SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton *Guilty* #42

[BUF]

no smoke break? YIIkes

About those smoke breaks….

Maybe a juror asked about smoke breaks when they went to deliberate and
“in jest” she made a comment like no smoke breaks until a verdict….then that comment got twisted when Griffen & Co talked to the juror.

I’d be interested to hear what the other 8 jurors had to say about that.

 

[Seattle1]

no smoke break? YIIkes

What we don't know is whether or not this meant there was no smoke break for 3 hours before jurors delivered the verdict or no smoke for the 45 minutes to an hour of deliberation when the opposed/undecided jurors changed their vote to guilty. I'd bet on the latter. I think it would be unprecedented to prohibit jurors from smoking for an extended period of time just as it would be to prohibit a bathroom break. JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

https://x.com/elizfarrell/status/1699405390478246134?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

 

[aafromaa]

What we don't know is whether or not this meant there was no smoke break for 3 hours before jurors delivered the verdict or no smoke for the 45 minutes to an hour of deliberation when the opposed/undecided jurors changed their vote to guilty. I'd bet on the latter. I think it would be unprecedented to prohibit jurors from smoking for an extended period of time just as it would be to prohibit a bathroom break. JMO

As a smoker I can tell you that most of us would prefer a smoke break every couple of hours but that most could tolerate it being delayed up to about 4 hours but after that I think most of us would be “smoking in the boys room” - or in my case the ladies room. Prohibiting them would be considered cruel & unusual punishment not only for the smokers but for the rest of the jurors who would have to deal with us in our highly agitated and anxious state in the deliberation room.

 

[aafromaa]

About those smoke breaks….

Maybe a juror asked about smoke breaks when they went to deliberate and
“in jest” she made a comment like no smoke breaks until a verdict….then that comment got twisted when Griffen & Co talked to the juror.

I’d be interested to hear what the other 8 jurors had to say about that.

Yes and what they all have to say about any of the accusations in the affidavits. I find it a little hard to believe that not one juror said anything during the trial when the clerk was supposed to be having secret bathroom meetings with the foreman and the jurors were supposed to be discussing the case amongst themselves.

And I still want to hear from those who gave the affidavits as to why they wouldn’t speak until the clerk’s book came out. And I’m not buying that the juror who didn’t sign their affidavit didn’t do so because they couldn’t get a time scheduled with a notary so I want to know more about that to.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699274213859762374

ETA: make that two affidavits!

 

[Elley Mae]

She’s going to be fired right?

Seems her job has does & don’t’s that should lead to charges.

This might wipeout the money from the book.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699122781156204872

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699135596747190736

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699241663204327733

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699088060971991070

 

[Seattle1]

https://x.com/elizfarrell/status/1699405390478246134?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

View attachment 445176View attachment 445177

Brandi Churchwell
@BrandiNChurch

It is 100% about the benefit of doubt. I will not assume what they say is true based on just what they say or their 2 jurors who have the same attorney. I will reserve my decision until there's a hearing as opposed to believing someone who has no credibility in my eyes.


1:01 PM · Sep 5, 2023

 

[ch_13]

This is from the questioning of juror #785 during an in camera conference:

THE COURT: So, has she discussed the case with any of -- any of the jurors? Has the clerk discussed anything about the case with anyone on that jury

JUROR: Not that I'm aware of.

Although in her affidavit, the same juror says that Hill directly asked her if she intended to vote guilty or not guilty prior to this conference.

This whole situation is very curious.

 

[Seattle1]

Brian Gambrell
@bcgambrell

Juror that “felt pressure” is not a proper ground for new trial b/c testimony on internal deliberations improper. State v Gray 438 SC 130 (2022) & State v Franklin 341 SC 555 (2000)


8:57 AM · Sep 5, 2023

 

[Inthedetails]

She’s going to be fired right?

Seems her job has does & don’t’s that should lead to charges.

This might wipeout the money from the book.

She's an elected official. Not sure who would fire her. I'm assuming there are procedures to remove an official of that level from office, but I don't know what they are, other than the obvious, which is to wait for the next election or that she resigns.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

As a smoker I can tell you that most of us would prefer a smoke break every couple of hours but that most could tolerate it being delayed up to about 4 hours but after that I think most of us would be “smoking in the boys room” - or in my case the ladies room. Prohibiting them would be considered cruel & unusual punishment not only for the smokers but for the rest of the jurors who would have to deal with us in our highly agitated and anxious state in the deliberation room.

I've been poking around for info about smoke breaks for jury members, and while I'm not a legal researcher, I can't find any jurisdiction that prohibits smoke breaks, though there are rules about having to leave the building to smoke. I find it difficult to believe that someone experienced with courtroom rules would say to a jury that there are no smoke breaks until a decision is made. imo

jmo

 

[Seattle1]

She's an elected official. Not sure who would fire her. I'm assuming there are procedures to remove an official of that level from office, but I don't know what they are, other than the obvious, which is to wait for the next election or that she resigns.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

jmo

In my neck of the woods, recall elections are alive and well.

 

[Inthedetails]

In my neck of the woods, recall elections are alive and well.

But I'm assuming that is a process, right? I think her term ends in 2024, though I don't have a link handy.

For all we know, an investigation might show she did no wrong. It might take some time to straighten out, and then it's election time. This case has cost the county so much money already, I cringe to think of the cost of a special election. She might resign instead if it comes to that.

I think she overstepped ethical bounds with the book, but not sure I'm buying jury tampering, fwiw.

jmo

 

[Seattle1]

https://x.com/elizfarrell/status/1699405390478246134?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

View attachment 445176View attachment 445177

Yes, attorney Joe McCulloch gets around. He also represented Connor Cook in the boat crash (i.e., Murdaugh's attempted to make Conner the scapegoat in the crash -- claiming he was the driver of the boat).

 

[ch_13]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699135596747190736

I have to say, that's an uncharacteristically even-handed response from Eric Bland. He's usually not shy about tearing into AM and his attorneys.