|
Post by bxjetfan on Jul 23, 2019 20:58:36 GMT -5
The judge can overturn the verdict. Read your own article putz. If he appeals, the jury found him guilty. That is how the system works. Judges can throw out verdicts. Thats how the system works too. You get paid by the post?
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Jul 23, 2019 21:01:10 GMT -5
John Solomon of The Hill just said Mifsuds lawyer is saying he was tasked with approaching Papadopoulos. Didnt say who tasked him. Its all falling apart. Conspiracy after conspiracy theory. Let’s play along and say it is true, did this person make him say what he said or next theory the person who approached him lied. An on and on. Bullshit. Comey, Clapper and others were running people at Trumps campaign and its all coming out. They're all going to jail. thehill.com/opinion/white-house/454409-robert-mueller-soon-may-be-exposed-as-the-magician-of-omission-on-russia
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 21:02:09 GMT -5
If he appeals, the jury found him guilty. That is how the system works. Judges can throw out verdicts. Thats how the system works too. You get paid by the post? Um feel free to show where the sitting Judge has the legal authority to throw out a jury’s verdict.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 21:03:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jul 23, 2019 21:12:19 GMT -5
Um feel free to show where the sitting Judge has the legal authority to throw out a jury’s verdict. Huh? A presiding judge can vacate or modify a jury's guilty verdict - that happened in that killer-dogs case back in SF way back when - and also happened in the British Nanny shaken-baby case. Not that that has anything to do with any present debate, but judges can and do.....
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Jul 23, 2019 21:14:30 GMT -5
Um feel free to show where the sitting Judge has the legal authority to throw out a jury’s verdict. Huh? A presiding judge can vacate or modify a jury's guilty verdict - that happened in that killer-dogs case back in SF way back when - and also happened in the British Nanny shaken-baby case. Not that that has anything to do with any present debate, but judges can and do..... She's a moron. It was mentioned in the article she linked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 21:51:52 GMT -5
Um feel free to show where the sitting Judge has the legal authority to throw out a jury’s verdict. Huh? A presiding judge can vacate or modify a jury's guilty verdict - that happened in that killer-dogs case back in SF way back when - and also happened in the British Nanny shaken-baby case. Not that that has anything to do with any present debate, but judges can and do..... Both of you examples were on appeal and granted a new trial. The sitting Judge would have to use Rule 33 after the verdict came back guilty. Does not happen very often.
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Jul 23, 2019 22:10:16 GMT -5
Huh? A presiding judge can vacate or modify a jury's guilty verdict - that happened in that killer-dogs case back in SF way back when - and also happened in the British Nanny shaken-baby case. Not that that has anything to do with any present debate, but judges can and do..... Both of you examples were on appeal and granted a new trial. The sitting Judge would have to use Rule 33 after the verdict came back guilty. Does not happen very often. LOL. Just admit you lied again.
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Jul 24, 2019 3:08:52 GMT -5
Does not happen very often. so it DOES happen and you are full of shit got it
|
|
|
Post by southparkcpa on Jul 24, 2019 4:05:07 GMT -5
NY passed a law.... how convenient. The whorehouse voting. HWM? Bullshit. The Supreme Court will decide if they have that power. They don’t. The constitution has no passage stating anything near that. BUt yes, liberal cock sucking leach states like NY that kill babies in the 9th month create new laws for their convenience. If Trump were from NJ, they would create a law. HWM are utilizing the existing law and Trump is desperate. Thats bullshit. There is NO existing law that allows this. They are trying to bend some current law and interpret it as such. The SC will hear the case or NYS will get there first. BUT if the law was clear, it would have happened already.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jul 24, 2019 7:23:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by quantum on Jul 24, 2019 8:00:26 GMT -5
apparently, Emily is a stupid, vapid twat.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jul 24, 2019 8:09:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jul 24, 2019 8:10:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jul 24, 2019 8:11:48 GMT -5
|
|