General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRobert Costa reports that lawyers are looking to stop indictments based on forewoman interview
Link to tweet
Scrivener7
(58,893 posts)posts here.
Has she said anything that would make this a legitimate effort? Anything that would warrant quashing indictments?
It sounds like she's an ass, but how does that jeopardize indictments?
ificandream
(11,766 posts)If the lawyers are using her interview as an excuse it must mean they know their client is guilty, ya thnk?
Scrivener7
(58,893 posts)Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #3)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Nevilledog
(54,759 posts)Scrivener7
(58,893 posts)Nevilledog
(54,759 posts)Their whole defense will be based on delay.
GoCubsGo
(34,749 posts)I have heard interviews of multiple lawyers saying that they will fail in their efforts, even in light of this recent happening. The jury foreman didn't cross any lines (although, she came a kind of close), give up anything, or break any laws. They don't have a case to quash any indictments. The case will still be brought before a grand jury soon. If they can prove their clients are innocent, they can prove it there.
Cha
(317,722 posts)GoCubsGo
(34,749 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)A grand jury hears one side and one side only -- the prosecution. They do not hear anything from the defense or any defense evidence.
global1
(26,475 posts)newdayneeded
(2,493 posts)she's not a 10, he only does 10s, don't cha know!1!11!
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)It won't work in this case.
nolabear
(43,850 posts)Throw it at the wall. Heck, I dont blame them. I also expect them to fail miserably.
LetMyPeopleVote
(176,771 posts)Takket
(23,556 posts)that being said............
it is a hopeless maneuver
