Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate

[DrLove]

If the jury can’t reach a verdict the judge would grant a mistrial. Then I believe it’s up the prosecution whether or not they try again. I don’t believe the judge would have the authority at this point to grant a mistrial with prejudice. He would have had to do that before it went to the jury in the first place.

You sir are correct. Once it's gone to the jury - He can send them back to mull it over a time or two. But that's it.

 

[tahuyaman]

Every victim of a crime shouldn't have been there….

That’s not true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obviously, more than you do

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law, formerly called a directed verdict.[1] In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal".[2]
JNOV is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. The rarely-granted intervention permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.[3]
A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, the action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution.
A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case but the jury still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment.
The reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. That procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.[4]

​

 

[Flash]

1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims
2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor
3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran
4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood
5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF
6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food

That'll do for starters

My god you are confused you stupid Moon Bat.

1. The Judge does that for all his trials. It is common practice.
2. The prosecutor deserved his ire by not remembering what the 5th Amendment was all about.
3. He asked for any veteran to stand up. He had no idea who any of them were.
4. Rap music is goofy, not Patriotic songs.
5. He did none of that.
6. Calling Asian food "Asian food" is only racist in Libtardland.

 

[Indeependent]

1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims
2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor
3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran
4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood
5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF
6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food

That'll do for starters

I just realized that you’re a professional jackass.

 

[DrLove]

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law, formerly called a directed verdict.[1] In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal".[2]
JNOV is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. The rarely-granted intervention permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.[3]
A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, the action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution.
A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case but the jury still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment.
The reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. That procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.[4]

​

A judge would have no power to overrule a hung jury or make a decision that they could not. That's just stupid, but perhaps you can point me to a case where that actually happened.

 

[Indeependent]

I predict the courthouse will be burnt to the ground and every LibBot here will cheer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A judge would have no power to overrule a hung jury or make a decision that they could not.=

You have no idea whatsoever if this is true or not.

 

[DrLove]

You have no idea whatsoever if this is true or not.

Unless you can point me to such a case, you are FOS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unless you can point me to such a case, you are FOS.

You have no idea whatsoever if -this- is true.
You argue wholly from ignorance.

 

[Flash]

I just realized that you’re a professional jackass.

He takes pride in being a stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Binger said YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY BULLET THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR GUN.

Is this true?

It's true in Texas.

 

[tahuyaman]

You have no idea whatsoever if this is true or not.

If a judge was to declare a mistrial with prejudice it would need to be done before it went to the jury. Now that it's in the hands of the jury he no longer has that authority.

If the jury can't reach a verdict his only option then is to declare a mistrial and let the prosecution decide if they want another trial.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims

Do you know why?

Because to do so would prejudice the jury against the guy on trial for his life. The judge did NOT want to get overturned on appeal if the jury would have convicted (but they won't).

2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor

When? After the prosecutor was defiant about the Court's orders and likely committed prosecutorial misconduct?

3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran

And?

Are you saying that this action was a comment on the weight of the witness's testimony?

Maybe. The question is whether that would be deemed "harmful error." What did that witness say that was or could have been harmful?

4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood

Bad taste is not harmful error.

5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF

For example?

6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food

How was the joke "racist" and why does race matter ONE FUCKING BIT??? All the "victims" and the accused are WHITE!!!

You have MAYBE one ground for complaint, and that's assuming it was even harmful error.

 

[the other mike]

 

[tahuyaman]

Binger said YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY BULLET THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR GUN.

Is this true?

The shooter is responsible.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If a judge was to declare a mistrial with prejudice it would need to be done before it went to the jury. Now that it's in the hands of the jury he no longer has that authority.

If the jury can't reach a verdict his only option then is to declare a mistrial and let the prosecution decide if they want another trial.

The judge has authority to enter a directed verdict at any time during the process, including when a jury is deliberating. He even has the authority to enter a JNOV after the verdict is in.

If a jury can't reach a verdict, he has the authority to enter a directed verdict, declare a mistrial with prejudice (meaning it's over), or declare a mistrial and instruct the parties to appear for re-trial on a certain date.

 

[JohnDB]

Judge can direct the verdict? Where did you come up with that? He can declare a mistrial with prejudice based on prosecutorial misconduct or something of that nature. Now that the jury is in deliberation, it's too late for that. If there is mistrial due to a hung jury, it will be up to the prosecutor whether they want to retry the case.

Not necessarily...
Especially from the preponderance of evidence and the prosecutor misconduct.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The shooter is responsible.

That only means that each bullet must be justifiably fired.

This is irrelevant to the Rittenhouse case.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The shooter is responsible.

So Alec Baldwin committed murder.