NC - Abhijit Mahato, 29, shot to death, Durham, 18 Jan 2008 #2

[Jewels53]

I'm trying to find a link to what was just said in court. Maybe the judge said if he allowed this it would result in a mistrial? IDK but I remember hearing about a mistrial connected with this defendant. I thought it was the other murder but I'm not sure.

He very well could have said that. If he allowed testimony of a couple of people to be let back in and not others maybe he did says it could be grounds for a Mistrial.

I am not disagreeing with you, just because I didn't hear it. It will probably be on WRAL's archives after today, or maybe. IDK

Its Cool!

 

[Boodles]

I didn't hear anything about a mistrial, either.

grrr though. It's like taking a class, taking notes while at the same time listening to the professor. Then, the professor says: "ok, final exam, but you can't refer to your textbook to prepare, and even though my lectures were video'd, you can't review those either, even for the day I covered the theory of relativity. So I hope you got it all in your notes. And by the way, if you don't get 100% right you fail."

It it just seems ridiculous in this day and age of high technology. (Sorry, but this is really bugging me.)

 

[Chelly]

He very well could have said that. If he allowed testimony of a couple of people to be let back in and not others maybe he did says it could be grounds for a Mistrial.

I am not disagreeing with you, just because I didn't hear it. It will probably be on WRAL's archives after today, or maybe. IDK

Its Cool!

speculation! Judge said nothing about mistrial.
(just because we think it, or assume it, that does not make it true!)

 

[borndem]

Re testimony transcripts. Sometimes it takes weeks for the court stenographer to type up the transcripts.

Chelly is exactly right on this!

There are no transcripts at this time, and there won't be for a while!! The only thing that would be available is the court stenographer's notes which she typed into the machine as the testimony was being given during the trial. All that can be done is for the court reporter to read back what is there -- I have never seen this done, although it has been asked by many.

We'll see....

As was said earlier, transcripts are done by the steno as soon as possible, but there would be a wait since this trial's doc would go behind whatever is before it. It won't be available for weeks, IMO -- maybe longer.

 

[Jewels53]

It will be okay everyone! :grouphug:

Just maybe this jury is serious about the deliberation process. We can only hope!

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

He very well could have said that. If he allowed testimony of a couple of people to be let back in and not others maybe he did says it could be grounds for a Mistrial.

I am not disagreeing with you, just because I didn't hear it. It will probably be on WRAL's archives after today, or maybe. IDK

Its Cool!

Somehow I knew there was no attack from you Jewels :loveyou: I tried to do a search for mistrial for Laurence Lovette and returned with zip, so....

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

speculation! Judge said nothing about mistrial.
(just because we think it, or assume it, that does not make it true!)

It was not said in 'speculation' nor was it something I thought up or assumed.

 

[borndem]

So that makes sense if they are going to review any testimony they would have review all of the testimony. That is what the trial was for, and they have to rely on their notes and their memory.

I hope I stated that correctly.

I think you did answer it correctly, Jewels -- that is essentially the pat answer to juries when they ask for transcripts.

I guess the Court's thought here is the possibility of taking something out of context. Makes sense to me.

Some of these questions worry me about the jury members' recall of testimony. Twelve or however many jurors taking notes -- surely, Shirley, someone wrote something -- and I hope if they did, it's accurate.

I worry.

 

[borndem]

How did this jury get to understand about TT and Philip's testimonies resulting in a mistrial? WOW

What mistrial?

 

[Chelly]

I think you did answer it correctly, Jewels -- that is essentially the pat answer to juries when they ask for transcripts.

I guess the Court's thought here is the possibility of taking something out of context. Makes sense to me.

Some of these questions worry me about the jury members' recall of testimony. Twelve or however many jurors taking notes -- surely, Shirley, someone wrote something -- and I hope if they did, it's accurate.

I worry.

BBM Agree completely. If the jury is spinning its wheels, I hope the Foreperson pushes them out of its rut, gets them pointed in the right direction and on track

 

[borndem]

I'm trying to find a link to what was just said in court. Maybe the judge said if he allowed this it would result in a mistrial? IDK but I remember hearing about a mistrial connected with this defendant. I thought it was the other murder but I'm not sure.

There was not a mistrial in the Carson murder case. It was a slam dunk from the get-go! The jury was sharp, and they delivered a quick verdict. Guilty, and the automatic sentence was LWOP. At that time, before the US Supreme Court issued the ruling about no automatic LWOP for persons under 18 at the time of the crime, NC had only two punishments for M1: Death or LWOP. Default in Carson was LWOP. No penalty phase, no impact statements. Verdict; judge issued punishment; case concluded.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

There was not a mistrial in the Carson murder case. It was a slam dunk from the get-go! The jury was sharp, and they delivered a quick verdict. Guilty, and the automatic sentence was LWOP. At that time, before the US Supreme Court issued the ruling about no automatic LWOP for persons under 18 at the time of the crime, NC had only two punishments for M1: Death or LWOP. Default in Carson was LWOP. No penalty phase, no impact statements. Verdict; judge issued punishment; case concluded.

Read subsequent posts.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

Looks like the court is coming back in?

 

[Jewels53]

Kelly Gardner (WRAL) ‏@wralKellyG 2m
Another jury question ... http://www.wral.com/news/video/13820983/ … #LaurenceLovette #wral

 

[Boodles]

Maybe there's a single holdout who isn't connecting the dots...

Maybe a planted juror...of course I have zero basis for saying this, just being John Grisham-like.

Oh boy, I didn't think it would take them very long.

 

[borndem]

What now??

Did I hear the words, "Verdict sheets??"

What did he say about verdict sheets??

They want a break.

Till 4:25.

I worry.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

Do we have a verdict?

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

:tantrum: Oh for crying out loud... tinkle and smoke 'em if you got 'em break

 

[Jewels53]

Kelly Gardner (WRAL) ‏@wralKellyG 3m
Jury wants to take a break. #LaurenceLovette #wral

According to the judge this is the proper way to ask!

 

[borndem]

Read subsequent posts.

There could have been a trial before all this about something else -- I don't know what, but I don't keep up much with Durham County unless it's something that's been in MSM...

Who knoze, CUCKOOHEAD?? Ain't no tellin' but I'll be glad to read the posts -- subsequent to what? I'd like to dig a little to see if there was another trial, etc., associated with this bunch. Certainly could be...

Tell me where to look, and I'll see if I can search stuff in WRAL or WTVD, and maybe we can find something.

Thanks, Cuckoo-bird!