Thanks Molly and Rumpole
. This is what I learned from the video Molly posted.
Majority of jurors are undecided. Their questions;
Why was voluntary manslaughter offered in edition to murder?
(What) sufficient legal provocation means? Who does it apply to?
What is meant by imminent danger?
Define aforethought for murder?
Is there a time frame one second from the moment or the moment before?
Is the idea of self defense applied to a police officer the same as to an ordinary person?
****
The judge chose not to address the juror who stated that he will not convict.
Damn good defense attorney as he lays the blame of the misrepresentation of the 11/1 split squarely at the foot of the judge. Defense attorney also says that the foreman “may” not be allowing for a fair playing field for all of the jurors.
Unequivocal statement is that the majority of jurors are undecided.
The defense attorney asks the judge to follow precedent law as established by the Supreme and Circuit Court which goes to a policeman’s actions in the line of duty. Defense attorney also tells the boneheaded judge that the last question asked was already answered in the Grahm v Connor case. Connor
"The calculous of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second judgements in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”That is the
United State’s Supreme Court’s definition.
(Make no mistake this defense attorney is saying
“Save yourself the embarrassment of reversal on appeal.” )
Defense attorney reminds the judge that the defense has asked for this definition to be made clear from the bench since day one of the trial. This makes the judge look really really bad.
The judge is an ass. He said the jury is deliberating so they are not deadlocked. The jury is basically confined by the judge at the point of gun to the ruse of deliberation after at least one juror has said he is immovable.
The majority of the jurors are undecided means
some are decided. Lots of nonsensical verbal gymnastics from the black robe.
“There is one standard of self defense.” No there is not. The defense attorney just reminded you about the SCOTUS decision in Graham v Connor.
SCOTUS disagrees with you Judge. And a judge chuckling on the bench in a murder trial is ridiculous.
Defense attorney reminds the judge in open court
in accordance with the law as demanded from
his bench that the jury
may not lawfully consider Man Slaughter unless and until they decide that the defendant is not guilty of murder, if the jury is asking a question about Man Slaughter they can only be doing one of two things 1) defying the judges instructions or 2) have already found Slager not guilty of murder.
The judge’s amazing response “
That may be the belief of some it may not be the belief of others’’WHAT! 
It can’t be the belief of
“some and not others” Slager has either been found guilty of murder by 12 of his peers or he has not been found guilty. They don’t get to keep Murder on the back burner while they chat about man slaughter, that is called not guilty of Murder and then on to Man Slaughter deliberations. What a moron.
Ha! ha! The defense attorney tells a
sitting judge that his inaction may be viewed as coercion by the juror who sent the note about not being able to convict Slager.
I really like the defense attorney.
My opinion is that certain jurors decided Slager was guilty of murder before they walked in the courtroom. I believe the jurist, the judge, is one of those people.
PS I meant to say just from the questions the juror pool does not sound like all of them made it to the deep end of the gene pool.
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Yep.
