GUILTY UT - Michele MacNeill, 50, found dead in bathtub, Pleasant Grove, 11 April 2007 - #5

[minor4th]

3:20:52

http://new.livestream.com/wildabouttrial/events/2296584/videos/34115868

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

This judge continues to INSERT himself into this trial. In the most unproffesional way's I've ever seen from a judge. The judges role is to RULE and to SIT on the case not to INTERVENE continually or to tell the atty's how to do their job or how to ask a particular question. This judge should be removed from the bench. JMMHO:scared:

I have been unhappy with this judge for some time. I noticed that he sided with the defense more so than other judges (impartial ones?) and he would offer information to help the defense's objections. IMO he anticipated and supported objections with him interjecting himself into the situation which should have been up to the two parties IMO.

He has interrupted testimony and asked the witness for clarification. He should review video after hours and determine this for himself outside of the jury.

Can he be removed because of his interference? I don't know but I don't like it.

 

[Nana46]

If jurors are disobeying instructions and it's proven, that is a serious problem.

Yes of course that is true....sorry, meant really they could just walk by a cafeteria or anything and newscast could be playing.

 

[Leilei]

I found it. You cannot hear anything it's saying. It's around the 3:15 mark, give or take - I'm trying to find the exact point again.

My question is that if it's proven through the play-back that there was nothing said about a bathtub in the broadcast, can Spencer get reprimanded for lying?

 

[Dmacky]

it was 3:20:52, but I cannot understand (or hear) what was said ~ only that it was female's voice. I'm sure in court it was a lot louder though ~

 

[minor4th]

My question is that if it's proven through the play-back that there was nothing said about a bathtub in the broadcast, can Spencer get reprimanded for lying?

No, because it's conceivable that he thought he heard that. I do not think there's any chance this will result in a mistrial. After listening to the replay, if necessary the judge can speak to the jurors individually to find out what they heard - even if it did say something about the bathtub, that's not cause for a mistrial.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

My question is that if it's proven through the play-back that there was nothing said about a bathtub in the broadcast, can Spencer get reprimanded for lying?

In this court? I doubt it.

 

[Hope4More]

I missed the bruhaha on livestream. No worry. HLN is all the way up to the too old for baseball line of attack.

 

[minor4th]

I have been unhappy with this judge for some time. I noticed that he sided with the defense more so than other judges (impartial ones?) and he would offer information to help the defense's objections. IMO he anticipated and supported objections with him interjecting himself into the situation which should have been up to the two parties IMO.

He has interrupted testimony and asked the witness for clarification. He should review video after hours and determine this for himself outside of the jury.

Can he be removed because of his interference? I don't know but I don't like it.

No, he can't be removed for interference - he is doing what judges are supposed to do to move things along in a trial. He has done the same thing with the defense and the state. And the judge is allowed to ask a witness for clarification.

 

[TorisMom003]

Unless Spencer has super sonic hearing then I see no way that he could have heard anything being said by the female reporter once the judge began yelling.

What was said before the judge began yelling.......

"Today in the trial of the Utah doctor who's wife was found dead....."

 

[Leilei]

I listened to it with all speakers turned all the way up, and couldn't understand what was said, either. Judge needs to speak with the jurors, like Minor4th said.

 

[bsk]

My question is that if it's proven through the play-back that there was nothing said about a bathtub in the broadcast, can Spencer get reprimanded for lying?

Heck he didn't get reprimanded for lying any of the other times he lied to the judge.

But it would have been funny had the judge said something like, "File a motion for a mistrial over lunch if you wish and include audio of the incident. If there is mention of a bathtub I will fine the prosecution $5,000 and if there is not I will fine you $5,000."

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

No, he can't be removed for interference - he is doing what judges are supposed to do to move things along in a trial. He has done the same thing with the defense and the state. And the judge is allowed to ask a witness for clarification.

I disagree. I have seen trials with much more efficient justices at the helm with far less noise coming from the bench.

 

[Ina Cognito]

Unless Spencer has super sonic hearing then I see no way that he could have heard anything being said by the female reporter once the judge began yelling.

What was said before the judge began yelling.......

"Today in the trial of the Utah doctor who's wife was found dead....."

Well according to Spencer he "heard a discussion about a bathtub" lol Discussion?? Just wow :floorlaugh: Loved the gallery's reaction to that "Noooo" and people shaking their heads lol

 

[21merc7]

Unless Spencer has super sonic hearing then I see no way that he could have heard anything being said by the female reporter once the judge began yelling.

What was said before the judge began yelling.......

"Today in the trial of the Utah doctor who's wife was found dead....."

Well, the jurors know what they are there for, so this is not new news or prejudicial in any way.

The Judge will review the audio, and will speak with the jurors. It's all good. Just looks like it was something exciting to those that were bored.

If the jurors say they heard anything that the Judge thinks is prejudicial, then there will be a mistrial.

It doesn't seem like they could have, the Judge was Johnny on the Spot!

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

Well according to Spencer he "heard a discussion about a bathtub" lol Discussion?? Just wow :floorlaugh: Loved the gallery's reaction to that "Noooo" and people shaking their heads lol

Here is another clear cut example of how a person's fantasy life can overshadow true reality. He was thinking about the hot tub with several babes in it...

 

[Ina Cognito]

I'd hate to be that paralegal right now. Ouch! I think she forgot they had the sound on to play part of a phone call earlier.

 

[Chelly]

I believe it was said a paralegal did it. I am sure it was an accident that she won't make again....EVER!!

Oh sure, blame the lowly paralegal...:floorlaugh:

 

[Ina Cognito]

I mean it's not like Michele's sister stood up with a newspaper that said "Obama Thinks MacNeill Guilty!!" ala Manson style lol The audio was turned off before anyone could really even focus in on it.

 

[CUCKOOHEAD]

Well, the jurors know what they are there for, so this is not new news or prejudicial in any way.

The Judge will review the audio, and will speak with the jurors. It's all good. Just looks like it was something exciting to those that were bored.

If the jurors say they heard anything that the Judge thinks is prejudicial, then there will be a mistrial.

It doesn't seem like they could have, the Judge was Johnny on the Spot!

Judge should also ? the alternates in case one juror thinks they heard something they can be replaced with an alternate and the trial continue. Taxpayers pay plenty already. Thank you.