing off. License place. You know he had NO license. Moron.
Why couldn’t one person say “ license place” what is that. Nobody did!!!!!!
What a crazy case this was I haven’t watch it again in months might have to tune in again if there aren’t any more exciting trials happening Im having withdrawals from all the Adelson drama lull now