Knox
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 31,454
- Reaction score
- 202,920
The hair in Maggie's hand was her own, good to know!
The hair in Maggie's hand was her own, good to know!
Hmmm-- is this where the John Grisham , The Judges List, book passed on to him during trial comes in handy.
[…]
The notice was filed in the S.C. court of appeals by attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin and Margaret Fox – all of whom represented Murdaugh in his double homicide trial in Colleton County from January 23 – March 3, 2023. A copy was served on lead prosecutor Creighton Waters, who led a team including his boss – S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson.
“Our office handles all appeals and Alex Murdaugh’s will be no different,” Wilson said. “We’ll continue to defend our case throughout the entire appellate process.”
A nine-judge panel based in Columbia, S.C., the court of appeals hears cases from circuit court and family court. It consists of a chief judge (Bruce Williams) and eight associate judges – each of whom are elected by the S.C. General Assembly to staggered terms of six years each.
The court can sits either as three panels of three judges apiece or as a whole – and can hear oral arguments and motions in any county of the state.
[…]
Yeah...I figured that would be her own hairThe hair in Maggie's hand was her own, good to know!
100% and having traveled to other countries during my time in the service it is a different world and cultures out there. We live in the states and the same applies there as well. It's a different world from state to state and during my youth and tour the states days from the west coast to the east coast it was like a different world. What I enjoyed was the diversity of people from one end to the other, one comes across the good and bad. The biggest problem we still face from state to state or even cities is learning to embrace something or someone different. If we can't overcome that hurdle then embracing other countries will be a mountain we may never climb.We can agree to hope AM has a terrible day, every day that he's in jail. That's the least he deserves IMO. As far as cultures,
I'm an Air Force Brat and have lived the world over. There is good and bad everywhere, a lot is what you make/take of it.
moo
who exactly is she talking to? I sure would keep that to myself living in the community.
^^rsbmHours before, one of the 12 jurors was dismissed for discussing the case with people not involved in the trial.
The juror - No. 785 - was replaced by an alternate juror.
"Though it does not appear that the conversations were that extensive, it did involve the juror offering her opinion regarding evidence received up to that point in the trial", the judge said.
The dismissal did not cause a delay in the trial proceedings, with closing arguments proceeding shortly after.
Judge Newman said he spoke with the juror and two others believed to be involved, both of whom "waffled" about the nature and extent of the conversation.
We knew AM wasn't going down without an appeal fight but guess it keeps him busy in his new estate. Sadly this man will go to his grave with no confessions but in the fleeting last moments of our lives it all comes flooding in, the good and bad that one has done. I'm content in the fact that AM is where he should be and though he may never say it openly, he will never have peace of mind.Murdaugh’s appeal unlikely to be granted: Legal expert
Alex Murdaugh’s appeal for his double murder conviction is unlikely to succeed, according to legal contributor Jesse Weber.www.newsnationnow.com
(NewsNation) — Alex Murdaugh’s appeal for his double murder conviction is unlikely to succeed, according to NewsNation legal contributor Jesse Weber.
Weber joined “NewsNation Prime” to break down the process, explaining what it would take for Murdaugh’s conviction to be granted an appeal.
“In order to get any successful appeal, it’s called the reversible error. So there was a mistake made, that the end result wouldn’t have happened if this decision wasn’t made. So a court would have to say, well, if these financial crimes weren’t let in, then is it possible Alex Murdaugh would have been found not guilty. I think that’s a bit of a stretch when you look at all of the other evidence,” Weber said.
I assumed the "talking" was continuing after the verdict indicating her position. I find the whole report and subsequent dismissal strange. Then you have defense objecting to the dismissal given what they heard in chambers...so conclusion is pro defense. I was amazed that they actually objected to a juror talking about her thoughts on the trial to members of the community. It all worked out for the best from my standpoint but I am sure they are shaking their heads.Two individuals not involved in the case per Judge Newman that interviewed them:
^^rsbm
IMO the defense objected to the dismissal because they absolutely wanted a rule breaker on the jury. Afterall, who better to understand their client than someone that felt the same about rules and oaths, etc. They can complain all they want but it's obvious, at least to me, that the defense condones behavior where an oath is meaningless.I assumed the "talking" was continuing after the verdict indicating her position. I find the whole report and subsequent dismissal strange. Then you have defense objecting to the dismissal given what they heard in chambers...so conclusion is pro defense. I was amazed that they actually objected to a juror talking about her thoughts on the trial to members of the community. It all worked out for the best from my standpoint but I am sure they are shaking their heads.
No.....I think his maker would prefer he to answer for his multitude of crimes before a face to face meeting. jmoAnyone think that after Kirkland that AM will meet his maker before the end of the year?
Also, she was kicked off the Jury, so did not deliberate. She had no input, no discussion to form an educated opinion, yet she blabs about her NG opinion. Stupid doesn't even cover her idiocy. IMPOVwho exactly is she talking to? I sure would keep that to myself living in the community.
Well, apparently she Lied to the Judge on a number of issues, which got her the boot. He was too nice to her IMPOV considering that. Other people were interviewed and told truth.IMO the defense objected to the dismissal because they absolutely wanted a rule breaker on the jury. Afterall, who better to understand their client than someone that felt the same about rules and oaths, etc. They can complain all they want but it's obvious, at least to me, that the defense condones behavior where an oath is meaningless.
no question from the comments I hear about her she would have hung the jury. Got to wonder who exactly reported her to the judge. It could have been fellow jurors whom she engaged in conversation with at breaks and they wanted to remain anonymous .Well, apparently she Lied to the Judge on a number of issues, which got her the boot. He was too nice to her IMPOV considering that. Other people were interviewed and told truth.
not smart lying to the judge. That was a near miss.“A few days ago, I received a complaint from a member of the public that a juror had engaged in improper conversations with parties not associated with the case,” Judge Clifton Newman explained. “I communicated and provided a copy of the communications to defense counsel. After court, we then met with the juror on the record.”
The juror, however, said the claims against her were fabricated – saying she didn’t discuss the case with anyone on or off the jury.
“She provided information that led us to – the court to – contact the persons that she was suspected of having the conversations with concerning the case,” Newman went on. “Those persons were interviewed and provided an affidavit regarding the contact that the juror had with them. We then also brought those two individuals in and had a hearing in chambers, on the record, in the presence of counsel yesterday in which both of those individuals waffled on the nature and the extent of the contact.”
'A calamity of errors': Defense gripes as juror is tossed from Alex Murdaugh trial on eve of deliberations
The brouhaha concerned allegations that the juror had been discussing the case with non-jurors – a direct violation of court rules.lawandcrime.com
….
Newman said he and attorneys on both sides spoke with the female juror, No. 785, who denied she had discussed the case, but the other individuals had provided affidavits to their contact with her about the case, Newman said. He added those individuals “waffled on the nature and extent of the contact” when he spoke to them in his chambers.
…
Seems she may have alluded to defense to ng verdict.
Jmo