brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:43:33 GMT -6
Reporters entering courtroom now. Jury has a Q. It could be about being hung.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 8:44:25 GMT -6
@rocksforludo I like this Lou Raguse, BTW. I don't know him. I've been following him the whole time (in addition to MPR). He's been doing a good job explaining this as much as he can. I had never heard of him before either.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:50:55 GMT -6
No verdict. No hung jury.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 8:51:27 GMT -6
Why would you not allow them to re-hear his testimony? I do not understand this. If it was evidence given during the trial, I don't understand why they can't hear it again.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:51:38 GMT -6
Brief hearing. Jury wanted all of Yanez's testimony read back to them. The judge said he cannot and can't tell them why.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:52:03 GMT -6
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:52:43 GMT -6
Why would you not allow them to re-hear his testimony? I do not understand this. If it was evidence given during the trial, I don't understand why they can't hear it again. I don't understand. I guess it's not evidence? I don't law well.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:53:13 GMT -6
The judge is weird. He said the reasons for why he said no are not important.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:53:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 8:54:04 GMT -6
This is weird to me. I hope they tell juries this in advance.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:54:29 GMT -6
Expert says reason they don't read back testimony is you don't get the nuances of tone and pauses
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 8:55:05 GMT -6
This is weird to me. I hope they tell juries this in advance. Even if they did, I doubt they emphasize this rule enough so that a jury really gets what it means.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 8:57:03 GMT -6
If that's the problem, why don't they tape it so they can rewatch?
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 10:01:55 GMT -6
That Lou reporter just brought up a good point - that if the jury was split 6-6 you'd think they'd have given up by now. So it's his guess that the majority of jurors feel one way and they're hoping to convince the minority group to change their vote.
|
|
|
Post by billyhorrible on Jun 16, 2017 10:06:34 GMT -6
I'll weigh in - the not rereading testimony thing is news to me. We've had to have court reporters draw up transcripts before for the jury.
However, I probably should have caveat this before - I've never done criminal law and there are definitely some differences. I'll have to ask my husband his thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by billyhorrible on Jun 16, 2017 10:16:20 GMT -6
Okay, straight from DH: "They are usually entitled to review the court's official recording, whether it be audio or court reporter."
He also pointed out that in cases where they are concerned about pauses/nuances the court report reads the testimony to them. "But they should get to review it. Otherwise I see grounds for mistrial, but the thing is that generally benefits the def[endant]. And if they come back not guilty, that's the prosecutor's only shot."
|
|
|
Post by wickedcandy on Jun 16, 2017 10:47:31 GMT -6
Brief hearing. Jury wanted all of Yanez's testimony read back to them. The judge said he cannot and can't tell them why. I wonder if the judge is trying to sway the jury in someway by doing this...
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 10:51:46 GMT -6
So the reporter talked with prosecutors and defense attorneys in MN about this.
They all told him that it would be grounds for appeal if he let them have the transcript and they convicted. That the jury was allowed to weigh one piece of evidence (the testimony) more than other pieces.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 10:55:54 GMT -6
Tweets from the local reporter:
in opening statements, prosecutors should tell juries to be ready, they'll only hear the testimony once.
Prosecutors know different pieces of evidence will be more important to certain jurors, and jurors will remember differently
there is case law prohibiting judge from putting more emphasis on one piece of evidence than another.
no legal experts are surprised judge did not read back that testimony (but admitting it could have ended deadlock!)
2 lawyers told me it's not a law but most judges err on not reading back testimony, as to not put too much weight on 1 piece of evidence
They can go off notes they took themselves (unlike other states that force them to leave notes behind), from memory, and some exhibits
|
|
budders
Amethyst
Posts: 6,306 Likes: 32,280
|
Post by budders on Jun 16, 2017 11:50:32 GMT -6
But didn't they let them rewatch the dash cam video? And have access to the clothes? How is letting them read the testimony different and putting more emphasis on that?
ETA: maybe because it's not "evidence"?
|
|
budders
Amethyst
Posts: 6,306 Likes: 32,280
|
Post by budders on Jun 16, 2017 11:52:29 GMT -6
My guess is that someone (or several people) is hung up on whether or not Yanez actually saw the gun. They asked for his initial interview, and now they want his testimony.
I do appreciate that it seems like the jury is really trying to get this right.
|
|
mrsbliz
Silver
Posts: 348 Likes: 659
|
Post by mrsbliz on Jun 16, 2017 12:10:55 GMT -6
Brief hearing. Jury wanted all of Yanez's testimony read back to them. The judge said he cannot and can't tell them why. I wonder if the judge is trying to sway the jury in someway by doing this... The Lou guy mentioned above said that his reason for not is because he doesn't want to sway them by doing so. He said it's very common and even case law on it. If they are allowed to read the transcript they may miss connotations, actions, pauses, etc. that aren't apparent in transcripts. It could open the door for a mistrial because the judge could have swayed. The Lou twitter is really very interesting and I've been refreshing him constantly. ETA: Sorry brux covered his tweets above.
|
|
|
Post by billyhorrible on Jun 16, 2017 12:45:59 GMT -6
So the reporter talked with prosecutors and defense attorneys in MN about this. They all told him that it would be grounds for appeal if he let them have the transcript and they convicted. That the jury was allowed to weigh one piece of evidence (the testimony) more than other pieces. I guess MN has different rules, but this makes no sense. You as a juror are ab-so-fucking-lutely supposed to weight the evidence. That's your job. You are supposed to determine which evidence is credible and which is not. Some jury instructions from my state: "The court reporter is making a record of everything that is said. If during deliberations you have a question about what the witness said, you should ask that the court reporter’s records be read to you. You must accept the court reporter’s record as accurate." "Evidence can come in many forms. It can be testimony about what someone saw or heard or smelled. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone’s opinion. ...As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. You may choose to believe or disbelieve either kind. Whether it is direct or indirect, you should give every piece of evidence whatever weight you think it deserves." "A witness [who was not testifying as an expert] gave an opinion during the trial. You may, but are not required to, accept that opinion. You may give the opinion whatever weight you think is appropriate. "
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 13:12:16 GMT -6
Verdict! It will be read in 30 minutes.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 13:14:09 GMT -6
@rocksforludo ,@heartbot , billyhorrible , wickedcandy , budders , mrsbliz ,@juliagulia , fatpony , ktg , RajahMD , bunnyfungo @karenwalker sterling
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 13:15:15 GMT -6
Here we go. Ugh.
|
|
mrsbliz
Silver
Posts: 348 Likes: 659
|
Post by mrsbliz on Jun 16, 2017 13:15:22 GMT -6
VERDICT HAS BEEN REACHED!!!!!
I'm on the edge of my seat and hope they get it right!
|
|
sterling
Global Moderator
GD
Posts: 15,054 Likes: 130,375
|
Post by sterling on Jun 16, 2017 13:17:27 GMT -6
Brb, need to vomit.
|
|
brux
Diamond
Posts: 35,379 Likes: 282,830
|
Post by brux on Jun 16, 2017 13:20:12 GMT -6
No electronic devices are allowed in the courtroom during verdict.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 13:20:56 GMT -6
I think it's going to be at least 20 minutes before we hear anything.
|
|