| 10/30/2013 | Jury Notes Filed | Jury Notes Filed @ 10:30 am (Winter Instruction given) |
Hmm. My Google-fu and Westlaw-fu did not turn up anything termed a "Winter Instruction." But
EDITED:
Edited on October 31 to add: just received an email saying this below is NOT the Winter instruction. What WAS given the jury was a basic Allen charge, aka an instruction to break a deadlock. This was from an attorney watching the trial. I'll post more later today.
a friend in federal practice emailed me the citations.
Excerpt text reads: "Evidence of a defendant's reputation, inconsistent with those traits of character ordinarily involved in the commission of the crime charged, may give rise to a reasonable doubt, since you think it improbable that a person of good character in respect to those traits wold commit such a crime."
U.S. v Pujana-Mena, 949 F.2d 24, 27-32 (2d Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Winter, 663 F.2d 1120, 1147-49 (1st Cir. 1981).
As of 1991, "The District of Columbia Circuit is the only circuit still requiring a “standing alone” instruction in all cases in which a defendant offers character evidence. See United States v. Lewis, 482 F.2d 632, 637 (D.C.Cir.1973)"
But I read Pujana and it seems to go the other way-- like the standalone instruction is NOT required. I am still reeling and trying to do the legal research, I'll edit and add analysis when I sort out the issue, but I'm getting on a plane this evening so it might be a separate post tomorrow.
As of 1991, "The District of Columbia Circuit is the only circuit still requiring a “standing alone” instruction in all cases in which a defendant offers character evidence. See United States v. Lewis, 482 F.2d 632, 637 (D.C.Cir.1973)"
But I read Pujana and it seems to go the other way-- like the standalone instruction is NOT required. I am still reeling and trying to do the legal research, I'll edit and add analysis when I sort out the issue, but I'm getting on a plane this evening so it might be a separate post tomorrow.
"He was a nice boy who went to church. He'd never rape anybody." Case closed! (From CG)
"Jury acquits man of rape on video tape because he seems like he wouldn't do that" (From RJ)
"Jury acquits man of rape on video tape because he seems like he wouldn't do that" (From RJ)
Will keep you posted.
6 comments:
I'm so confused why reputation would matter in a case where you have video and physical evidence.
What most people don't realize is that the video that everyone thinks show a brutal rape, is everything but that.
who would take a chance at facing over 200 years in jail in lieu of a plea?
Because no judge or jury will stack sentences on this kind of case, and most of the charges were mutually inconsistent alternatives, you boob.
Now I'm a boob? G, with all due respect, i have to ask you a question. think about this. You are a prosecutor. So you know that over 80% of cases in DC are for conviction. Now here's federal case. The might of the US government, with endless resources, prosecuting two men with no real jobs. They train three times a day every day. No real money. okay so everyone says the LI paid for the lawyers. who knows? There's video and that's the biggest evidence that the government has. That video was played numerous of times. low quality, grainy, but you could still get an idea of went on. With all that evidence why is the result "not guilty" on all counts for MM? Why are they deadlock on 2nd degree and misdemeanor? I tell you why? Everything is on the videos.
If you read the indictment they were hit for 11 felonies each. They decide to add misdemeanor as a last grasp for hope on convicting them on anything. Why? because the defense switched gears and motion for "draw of consent". why? because they were having consensual sex.
That's what I think happened.
And that is the conclusion of the Boob Show folks. Thanks for your patience.
Post a Comment