'We Build The Wall' trial ends in mistrial; jury deadlocked

[El Supremo]

Source: 9News/AP

NEW YORK — The trial of a Colorado businessman on charges that he ripped off thousands of donors who contributed $25 million to a campaign to build a wall along the southern U.S. border ended Tuesday in a mistrial after jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict.

The mistrial in the prosecution of Timothy Shea was granted by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres after the jury reported for a third time that it could not reach a verdict on any count, saying the deadlock was “abundantly clear.” They said extended deliberations had left them “further entrenched in our opposing views.”

After previous notes, the judge urged them to try again.

Shea was left to stand trial alone after Steve Bannon, a onetime adviser to then-President Donald Trump, was pardoned. And two other defendants pleaded guilty. The case was prosecuted in New York after it was determined that donors to the fund were from everywhere in the country, including New York....

Read more: https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/we-build-the-wall-fundraiser-mistrial/73-980968a9-f662-46b8-bdca-733845d8fa32

---

Bad jury selection.

[Warpy]

1. Probably couldn't decide if he was a perp or another sucker

since most of that organization was out of state.

While there could have been right wing nutbars on the jury, that doesn't seem to be the only reason they deadlocked.

Shea might have collected donations in his area, but they'd have to prove he also trousered the cash.

[groundloop]

2. Isn't that the trial with one juror who was obviously biased ?

[mountain grammy]

6. Yes I believe it is.

[Lasher]

18. Yes.

Here is a link to an earlier DU thread about this trial:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2925747

[machoneman]

3. Hey, they really "owned" those stupid MAGATs now didn't they. No loss, I say! Suckers...

...born every minute. LOL

[Escurumbele]

4. There goes down the tubes, AGAIN, "The Rule of Law" and "No One Is Above the Law"

What a sham our judicial system is, it almost feels like the laws have been written to help crooks and not the innocent.

[OldBaldy1701E]

7. If you are referring to white collar crooks, then you are correct! (n/t)

[Effete Snob]

8. "it almost feels like the laws have been written to help crooks and not the innocent"

It's really surprising how many people, including on a site like this one, fail to understand that, yes, the legal system is intentionally biased against state power.

Several Constitutional amendments ONLY apply to people who have been accused, or even convicted, of a crime.

The Eighth Amendment, for example, is focused almost entirely on the rights of guilty people.


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Does that sound like it was written to help innocent people? Of course not. That's the point.

Welcome to the United States.

You need a unanimous jury for a conviction. That's the rule of law at work.

[NJCher]

20. in my experience

the judges always favor the prosecutors.

It's a club--these people who see each other regularly, if not every day.

In my experience, the fastest way to get another judge is to hang out at the place where all the legal people go for lunch. Sooner or later, you'll see your judge and you snap a photo with someone who plays a role in your case, maybe the prosecutor. Then ask the judge to recuse himself.

[former9thward]

26. I hope people don't follow your advice.

They will find themselves in more trouble than the original crime they are charged with.

[NJCher]

30. duh

It's totally legal. Judges are not supposed to be socializing with lawyers for your adversary, or prosecutor either.

I've done it and had judges recuse themselves.

[former9thward]

31. I'm sure.

[NJCher]

32. look it up

I'm not going to do your work for you, nor will I even suggest a search term for you. You obviously think you're smart enough, so go right ahead and have the guts to find out that you don't know what you're talking about.🐔

[Escurumbele]

27. No, I am referring to the crook who gets away like the one posted in this blog

In my view, it is a clear case of fraud, how can there be confusion between the jurors? Too many people get away in this type of cases, and too many people, who are innocent pay, so don't tell me that the "rule of law" works well, because it doesn't, its not applied equally.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Sorry but that is a poor example, that clause I do agree with, it does protect even the guilty, we are talking about a guy who obviously defrauded a bunch of people, and he is getting away because a juror doesn't think he should be punished? Where does that leave the victims of the fraud?

The "rule of law" doesn't work when Meadows doesn't get subpoenaed by the DOJ, the rule of law doesn't exist when politicians not only that they do not go to jail, but they are able to come back and run for office.

When police are clearly guilty of murder, NY City many years ago when a policeman choked a black man because he was selling cigarettes on the street.

The kid Kyle who was acquitted for killing two people, carrying a gun underage, etc. etc. etc.

No, that is not the rule of law at work, that is corruption and favouritism at work.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Probably a MAGA snuck on the jury to see he got off.

[bluestarone]

9. Agree!

THIS is our problem with all future trials, i'm afraid! Gotta really dig into jurors background. Wish there was a way to punish jurors if they LIE, but i guess not.

[DENVERPOPS]

29. Bingo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why they are going for plea bargains, rather than trials. They know the odds of seating a jury that doesn't have at least one MAGA on the jury is NIL.........

[groundloop]

11. Sounds like that's exactly what happened.... one juror claimed this was a liberal witchhunt

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/nyregion/build-the-wall-case-bannon.html


He claimed all 11 of the other "liberals" on the jury had reached a verdict before hearing evidence. Clearly this one juror had an agenda and shouldn't have been on the jury.

....the juror had displayed animosity toward the government, claiming that Mr. Shea was tried in the Southern District of New York because people there vote a certain way but that he should have instead been tried in a Southern state. That juror had also injected into deliberations topics outside the scope of the trial, including talk of “political parties,”.....

[Escurumbele]

28. In that case when a juror shows biased opinion, if the rule of law worked, that juror would be

and should be dismissed. How can someone like that provide an impartial judgement?

[Ford_Prefect]

10. My take is that without the other 3 the charges couldn't fit only one fall guy well. Some of the

jurors will say post trial that if you could excuse the big fish you could not blame it all on the small fry. That he acted under their command and so could not be as responsible to the degree the charges warrant, or legalistic words to that effect.

I am sure this interpretation is the kind of thing at the root of it. I am sure that he IS responsible enough. He was recruited by Bannon who is as dirty as they come and knew what kind of cohorts would work on this with him. The project was a classic scam from the first day and everyone in on the ground floor knew it was built that way.

[groundloop]

12. No, see the article I linked in the above post.... 11 jurors were ready to convict

One holdout had a political bias and shouldn't have been on the jury.

[Ford_Prefect]

13. Then this was very poor jury selection and the judge should have excused the juror for bias.

There were no alternate jurors available? Does a trial of this magnitude not warrant that option?

[underpants]

16. I wouldn't be surprised if they had top level jury consultants

like Rittenhouse. They got one person on the jury and that’s all it took.

[Ford_Prefect]

19. Then the Juror lied under oath during intake.

[former9thward]

25. All jurors have political bias.

There would not be a trial in the country if that were the sole factor.

[former9thward]

24. All jurors have political bias.

And political opinions. The judge and the lawyers attempt to seat a jury that is willing to look at things fairly. How "fairly" is defined is very subjective.

[paleotn]

14. Wonder how much the magat juror was paid?

Is it a lucrative gig? Or do magats come cheap? Probably the later.

[onenote]

15. He can be tried again. And I hope he is.

[ShazzieB]

17. Me, too.

This is disappointing, but it's not the worst thing that could happen, by a long shot. The worst thing would be an acquittal, because then they couldn't touch him again. A hung jury/mistrial leaves the door open to re-try him. Hopefully with much better attention to jury selection next time!

[SoCalDavidS]

21. Are We Supposed To Be Rooting For The Plaintiffs?

They're probably a bunch of racists and Cult Members who wanted to fund TFG's Fucking Wall.

Fuck 'Em!

[Effete Snob]

22. Plaintiffs?

This is a criminal trial.

[The Jungle 1]

23. It is fair to say.

We are falling into fascism and our judicial system is failing.

[keithbvadu2]

33. Jury nullification?

[malthaussen]

34. And people complain about the filibuster.

This is not a capital crime (though one that might result in considerable capital changing hands). That the jury's verdict needs to be unanimous virtually guarantees that in any politically-charged case, there will be a hung jury.

-- Mal