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
(51,014 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
(9,387 posts)If the lawyers are using her interview as an excuse it must mean they know their client is guilty, ya thnk?
Scrivener7
(51,014 posts)Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #3)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Nevilledog
(51,198 posts)Scrivener7
(51,014 posts)Nevilledog
(51,198 posts)Their whole defense will be based on delay.
GoCubsGo
(32,093 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
(297,673 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,093 posts)former9thward
(32,082 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
(25,270 posts)newdayneeded
(1,959 posts)she's not a 10, he only does 10s, don't cha know!1!11!
brooklynite
(94,729 posts)It won't work in this case.
nolabear
(41,991 posts)Throw it at the wall. Heck, I dont blame them. I also expect them to fail miserably.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,563 posts)Takket
(21,626 posts)that being said............
it is a hopeless maneuver