Cindizzi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 11,108
- Reaction score
- 151,719
The case you referenced was in Hampton, Virginia and occurred during jury selection. The basis of that case was the the potential jury members may have seen the defendant in hand-cuffs. The mistrial was an indirect result of the bomb threat.I am just saying that is happened before.
There are people who undoubtedly want a mistrial.Just now getting to check in.
Was someone after the judge or was this a threat towards Alex???
Or a fake threat?
I think the OP was just sharing info in which a bomb threat led to a mistrial. The OP did not say that the facts matched AM's case. Thank you @detectivewannab for posting that link!That says it was because jurors saw the defendant in handcuffs during the threat.
Agreed, too many minds out there that make us keep an eye open at night at times. Situational awareness has been my best bud for many moons and imprint that on my better half everytime she go's about her day.There are so many weirdos and nutcases that come from places far and wide to insert themselves into high profile cases/events anymore, that it is hard to say whether the person who threatened is in any way related to the case or not until LE actually traces the call back to its source.
Malpractice would cover the initial settlements hijacked and stolen by AM but not any additional resultant punitive damages and fees due clients. These amounts were likely paid out of the pockets of the partners.Not that I disagree with anything you wrote about PMPED, I'm sure this whole ordeal has weighed on them terribly.
But I'm assuming it was the firm's malpractice insurance that compensated AM's victims, right? The partners didn't have to reach into their own pockets to pay back the money.
Sounds like misinformation. Security is tight. How could anyone get into judge's chambers?Fits News is reporting that the bomb threat said the bomb was in the judge's chambers. But still no word whether there is a real bomb anywhere.
IMO he will be tried again if there is mistrial. If intimidation is the goal, it's either toward the jury to bring back a not guilty verdict or toward the judge to step down so another judge more AM 'friendly' could be appointed. jmoThere are people who undoubtedly want a mistrial.
MOO
At Closing Arguments Lawyers can say whatever they want to persuade Jurors. Does not have to be facts per se.
Jury should have Protection IMPOV.IMO if they declare a mistrial, make the hearing private or postpone the hearing too long that will lead to more bomb threats in the future. I pray the jury won't say that they are intimidated by this. This is not good.
Ok, all us die hard trial watchers…have you ever seen a trial as bizarre as this, now the latest a bomb threat?
Other media are reporting the same thing -- the bomb threat said the bomb was in the judge's chambers. It's a bomb threat, not an actual bomb.Sounds like misinformation. Security is tight. How could anyone get into judge's chambers?