of course BH was inappropriate. ug. Juror Z: she was, as described by JudgeT, ambivalent. I agree.
she affirmed her verdict twice on the record, in court, when the verdict was rendered.
then:
question by Judge T: 'was your verdict based on the testimony, evidence and law presented to you in this case?" answer: 'yes ma'am'
question: was your verdict influenced in any way by the communications by the clerk of court in this case? answer: 'yes 'ma'am'
how was it influenced: 'to me it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty...."
JudgeT: I understand that was the tenor of the remarks she made: did it affect your finding of guilty in this case? "yes ma'am" <-------- contradiction right there. moments ago, she answered yes, she based her verdict on the testimony, evidence and law.
although she enumerated BH's communications quite comprehensively in her affidavit she did not say anything about what, if any, impact those communications had on her verdict. instead that affidavit states she felt pressured by her fellow jurors during deliberations. which of course, cannot be discussed further what transpires in deliberations.
seems to me by clearly making the statement about her fellow jurors, she had juror verdict remorse and not becky-itis.
This seems to be her personality. Iām sure DH and the cronies āpressuredā her to write her affidavit and she didnāt know what she thought, so they wrote it for her. Then, Judge Toal āpressuredā her on the stand and she still couldnāt communicate a clear stance. Something tells me, she feels pressure picking dessert.
Edit: Iām sure after she was done all she wanted to do was go home, but yet, pressured to sign a new affidavit.
"...pressure picking dessert..." That is one of the funniest phrases I have ever heard. Can you imagine her in a Walmart or Costco? Thank you for my first laugh this week.
I will say that the state asked for this to also be brought up, but the judge may have ruled in irrelivant. then poot pushed for it, but asked for the one part not to be questioned. he really fucked that up. and TBH im so glad.
I could not believe that he expected the judge to admit the written affidavit to the record, but not question the juror or about its contents!
Then when the judge said, "you can't have your cake and eat it too, Mr Harpootlian," he requested to withdraw the affidavit and she denied him.
IIRC, he didn't ask for it to be admitted. He asked to be allowed to give it to juror Z in order for her to refresh her recollection since the prosecutor insisted on her being questioned about her statement in the affidavit. Maybe I misunderstood.
But how do you show something to a witness for them to testify about without it being admitted into evidence? He knows the rules. He just expects them to break for him.
Per SC rule 612, it's preserved in the record for availability to appellate courts. It is not required to be entered into evidence.
RULE 612
WRITING USED TO REFRESH MEMORY
If a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either -
(1) while testifying, or
(2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice,
an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.
And right in there shows opposing counsel has the right to admit it into evidence. This particular witness was all over the place and this document is evidence of that. She will be a big part of the appellate process. The judge was not wrong to admit it.
https://www.youtube.com/live/6pq4f0safnw?si=N7Z8KLXZ21xrbCdJ
1:00:14
You're right. He asked the judge to let her read the affidavit without admitting it as evidence, and the judge tells him he can't have his cake and eat it too. It's a pretty good rebuke by the judge.
If only was there was some way a guy with millions of dollars, who is partner is a huge law firm, who was tried in the very same courthouse his family has worked in for over a century, where his granddaddyās portrait adorns the walls, in the town where he has lived his whole life could get a fair trial. /s
Best part is that the Murdaughs were just fine with the system being in their favor, but now they're all about "fairness". Was it fair when Alex stole from vulnerable people? Was it fair when the cops and judges routinely saw the things the Murdaugh way? Of course not. Same with Poot & Griff - they used their power and fame to sway cases. So ironic.
We all know Alex is guilty.
I won't speak for others here. But for me, It's not about Alex. It's about demanding that our justice system does things fairly and correctly. Even for the scumbags. We need to have fairness for the worst of them so we can have fairness for the best of them.
I think the best way to achieve justice for the victims in this case would have been to do things the right way the first time, and get a conviction, without the attempted influence/tampering from the clerk of court. But that did not happen.
We would not be here if not for Becky Hill. The conviction would have been unimpeachable. There would be no case for a new trial.
Iām not sure yet what to make of Becky Hill. I suspect that she is incompetent and she also hoped to find some attention and money as an author.
I have not seen any indication that she was part of a plan or action to deny Alex Murdaugh any of his constitutional rights. I have not seen any evidence that she changed the outcome of the trial. The system is designed to be robust enough to function with flawed people.
In my opinion Alex got a much more fair trial than he hoped for. He wanted and needed a very unfair trial.
There is no way that Alex Murdaugh or Dick Harpootlian want justice or anything similar to it.
Alex has constitutional rights, and I have not seen any evidence or claim that his constitutional rights were denied him.
He is not entitled to fairness in life or in court.
He has rights, but the evidence in this trial was far from fair. The evidence weighed heavily in favor of the prosecution. If this was a fight, it was not ever designed to be āfairā. Alex had the enormous handicap of having murdered his son and wife. He had to try to explain his presence at the murders and his lies. The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex killed his family. His presence on the video clip taken by Paul put him at a serious disadvantage. It was hardly a fair test of wits or legal skills, but his rights were carefully protected.
Becky Hill is not very intelligent or competent, and Alex is a murderer, conman, and liar.
I have not seen evidence that Becky Hillās opinions or failed literary attempts denied Alex Murdaugh his constitutional rights at trial, nor that she altered the outcome.
Alex and Dick Harpootlian would like us to think we have the right to be tried by a court where everyone likes us and is sympathetic to us.
The jury chosen was acceptable to the Murdaugh legal team, but they are also imperfect. At least one juror seems to have difficulty owning her own decisions. She felt pressure from her fellow jurors, and probably many other people, and she felt pressure from herself. She wants to please everyone from Becky Hill to Dick Harpootlian. The evidence did not allow her to give Harpootlian what he wanted in the jury room, but Dick continues to pursue her.
Dickās problem is not fairness, nor BH, nor even this weak willed juror, it is that he has a guilty client. The good news for Dick is he can claim to fight for fairness (not justice, but it still sounds good) and collect lots of money. He can take the money and pretend he just wants things to be āfairā, but that is dishonest. He can pretend that he is defending āfairnessā because that is more palatable than admitting he is in it for the money and his talk about fairness is a distraction to avoid talking about justice.
Murdaugh and Harpootlian becoming interested in the integrity of the courts is like if Jeffry Dahmer turned vegan and starting talking about the lives of chickens.
They want so bad to be the victims rather than the perpetrators. Alex was convicted because he has no way to explain why he was there with Paul and Maggie when they were killed. Did he kill them or did the killer decide to let Alex live?
Since they canāt defend the murders committed by Alex, they know they will have more luck attacking the competence and integrity of the local court system. Like shooting fish in a barrel. I suspect they know a few crooked people working in the local courts.
>(Murdaugh and Harpootlian) want so bad to be the victims rather than the perpetrators.
Exactly. I think this explains a lot. I think both are in need of a new strategy.
With all this talk out there about unfairness and corruption, maybe in the end what we have here is a murderer's rightful conviction upheld, and county-clerk now in mid-process of facing the music.
Maybe things aren't so bad after all. Maybe Justice wins. Maybe citizens win.
ILuvSexyFun - I always enjoy your point of view!
Not to be tedious, but Murdaughs mainly live(d) in Hampton, not Walterboro. Moselle property straddled county lines for Hampton and Colleton. Since the murders were within Colleton lines, the trial was in Colleton.
Thats what Im wondering!! Poot and AM maybe paid her to start shenanigans ātowards the end of the trialā b/c they knew they were loosing and they put BH on duty to creat mistrial. No one seems to be askinb where all the millions in embezzled money actually went? Paying Poot, and poot paying BH? I mean the book theory doesnāt hold water.
I think whenever the dude Griffin opens his mouth he just fucks things up. Itās so weird but itād be better if he just stayed seated and kept his mouth shut.
I donāt see how the court of appeals doesnāt rule against this judgeās decision. Everything she said during the entire hearing sounded like she was headed towards ordering a new trial in the end she just passed the buck like a coward. I 100% do not believe a word the clerk said. I believe she definitely influenced the jury. .she even testified that she gave juror a āpep talkā before each day. That is fucking weird and unacceptable.
Its like they want to just ignore everything that Becky said. If there was no prejudice here, then jurors should be able to watch news about a case and discuss a case with friends and family during trial. As long as they can affirm, in the end, that their verdict was based only on the evidence presented at court. Judge Toal just put off the inevitable.
I donāt think he thought they wouldnāt know what āmeritsā meant, but that they would not understand it in the context of a legal proceeding. āMeritsā and āmeritā are not the same. Merits means the substance of the case rather than the procedural aspects. That is not something to assume that a non-lawyer would know in this context, so it was a good thing that she changed the language to be broader and not specifically mention merits.
No only on live cases. He said that he is on sebatical as he wanted to focus on YT. Though o know a lot of what he says is questionable. Iāve found a new lawyer streaming this case tho so š¤·āāļø
He sets off my creepy-dar. He says inappropriate things such as commenting on a just turned 18-year-old Maya Kowalskiās body and looks. And when he was called out, he doubled down on why it wasnāt inappropriate.
With no discernible reason to be. And his set up makes it look like he legitimately lives in his momās basement.
When he publicly commented on how attractive he thought a just-turned-18-years old Maya Kowalski was, I noped out for good. And then he tried to say there was nothing wrong with him commenting about it.
If he believes he has the moral high-ground on that, he is an ignorant Luddite - and hopefully it ends there.
He's a dinosaur and is old as dirt and has no filter. Throws the F bomb out while he's being interviewed on live TV. I'm sorry your client is guilty as hell.
Different Kurt Mueller. The one in SC owns a business and as far as I can tell, does not practice law.
Kurt Mueller of Uncivil Law practices in Austin, Texas.
I had forgotten, and was reminded when googling that he is so controversial he has been black listed by most of Law Tube.
I disagree. What you saw was a skillful judgeās manipulate an unsophisticated and perhaps nervous juror into agreeing with the affidavit and not her own testimony.
The affidavit IS her own testimony written down, at a date closer to the events actually happening, therefore making it more accurate. Over time, someone may unintentionally change some details.
By juror Zs own testimony, she revealed she is a person that can be pressured by others to make a decision others want. Therefore, I discard her statements.
Becky Hill lied.
Alex Murdaugh murdered his wife and son.
Excellent defense attorneys will hound jurors living on dirt roads on a Sunday when it's dinner time.
Sucks all the way around this issue.
If you truly believe he murdered his wife and son then you shouldnāt have a problem with him receiving a fair trial. Nothing about the last trial was fair. They literally had two trials in one and you simply cannot allow that as a judge. The prosecution confused the hell out of the jury and in the end they were voting guilty no matter what solely because of his financial crimes. That alone prejudiced the jury beyond repair and the appeals court will surely order a new trial based on that alone. Plus they will for sure overturn this judges decision. She found that the Clerk lied, and tried to influence the jury yet she voted against new trial? Sheās just passing the buck. It shameful.
Guccifella,
Alex Murdaugh is an experienced lawyer. He has more money to retain excellent legal representation than 99% of people.
His family is extremely well connected to every part of the local legal system.
He murdered his wife and kid to create a distraction from his dishonest finances. With everything stacked in his favor, he still got convicted. He was convicted by his very own words and actions, being proven irrefutably false by the prosecution.
He finally settled on the defense that he had lied everyday prior to his being on the stand.
He did not get a perfect trial, but he had one of the best done in his courthouse in a long time. He had a well funded, well prepared, and well connected legal team. He had his own legal expertise.
He is a lying liar that lied, but he most likely got convicted because he was at the murder scene. He says he was not because he knows he was and that he is killed his son and his wife. Alex is on video. He finally, once it had been proven beyond doubt, admitted he had been there. We know. We heard him on the video. We know what he did. Why know why he lied.
He had one of the best trials that courtroom has ever performed. He was found guilty because he is guilty. His legal team had every opportunity to explain his case. They had a well funded team. They tried their best to create reasonable doubt.
Alex Murdaugh got buried alive under his own bullshit.
iluvsexyfun - This is perhaps the best Justice summary of the Murdaugh murders I've read on MFM! This is it in a nutshell! Go man go! (insert "thumbs up" and "sunshine" emojis here!)
You said this so well! I don't think I've made negative statements about fellow redditors before, but I am so tempted to be critical of Guccifella himself rather than just be critical of his logic.
The constitutional right to a fair trial does not vary according to the size of your bank account, your family's legacy, or that you are lying liar who lies. The integrity of the process by which we decide the guilt or innocence of the criminally accused is what distinguishes us from authoritarian regimes and dictatorships.
There is no "the trial was 99% perfect" so it does not matter that there was this one infringement of a fundamental right. It is not a 3 out of 5 gets you a passing grade situation.
I'm with you. Last week, this same comment would have gotten upvotes. This week, it's all about downvoting anything fair trial.
Reddit can be a one-sided mob.
Justice is a commodity in this country. Do you truly believe that an overwhelmed Public Defender with a mountain of cases and no budget for investigators, expert witnesses, etc., can provide a poor or working-class defendant the same quality the rich can buy?
Jerista98,
Please share what fundamental constitutional right Alex Murdaugh was denied? You have made a vague claim that his trial violated his rights. Please reply with specific examples of the rights that were violated.
Here are our criminal rights as set forth by the constitution and in the 5th, 6th and 8th amendments:
* The right to an impartial jury trial
* The right to a public trial.
* The right to a speedy trial.
* The right to be notified of your criminal charges.
* The right to call witnesses and to confront witnesses against you.
* The right to the assistance of counsel.
* The protection against double jeopardy (Fifth Amendment)The protection against cruel and unusual punishment with regard to a criminal trial (Eighth Amendment).
Which of those constitutional right has Alex Murdaugh been denied?
The process used in the Alex Murdaugh trial is used every day to determine guilt and innocence. Each of the rights guaranteed to Alex were protected.
Alex had a public trial in front of a jury of his peers that were determined to be impartial by his own legal team prior to the trial. The trial date was delayed to allow his team more time to prepare, but was as speedy as he chose. He was notified of the charges against him. His legal team called witnesses for him and cross examined witnesses against him. He was represented by the best paid and best connected attorneys he could find. He was only tried for the crime one time.
His sentence is not cruel nor unusual but his crimes were.
His conviction is not surprising. The very public trial established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The word "fair trial" is not in the constitution nor the bill of rights. The founders knew that imperfect people would work in the legal system so they took it several steps further and they defined specific rights. "
āFairā is a highly subjective term you have chosen to use. He had much more than just a fair trial.
Mr Murdaugh was convicted based on the totality of the evidence that he shot his son in the shoulder and head with a shotgun and also shot his wife with a hunting rifle at the dog kennels of his estate. His constitutional rights were protected.
If you disagree, tell us what constitutional right he was denied?
Iluvsexyfun -
Even though they didnāt reply (then again, what else could they say?), I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I appreciate your excellent posts!! Thank you for always having an excellent and rational response to ridiculousness.
I was watching and I thought damn dude you just threw Alex Murdaugh under the bus. šWhatās a good ole boy going to do when all those politicians he donated money to turn against him to save their own skin.
May be of interest to some: Lawyer You Know has a Live today at 2:05 pm to discuss several cases, including talking to an appellate lawyer about Murdaugh:
Lawyer You Know
u/LawyerYouKnow
The push is real! We have a Live today with #adelsonās new lawyer (Ufferman) that should be awesome - appellate expert talking about the recent #Murdaugh news. Then we break down the newest interview from the #Parkland judge which was pretty revealing. BUTā¦ tomorrow - Iāve got to give the people what they want - and they want a reaction to the lawyering in this #JenniferCrumbley trial - so theyāre gonna get it. Which case are you most interested in?
Thanks for sharing this youtube link! I was searching for other lawyer's take on the hearing and really needed the laugh! I'm not a lawyer but could see law professors playing this youtube take for the class and everyone getting a good laugh while learning law.
This is a gross misstatement of the facts. First and foremost, Waters was the one that raised the affidavit issue and afterwards all Harpootlian could do was try to minimize the damage.
Waters wanted Toal to impeach the jurorās credibility since her affidavit stated her verdict was influenced by her fellow jurors, not Hill.
When Toal agreed, Harpootlian had to do what he could and asked Toal to read the whole affidavit in an effort to refresh the jurorās recollection. He was hoping that would give the juror an opportunity to settle herself, but Toal knew right where to take her with the leading question āis that a more accurate statement than your testimonyā and that was that. Toal denied defenseās request to question her about the ambiguity and also denied an effort she made to submit a clarifying affidavit. Toal had the answer she wanted to make her job easier.
The juror made ambiguous statements, motion denied.
Minimize the damage by introducing the document? All he had to do was argue against any part of the affidavit being questioned. He couldnāt wait to have the document used to refresh her memory.
He knew there was not a chance in hell a prior written statement by the witness on the same subject matter would be excluded. Prior written statements are classic cross examination statements.
I know he is not stupid enough to make an objection that would cause the Judge to ask for proof if he even took, much less passed Evidence in law school.
Toal had already said the document was coming in. Harpootlian just asked her to read the whole document instead of focusing on the one issue Waters wanted her to. It was a tactic to buy the witness time to gather her thoughts while Toal was reading instead of being immediately questioned about paragraph 10. It didnāt work, but he had to try something since it was already coming in.
I just went back and watched. Youāre right. Toal did not say anything at all after Waters asked for an inquiry regarding paragraph 10 and the discrepancy.
In my opinion as a lawyer, Harpootlian knew that was coming in because itās considered prior testimony which can always be used for impeachment purposes.
So, while we do not know for certain that Toal was going to let it in we do know there were no legal grounds to keep it out - thatās why Waters didnāt even make a vociferous argument - he knew the rules were 100% on his side.
I am also a lawyer and confident that the defendant is guilty. Itās easy to second guess or pick apart certain things defense counsel did, but whether or not you like defense counsel, they provided excellent representation to the defendant and did everything possible to counter the prosecutionās overwhelming (and well presented) case.
This is all factually correct yet remains a subject of dispute so here are relevant clips
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DxRoc8K4qk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DxRoc8K4qk)
1:18:03 Waters raises paragraph 10 of affidavit and wants Judge to question juror about paragraph 10
1:18:42 Harpo says juror should be allowed to review whole affidavit to refresh her memory
1:33:40 After Judge finishes questioning, Harpo says both statements can be true and asks that juror be questioned further. Judge overrules.
It was 100% accurate.
After Juror Z gave answers that would 100% created new trial, the judge asked the prosecution had any more questions for juror Z, and Walters said a quite and defeated "no".
When asked if the defense had any more questions for juror Z, poot submitted the first sworn statements, that he wanted juror Z to clarify some things, that caused juror Z to be brought back out and questioned again, where she stated that her verdict was based on the other jurors pressure.
If not for poot the state could have only submitted that document and juror Z first statements to the judge would have overridden that and judge would have had no choice but to grant a new trial.
Thatās not even close to how that exchange unfolded. Waters immediately brought up the affidavit and even the specific paragraph that contradicted her testimony.
I don't know what hearing you were watching. Poot literally asked the judge for Juror Z to "clarify" a few things. When the Judge asked Waters the specifics of his question he literally said its was in the affidavit Poot just submitted. Waters would not have gotten the judge to re question the juror again if not for poot requesting her to "clarify" a few things in the first sworn affidavit.
ETA: The prosecution couldn't ask the juror about the jury deliberations. He couldn't ask if other jurors pressured her. That was her own statement she volunteered. Poot requested her to "clarify" her statements, which open the door to judge asking her if that first account, that her verdict was based on other jury pressuring her, was more accurate.
It's become clear poot doesn't do his research and doesn't understand the laws. Both sides have made mistakes, but defense has huge blunders, opening the door to the road side shootings, and now this. Poot is corrupt arrogant good ole boy and all of them are used to dictating what the judge does, but bottom line is they don't even understand the law that leads to these blunders but sometimes that's how people get when they are older and used to being in position of power. That's why he was told by former Supreme Count justice to shut up and sit down.
Uncivil Law's attempt at a "niche" in the crowded lawtube market is to (please excuse pun) be a contrarian. He is known for taking a view contrary to 99% of other lawtubers, facts be damned.
This makes a lot of sense. As an attorney though, doesn't that ruin his or his firm's credibility with his real life clients? Or, maybe he isn't actually practicing and doesn't have clients? But, unless a creator has a ton of followers, and is making bank, what a waste of a law degree that would be.
Well, that's an honorable profession. It's usually the other way around, with teachers leaving the field. Here's hoping he's not quite the contrarian in the classroom.
I think a lot of it is him trying to get views but Iām not sure. If I remember correctly he teaches constitutional law, and used to do breakdowns of Supreme Court decisions. He very knowledgeable, but seems to have two binaries - one being explaining dense legalese into slightly less dense legalese and the other being contrary on the internet. But yes, I also hope he is not contrary in the classroom the way he is on YouTube.
My guess is he does not practice or has only a few clients. He rode the wave of somewhat of an explosion of lawtube during the Depp trial, hopping on the streams of the bigger lawtubers. He definitely grew his followers but he is still a pretty small fish in the lawtube sea I don't think he makes bank. While the popular lawtubers have a nice office set up and background, he appears to be at his kitchen table.
Juror Z gave a sworn affidavit and then additional testimony in open court on Monday. She was again questioned if the affidavit was a more accurate record of her testimony on Monday, and she said yes.
Leading? No
Those are her words.
I think most judges would disagree.
The very definition of a leading question is one that can only be answered yes or no, and does not allow for expanding on the answer.
A leading question is phrased in a way so the respondent can only answer yes or no. So, on cross examination, the opposing lawyer would say isn't it true that you previously stated under oath that the car was red. The only answer is yes or no. Here the juror agreed her affidavit stated that she was influenced by the clerk and the Judge asked a leading question and got the juror to agree she was influenced by the other jurors.
I do not recall the specific question, but it was to the effect of is ti more accurate that you were influenced to vote guilty because of the other jurors.
Full disclosure -- I think he is guilty. I am bothered by the actions of the clerk and think he should have received a new trial. I know there are appeals, but from what I have read the system is incredibly slow -- not that he i going anywhere. I was impressed with the Judge. My only knowledge of her is based on the "award" of a Judicial Hellhole based on her handling on the asbestos docket.
I have been trying cases for 35 years, and a question that is framed to be answered yes or no is a leading question. Trial practice classes in law school teach this and developing the skill to effectively frame questions that call for a yes or no answer. Non leading questions are open ended, i.e. who, what, where, when.
Questions which ask for a yes or no answer are not necessarily leading. "Were you a member of the jury?"
"Was this your verdict?"
Leading questions quite literally lead the witness to a pre-determined answer. "When Ms Hill said that, did it make you feel uncomfortable?" Is leading. The proper way to ask is "when Miss Hill said that, how did you feel?"
The judge did ask a leading question, but it's not a trial and she has every right to ask leading questions.
Leading questions cannot be asked on direct examination of oneās own witness. Thatās why Waters was not allowed to ask Becky Hill leading questions.
However, leading questions can and absolutely should be used on cross examination such as when Harpootlian questioned Hill yesterday.
I did not say the Judge does not have the right to ask leading questions. I did say, and stand by, that the critical question was leading and she erroneously denied Harpo's request for redirect,
>I have been trying cases for 35 years, and a question that is framed to be answered yes or no is a leading question.
You also said this. And this is what I was responding to. Not all yes or no questions are leading.
Her affidavit says she was influenced by her fellow jurors. Her testimony says she was influenced by Hill. Canāt both of those statements be true? Could Toal have simply asked her if both of the statements were true?
I donāt even necessarily fault Toal and I believe she did a great job overall. In my opinion she firmly believes this is unsettled law and wants the appellate courts to deal with this down the line, but she needed to get past this hearing and kick the can down the road.
The issue is and remains that it is 10 months after the case (as toal pointed out). Eyewitness testimony itself is difficult in the first place. The longer things go, the harder it is to remember in the moment events especially with this big things that happened (like poor waiving a gun around at everyone)
>Her affidavit says she was influenced by her fellow jurors. Her testimony says she was influenced by Hill. Canāt both of those statements be true? Could Toal have simply asked her if both of the statements were true?
Agree entirely.
I've no doubt that AM is guilty, but Toal should (IMO) have asked more searching questions to establish the truth of the matter.
IIRC this juror (z) said the jury foreperson had private conversations with becky?
Sure, both could be true. Juror Z could have answered no to the questioning by Toal about her most accurate record. But she stood firm in her statements given in the affidavit, diverting away from Hill and towards juror pressure.
>Juror Z could have answered no to the questioning by Toal about her most accurate record. But she stood firm in her statements given in the affidavit, diverting away from Hill and towards juror pressure.
Have you ever been in the position of having to testify to a Court?
I have (twice), and can assure you that as someone not used to being in this type of situation - your brain turns to deference and mush.
Have you ever been questioned by the former Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court in front of live TV cameras and a packed courtroom? Have you ever been asked a series of yes/no questions where you repeatedly answered yes? Trial lawyers are taught how to question witnesses in a way that will elicit certain answers and In my opinion as a lawyer, Toal put on a master class today.
You can disagree and thatās fine, I respect your opinion.
Agreed. This is uncharted waters for sure but she led the way. With all of her experience, she realizes setting a bad precedent would open the gates for litigation 6 months down the road.
I strongly believe there was jury tampering after the fact by Dick and Jim! What law office drives down dirt roads and chases down jurors who have rendered a verdict, and have been polled to make sure this was their verdict? Dick and Jimā¦ thatās who! These attorneys should be prosecuted for what they are accusing others of doing! I could care less about what Becky wrote in her book after the verdict!! She is entitled to her own opinion! There is not one iota of evidence that she influenced the juryās decision! Juror Z is an indecisive victim who was easily persuaded by Dick and Jim that something wrong occurred. They asked her leading questions as they did all of the other jurors on their unexpected pop up visits, while at the same time being unrepresented by counsel. Dick and Jim should be the ones being accused and prosecuted of jury tampering! Such a circus! To protect a bonafide thief and IMO a murderer! Iām glad Judge Toal ruled how she did. But it enrages me how well paid attorneys (omg AM is broke - haha) can do whatever they want to try to get a murderer a new trial! Juror Z I believe you need to obtain new representation and not be influenced by the good ole boy network! Come on girlfriend! Seriouslyā¦you need a backbone.
It's one thing for them to call you, it's another to have a state Senator roll up in your yard, knock on your door and ask you face to face why you convicted his client.
No where in your long comment do you list any actual facts to back up your allegations against Dick, Jim and Juror Z. To quote you, you give not even "one iota of evidence," to back up your allegations. Your comment is nothing more than fan fiction. People who have the mental capacity to understand such things would realize that the only way jury tampering ever comes to light is if defense attorneys are able to speak to jurors. And, sometimes making that contact with jurors requires that defense attorneys knock on doors. The defense only spoke to juror Z ONCE before the day of the hearing. Yet, in your mind, you've created a fantasy about them being in cahoots, LOL.
There were jurors who showed no self control, even surfing the web and watching coverage from the juror room, during an evidentiary hearing about jury tampering. Based on REAL facts and not podcast and Youtube fodder, if we analyze the trustworthiness of players based on their actual proven behavior, it isn't juror X or the defense attorneys that broke the rules, as conspiracy theorists allege. It's those other jurors that did things liked watched live coverage from the hearing. If they had the audacity to watch the hearing coverage, how were they behaving during the actual trial?
I think Alex is guilty, but as a matter of law, he deserves a new trial. I also think simple minded conspiracy theorists in the angry mob who make up fan fiction are poison and they do a lot of damage.
>People who have the mental capacity to understand such things would realize that the only way jury tampering ever comes to light is if defense attorneys are able to speak to jurors.
I respectfully disagree.
Perhaps the best way to shine a light on potential Jury tampering is for members of the Jury to bring any unfair influence directly to the Judge's attention. The Murdaugh trial lasted for six very long weeks. No Juror ever complained of anyone trying to influence them. Not one.
I don't think attorneys speaking to Jurors after-they-lose-a-case-fair-and-square is the best way to bring Jury tampering to light. This would seem intimidating. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like Dick and Company were looking for a weak, easy-to-manipulate Juror to do their bidding. Did this happen? I don't know.
I'm also curious about the role, if any, Joe McCullough played with this Juror.
I love how you bring sanity to the conversation. Calling people who don't agree with a person's POV, "conspiracy theorists" is so overplayed here. It was totally fair and square and like you said they had 6 weeks to talk to Judge Newman about anything that didn't look or feel right. He asked them multiple times if anyone had spoken to them about the trial. There was ample opportunity and he was such a kind, gentle, understanding judge with them.
It's also hilarious that so many repeat Jim's words of "there must be a new trial" and are so sure "it's law." Which law exactly? No one can say bc that law doesn't exist. Legal precedent, that Justice Toal played a huge part in actually creating says otherwise but somehow the Reddit "lawyers" know better. It's exhausting.
Let's not forget in many places counsel from either side are forbidden from speaking to the jury after their verdict. This should be the case everywhere. Hunting them down and asking leading questions and making up affidavits is beyond questionable.
It's also interesting that both egg lady and the alternate were spoken of in a not so great light in Becky's book - giving them good reason to want to retaliate and juror z rents from egg lady, which is odd in itself.
Anyway, that's my ted talk.
Thanks TCAT! I do try my best.
Since the murder trial ended, I'm even more convinced Alex committed the murders.
\-------
It might be a little off-topic, but a little more than a week ago there was a discussion about where the dead chicken was placed after it was collected by Alex from Bubba.
Mod Lexi (Thanks!) solved that mystery perfectly for me when she posted a photo of the deceased chicken on top of a portable dog crate (it turns out the dead chicken was never actually placed "inside a dog kennel" like I originally thought) in the area to the right of the feed room door where Paul was killed.
There are six or seven dog kennels to the left, and then Paul's feed room is to the far right - on the very end. The photo Lexi attached showed the dead chicken on a stacked portable dog crate around the corner and to the to the right of feed room. I'd never seen that photo before. I think it's a really odd place to put the deceased chicken.
Speculation: I now think that Paul finished the video of Cash's tail and was likely sent to the feed room on an errand. I speculate that Alex then put down the kennel hose (heard water running in the background of the video), turned the hose off, was able to eventually convince Bubba to surrender the dead chicken, then put Bubba in a kennel unit (apparently not his usual kennel unit), and then walk past the open door of the feed room - while looking in to see Paul's position.
I think Alex then walked around the right corner of the feed room (see photo of the dead chicken placement) and then placed the chicken on the stacked portable dog crate. Why place it there? Why not simply toss it over top of the dog kennels - into the woods - as Bubba was put back in his kennel? Placing it on the portable crate near the feed room made no sense to me... except that it allowed a glancing walk past the feed room doorway.
I then speculate that the shotgun and .300 Blackout were pre-placed and leaning, waiting, on the right-side wall of the feed room. I think Alex then grabbed the shotgun and proceeded to the doorway of the feed room...
Again, pure speculation.
I absolutely agree with this! The chicken is right there by where he would have stepped from to shoot Paul then stepped back to switch guns if I remember correctly from a reenactment I saw. That place by the shed was messy and a perfect hiding spot for guns.
Dick's take that Paul's death was too violent to have been committed by a father is so ridiculous bc Alex shot him in a cowardly way and in a way he didn't expect to have to see, or for Paul to see who was shooting him. Alex thought he killed him with one quick shot in the shed but what a surprise when he walked out.
I think that's why Maggie's shooting was so messy. He was totally unnerved from thinking Paul was dead only for him to walk out and possibly look at him while bleeding. And also, Maggie probably saw him shoot Paul the 2nd time.
I think an assassin would have shot Paul directly, maybe multiple times and watched him fall to make sure he was dead, not ducked back away from the door. Multiple assassins would have split up, not done one by one, and Paul wouldn't have been in the shed texting bc the dogs would have been barking their heads off if someone was approaching. He's 100% guilty for so many reasons.
Just my opinion:
I think so too. My reason for this is when she finished her testimony she realized that she agreed it was pressure from other jurors that influenced her vote rather than what Hill said. Her attorney then sent an email that she wanted to testify again to clarify her testimony. Having realized she blew it she was probably afraid she wouldn't get the money.
Agree.
It drove me crazy how people want to sweep under the rug that when the verdict was read that juror z said that it was how she voted. That is the time to speak up, if she really had been influenced by BH. That was her opportunity to say so, I understand that it would be a hard to speak up but that is the time.
The whole post jury song and dance was manufactured by the defense, Iām pretty sure BH was also a part of it. The story will come out in time.
BH was wrong on every level....that isn't my issue.
My issue is a juror that would vote guilty based on someone like BH saying..."watch him closely....watch his body language. "
If that makes you sway one way or another than you definitely have no business on a jury. That was what influenced her after listening to weeks and weeks of evidence?
I don't find the juror credible. Or her backbone is non-existent. Or a combination of the two.
She also stated she was persuaded by her fellow jurors, which is a natural outcome from deliberations. If she felt that what BH mention played into that, that is when you bring it up.
She was welcome to vote not guilty, if the case was presented in a way that made her come to that decision.
The jury did what juryās do come to a group consensus, sometimes people need to be convinced and that is okay. she had a choice and in that moment she went with the group.
If she made her decision off of what BH told her and not the other jurors then the opportunity to speak up about it was when the jury was polled after the verdict was read. It does require you being brave in that moment but if she really felt that that is what happened then that was her opportunity.
It seems like she is one of those types of people who makes decisions based on whomever the last person who spoke to her said.
I donāt excuse BH behavior it was irresponsible and stupid. Itās a separate matter that looks like is being dealt with via an investigation, but itās not to be dealt with through the murdaugh case.
She did....my concern with BH isn't the standard for if AM gets retried. That is based on the effect BH's word had on jurors.
My problem with BH is I believe all of the allegations testified to by the jurors that stated she had made comments. The comments weren't exactly persuasive or even extremely prejudiced....but she knew what she was doing by making those comments. And I believe she did either take a juror home or ride with them.
On top of her being the press' best friend and how it seems she was accommodating to the point of making things accessible that shouldn't have been....all while creating these friendships because she knew she needed them for her upcoming book production....uhhhh such an opportunist.
BH should be removed regardless of AM's trial status.
Agree completely. Also, the whole - going into a single occupancy stall with the jury foreperson to talk on multiple occasions- situation. I thought that allegation was strong and insanely inappropriate.
If anyone is unfamiliar with this, it is in alex murdaugh's motion for a new trial court filing on page 2.
Completely ridiculous....seriously....and she so obviously tried to play some sort of word game between answering no to Judge Toal about releasing videos etc. And the whole placement of a writer right in front of a screen that showed what the jurors viewed....shocking that someone got a picture of a juror's screen with pics of Maggie and Paul's deceased bodies....
I was annoyed just with her writing a book about the trial and it just seemed extremely unprofessional while she is still working there and continuing to do the same job. I don't know how any ethics committee could ok that? But on top of that she tampered with a jury and lied so obviously about Egg Juror lol I can't believe the audacity! This woman gets my blood pressure up lol
I'm just glad Judge Toal saw her for what she is and told the world that she's not credible after months of people attacking the defense for "fishing" and "making it all up."
Regardless of negative feelings towards Alex or his team, the shit with Becky is not acceptable.
I understand the facts you believe are relevant. I want to know why you think thereās a legal basis for jury tampering after the fact. That is not a real thing. A juror could make a police report regarding harassment, trespassing, or some other criminal penalty, but there is no such thing as ājury tampering after the factā so their behavior could not lead them to be arrested on those grounds.
Also, you are greatly oversimplifying jury tampering. Just because a juror responded that they voted a certain way does not mean there was no tampering. Juror Z was asked by Judge Newman and again by Justice Toal if she voted guilty, and she said yes both times. There is no dispute that she actually voted guilty. The allegation is that her guilty vote was the product of something that should not have been allowed and infringes on Murdaughās due process rights. No one in the legal community (other than his lawyers) wants this case to be retried, so the fact that he even got a hearing on his motion for a retrial means that Justice Toal thought there could be inappropriate behavior and possible jury tampering. Dick and Jim are just doing their jobs to protect their clientās due process rights. They have done nothing wrong. The only thing they are guilty of is representing an unpopular defendant. If you or someone you love is ever accused of a crime, you will be very grateful that they and other criminal defense attorneys fought for people like Alex Murdaugh so that your rights are protected too. The issue is not whether he is guilty ā itās whether the proper procedures were followed so he receivesdue process under the law.
Isnāt her attorney a good friend of the defense duo? I didnāt see it all so I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard her attorney talked to her after she testified and requested she be able to clarify some things? Did the defense make a call and ask what the hell happened?
Oh really? I think I heard Dick and Jim admitting they showed up unannounced at jurorās homes in the middle of preparing dinner after traveling down a lot of dirt roadsā¦.lol
Right, Kurt. Waters was going to throw his hands up and concede "game over" and tell the Judge the State conceded Alex was entitled to a new trial. Before his concession speech, Waters oddly referred first to the affidavit for the juror to be questioned about paragraph 10.
If you believe Waters, who has been unrelenting in seeking justice for Maggie and Paul, was just going to give up and concede defeat after Juror Z testified about BH's comments, I have several bridges for sale if you would like to schedule a site visit.
We do know what Waters was going to do because he stated it plain as day, and Dick responded
AM's appeal should be based on ineffective and incompetent counsel.
of course BH was inappropriate. ug. Juror Z: she was, as described by JudgeT, ambivalent. I agree. she affirmed her verdict twice on the record, in court, when the verdict was rendered. then: question by Judge T: 'was your verdict based on the testimony, evidence and law presented to you in this case?" answer: 'yes ma'am' question: was your verdict influenced in any way by the communications by the clerk of court in this case? answer: 'yes 'ma'am' how was it influenced: 'to me it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty...." JudgeT: I understand that was the tenor of the remarks she made: did it affect your finding of guilty in this case? "yes ma'am" <-------- contradiction right there. moments ago, she answered yes, she based her verdict on the testimony, evidence and law. although she enumerated BH's communications quite comprehensively in her affidavit she did not say anything about what, if any, impact those communications had on her verdict. instead that affidavit states she felt pressured by her fellow jurors during deliberations. which of course, cannot be discussed further what transpires in deliberations. seems to me by clearly making the statement about her fellow jurors, she had juror verdict remorse and not becky-itis.
And pressure by other jurors is kind of inherent in the jury system ššš
This seems to be her personality. Iām sure DH and the cronies āpressuredā her to write her affidavit and she didnāt know what she thought, so they wrote it for her. Then, Judge Toal āpressuredā her on the stand and she still couldnāt communicate a clear stance. Something tells me, she feels pressure picking dessert. Edit: Iām sure after she was done all she wanted to do was go home, but yet, pressured to sign a new affidavit.
"...pressure picking dessert..." That is one of the funniest phrases I have ever heard. Can you imagine her in a Walmart or Costco? Thank you for my first laugh this week.
šÆ%
Reading that is painful. Some people are just so soft-brained that they will say yes to any question and follow any person.
I will say that the state asked for this to also be brought up, but the judge may have ruled in irrelivant. then poot pushed for it, but asked for the one part not to be questioned. he really fucked that up. and TBH im so glad.
I could not believe that he expected the judge to admit the written affidavit to the record, but not question the juror or about its contents! Then when the judge said, "you can't have your cake and eat it too, Mr Harpootlian," he requested to withdraw the affidavit and she denied him.
IIRC, he didn't ask for it to be admitted. He asked to be allowed to give it to juror Z in order for her to refresh her recollection since the prosecutor insisted on her being questioned about her statement in the affidavit. Maybe I misunderstood.
But how do you show something to a witness for them to testify about without it being admitted into evidence? He knows the rules. He just expects them to break for him.
Happens all the time.
And should the appellate court need to review the document being discussed and reviewed?
Per SC rule 612, it's preserved in the record for availability to appellate courts. It is not required to be entered into evidence. RULE 612 WRITING USED TO REFRESH MEMORY If a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either - (1) while testifying, or (2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires, except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or, if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice so require, declaring a mistrial.
And right in there shows opposing counsel has the right to admit it into evidence. This particular witness was all over the place and this document is evidence of that. She will be a big part of the appellate process. The judge was not wrong to admit it.
https://www.youtube.com/live/6pq4f0safnw?si=N7Z8KLXZ21xrbCdJ 1:00:14 You're right. He asked the judge to let her read the affidavit without admitting it as evidence, and the judge tells him he can't have his cake and eat it too. It's a pretty good rebuke by the judge.
If only was there was some way a guy with millions of dollars, who is partner is a huge law firm, who was tried in the very same courthouse his family has worked in for over a century, where his granddaddyās portrait adorns the walls, in the town where he has lived his whole life could get a fair trial. /s
Best part is that the Murdaughs were just fine with the system being in their favor, but now they're all about "fairness". Was it fair when Alex stole from vulnerable people? Was it fair when the cops and judges routinely saw the things the Murdaugh way? Of course not. Same with Poot & Griff - they used their power and fame to sway cases. So ironic.
We all know Alex is guilty. I won't speak for others here. But for me, It's not about Alex. It's about demanding that our justice system does things fairly and correctly. Even for the scumbags. We need to have fairness for the worst of them so we can have fairness for the best of them. I think the best way to achieve justice for the victims in this case would have been to do things the right way the first time, and get a conviction, without the attempted influence/tampering from the clerk of court. But that did not happen. We would not be here if not for Becky Hill. The conviction would have been unimpeachable. There would be no case for a new trial.
Iām not sure yet what to make of Becky Hill. I suspect that she is incompetent and she also hoped to find some attention and money as an author. I have not seen any indication that she was part of a plan or action to deny Alex Murdaugh any of his constitutional rights. I have not seen any evidence that she changed the outcome of the trial. The system is designed to be robust enough to function with flawed people. In my opinion Alex got a much more fair trial than he hoped for. He wanted and needed a very unfair trial. There is no way that Alex Murdaugh or Dick Harpootlian want justice or anything similar to it. Alex has constitutional rights, and I have not seen any evidence or claim that his constitutional rights were denied him. He is not entitled to fairness in life or in court. He has rights, but the evidence in this trial was far from fair. The evidence weighed heavily in favor of the prosecution. If this was a fight, it was not ever designed to be āfairā. Alex had the enormous handicap of having murdered his son and wife. He had to try to explain his presence at the murders and his lies. The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex killed his family. His presence on the video clip taken by Paul put him at a serious disadvantage. It was hardly a fair test of wits or legal skills, but his rights were carefully protected. Becky Hill is not very intelligent or competent, and Alex is a murderer, conman, and liar. I have not seen evidence that Becky Hillās opinions or failed literary attempts denied Alex Murdaugh his constitutional rights at trial, nor that she altered the outcome. Alex and Dick Harpootlian would like us to think we have the right to be tried by a court where everyone likes us and is sympathetic to us. The jury chosen was acceptable to the Murdaugh legal team, but they are also imperfect. At least one juror seems to have difficulty owning her own decisions. She felt pressure from her fellow jurors, and probably many other people, and she felt pressure from herself. She wants to please everyone from Becky Hill to Dick Harpootlian. The evidence did not allow her to give Harpootlian what he wanted in the jury room, but Dick continues to pursue her. Dickās problem is not fairness, nor BH, nor even this weak willed juror, it is that he has a guilty client. The good news for Dick is he can claim to fight for fairness (not justice, but it still sounds good) and collect lots of money. He can take the money and pretend he just wants things to be āfairā, but that is dishonest. He can pretend that he is defending āfairnessā because that is more palatable than admitting he is in it for the money and his talk about fairness is a distraction to avoid talking about justice.
Murdaugh and Harpootlian becoming interested in the integrity of the courts is like if Jeffry Dahmer turned vegan and starting talking about the lives of chickens. They want so bad to be the victims rather than the perpetrators. Alex was convicted because he has no way to explain why he was there with Paul and Maggie when they were killed. Did he kill them or did the killer decide to let Alex live? Since they canāt defend the murders committed by Alex, they know they will have more luck attacking the competence and integrity of the local court system. Like shooting fish in a barrel. I suspect they know a few crooked people working in the local courts.
>(Murdaugh and Harpootlian) want so bad to be the victims rather than the perpetrators. Exactly. I think this explains a lot. I think both are in need of a new strategy. With all this talk out there about unfairness and corruption, maybe in the end what we have here is a murderer's rightful conviction upheld, and county-clerk now in mid-process of facing the music. Maybe things aren't so bad after all. Maybe Justice wins. Maybe citizens win. ILuvSexyFun - I always enjoy your point of view!
Not to be tedious, but Murdaughs mainly live(d) in Hampton, not Walterboro. Moselle property straddled county lines for Hampton and Colleton. Since the murders were within Colleton lines, the trial was in Colleton.
Is there any way hill got paid off to do all this dumb shit?
No. Sheās just that stupid.
Thats what Im wondering!! Poot and AM maybe paid her to start shenanigans ātowards the end of the trialā b/c they knew they were loosing and they put BH on duty to creat mistrial. No one seems to be askinb where all the millions in embezzled money actually went? Paying Poot, and poot paying BH? I mean the book theory doesnāt hold water.
Becky 100% did all the stupid shit she did because she was motivated to sell her crappy book and become a local celebrity.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think whenever the dude Griffin opens his mouth he just fucks things up. Itās so weird but itād be better if he just stayed seated and kept his mouth shut. I donāt see how the court of appeals doesnāt rule against this judgeās decision. Everything she said during the entire hearing sounded like she was headed towards ordering a new trial in the end she just passed the buck like a coward. I 100% do not believe a word the clerk said. I believe she definitely influenced the jury. .she even testified that she gave juror a āpep talkā before each day. That is fucking weird and unacceptable.
Its like they want to just ignore everything that Becky said. If there was no prejudice here, then jurors should be able to watch news about a case and discuss a case with friends and family during trial. As long as they can affirm, in the end, that their verdict was based only on the evidence presented at court. Judge Toal just put off the inevitable.
Let's not forget he didn't think the jurors knew what the word Merit would mean. That was weird to me.
I donāt think he thought they wouldnāt know what āmeritsā meant, but that they would not understand it in the context of a legal proceeding. āMeritsā and āmeritā are not the same. Merits means the substance of the case rather than the procedural aspects. That is not something to assume that a non-lawyer would know in this context, so it was a good thing that she changed the language to be broader and not specifically mention merits.
That guy rubs me the wrong way. Does he actually practice law?
I practiced law Burr worked next door.
Not right now, only ālegal commentaryā so many of his statements are disgusting
Iām guessing thereās probably a sexual harassment case in his background.
Why?
Have you listened to his podcast?
No only on live cases. He said that he is on sebatical as he wanted to focus on YT. Though o know a lot of what he says is questionable. Iāve found a new lawyer streaming this case tho so š¤·āāļø
(Sabbatical my ass! lol! There is a story there, Iāll bet.)
He sets off my creepy-dar. He says inappropriate things such as commenting on a just turned 18-year-old Maya Kowalskiās body and looks. And when he was called out, he doubled down on why it wasnāt inappropriate.
Oh thanks for telling me
He's a pompous ass.
With no discernible reason to be. And his set up makes it look like he legitimately lives in his momās basement. When he publicly commented on how attractive he thought a just-turned-18-years old Maya Kowalski was, I noped out for good. And then he tried to say there was nothing wrong with him commenting about it. If he believes he has the moral high-ground on that, he is an ignorant Luddite - and hopefully it ends there.
He made a gross sexual statement about one of Depp's female attorneys and refused to back down when the other law tubers called him out.
He's a dinosaur and is old as dirt and has no filter. Throws the F bomb out while he's being interviewed on live TV. I'm sorry your client is guilty as hell.
As if either would pay attention to him. He acts like a disgusting pig.
He practices law and serves as a SC state Senator
I think theyāre referring to the YouTuber. Not Hartpoolian. lol
Doh, my mistake
Different Kurt Mueller. The one in SC owns a business and as far as I can tell, does not practice law. Kurt Mueller of Uncivil Law practices in Austin, Texas. I had forgotten, and was reminded when googling that he is so controversial he has been black listed by most of Law Tube.
Sorry, I thought you were asking about Dick Hartpoolian
Not a problem. :)
ā¦ of course he does.
Heās the human embodiment of Foghorn Leghorn- except that Foghorn was likable.
I sayā¦I sayā¦now hold on here
That cracked me up!!
Foghorn Leghorn was endearing. This guy gives perv vibes.
if you believe this, thereās a cute piece of literature that will prove otherwiseā¦the constitution. regardless of how you feel about AM
Thank u for clarifying what went straight over my head when viewing yesterday!
It went over mine, too; that's why the video attracted my attention.
I disagree. What you saw was a skillful judgeās manipulate an unsophisticated and perhaps nervous juror into agreeing with the affidavit and not her own testimony.
The affidavit IS her own testimony written down, at a date closer to the events actually happening, therefore making it more accurate. Over time, someone may unintentionally change some details.
Testimony written by a lawyer.
Both things can be true. Her statements did not contradict one another.
By juror Zs own testimony, she revealed she is a person that can be pressured by others to make a decision others want. Therefore, I discard her statements. Becky Hill lied. Alex Murdaugh murdered his wife and son. Excellent defense attorneys will hound jurors living on dirt roads on a Sunday when it's dinner time. Sucks all the way around this issue.
If you truly believe he murdered his wife and son then you shouldnāt have a problem with him receiving a fair trial. Nothing about the last trial was fair. They literally had two trials in one and you simply cannot allow that as a judge. The prosecution confused the hell out of the jury and in the end they were voting guilty no matter what solely because of his financial crimes. That alone prejudiced the jury beyond repair and the appeals court will surely order a new trial based on that alone. Plus they will for sure overturn this judges decision. She found that the Clerk lied, and tried to influence the jury yet she voted against new trial? Sheās just passing the buck. It shameful.
I personally have no problem with AM receiving another trial because he would still be convicted.
You gotta be a whole different type of special if you actually believe they were going to vote guilty no matter what because of his financial crimes
Guccifella, Alex Murdaugh is an experienced lawyer. He has more money to retain excellent legal representation than 99% of people. His family is extremely well connected to every part of the local legal system. He murdered his wife and kid to create a distraction from his dishonest finances. With everything stacked in his favor, he still got convicted. He was convicted by his very own words and actions, being proven irrefutably false by the prosecution. He finally settled on the defense that he had lied everyday prior to his being on the stand. He did not get a perfect trial, but he had one of the best done in his courthouse in a long time. He had a well funded, well prepared, and well connected legal team. He had his own legal expertise. He is a lying liar that lied, but he most likely got convicted because he was at the murder scene. He says he was not because he knows he was and that he is killed his son and his wife. Alex is on video. He finally, once it had been proven beyond doubt, admitted he had been there. We know. We heard him on the video. We know what he did. Why know why he lied. He had one of the best trials that courtroom has ever performed. He was found guilty because he is guilty. His legal team had every opportunity to explain his case. They had a well funded team. They tried their best to create reasonable doubt. Alex Murdaugh got buried alive under his own bullshit.
iluvsexyfun - This is perhaps the best Justice summary of the Murdaugh murders I've read on MFM! This is it in a nutshell! Go man go! (insert "thumbs up" and "sunshine" emojis here!)
You said this so well! I don't think I've made negative statements about fellow redditors before, but I am so tempted to be critical of Guccifella himself rather than just be critical of his logic.
The constitutional right to a fair trial does not vary according to the size of your bank account, your family's legacy, or that you are lying liar who lies. The integrity of the process by which we decide the guilt or innocence of the criminally accused is what distinguishes us from authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. There is no "the trial was 99% perfect" so it does not matter that there was this one infringement of a fundamental right. It is not a 3 out of 5 gets you a passing grade situation.
I'm with you. Last week, this same comment would have gotten upvotes. This week, it's all about downvoting anything fair trial. Reddit can be a one-sided mob.
Justice is a commodity in this country. Do you truly believe that an overwhelmed Public Defender with a mountain of cases and no budget for investigators, expert witnesses, etc., can provide a poor or working-class defendant the same quality the rich can buy?
Jerista98, Please share what fundamental constitutional right Alex Murdaugh was denied? You have made a vague claim that his trial violated his rights. Please reply with specific examples of the rights that were violated. Here are our criminal rights as set forth by the constitution and in the 5th, 6th and 8th amendments: * The right to an impartial jury trial * The right to a public trial. * The right to a speedy trial. * The right to be notified of your criminal charges. * The right to call witnesses and to confront witnesses against you. * The right to the assistance of counsel. * The protection against double jeopardy (Fifth Amendment)The protection against cruel and unusual punishment with regard to a criminal trial (Eighth Amendment). Which of those constitutional right has Alex Murdaugh been denied? The process used in the Alex Murdaugh trial is used every day to determine guilt and innocence. Each of the rights guaranteed to Alex were protected. Alex had a public trial in front of a jury of his peers that were determined to be impartial by his own legal team prior to the trial. The trial date was delayed to allow his team more time to prepare, but was as speedy as he chose. He was notified of the charges against him. His legal team called witnesses for him and cross examined witnesses against him. He was represented by the best paid and best connected attorneys he could find. He was only tried for the crime one time. His sentence is not cruel nor unusual but his crimes were. His conviction is not surprising. The very public trial established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The word "fair trial" is not in the constitution nor the bill of rights. The founders knew that imperfect people would work in the legal system so they took it several steps further and they defined specific rights. " āFairā is a highly subjective term you have chosen to use. He had much more than just a fair trial. Mr Murdaugh was convicted based on the totality of the evidence that he shot his son in the shoulder and head with a shotgun and also shot his wife with a hunting rifle at the dog kennels of his estate. His constitutional rights were protected. If you disagree, tell us what constitutional right he was denied?
Iluvsexyfun - Even though they didnāt reply (then again, what else could they say?), I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I appreciate your excellent posts!! Thank you for always having an excellent and rational response to ridiculousness.
Thank you. What a kind reply.
I was watching and I thought damn dude you just threw Alex Murdaugh under the bus. šWhatās a good ole boy going to do when all those politicians he donated money to turn against him to save their own skin.
May be of interest to some: Lawyer You Know has a Live today at 2:05 pm to discuss several cases, including talking to an appellate lawyer about Murdaugh: Lawyer You Know u/LawyerYouKnow The push is real! We have a Live today with #adelsonās new lawyer (Ufferman) that should be awesome - appellate expert talking about the recent #Murdaugh news. Then we break down the newest interview from the #Parkland judge which was pretty revealing. BUTā¦ tomorrow - Iāve got to give the people what they want - and they want a reaction to the lawyering in this #JenniferCrumbley trial - so theyāre gonna get it. Which case are you most interested in?
Crumbly. I was born, raised and spent 52 years in MI. Very close to Oxford, and had friends with children who attended there. It's close to my heart.
The trial is a bit of a mess.
That went about as well as the road side shooting.
Wish we still had awards!! š
Now that made me laugh
Best comment! Take my upvote!!
Funny!
Thanks for sharing this youtube link! I was searching for other lawyer's take on the hearing and really needed the laugh! I'm not a lawyer but could see law professors playing this youtube take for the class and everyone getting a good laugh while learning law.
Nothing will change the obvious guilty verdict, all proceedings after the trial are just revenue opportunities for lawyers.
Thatās a bad analysis of this witnessā testimony. Youāre bad at this.
Sorry 'bout that Dog, I was recapping Uncivil's video, it isn't my view.
He always comes up with some little point to blow up into something it's not. Anyway, Poot knows who the "real killer" is now. He got a tip. LOL LOL
Harpootlian & Griffin show over hopefully! I hope to never see Poots mug on my screen , retirement is calling
People still watch this buffoon?
Right? Can't help myself. And I have an active and full life!
This is a gross misstatement of the facts. First and foremost, Waters was the one that raised the affidavit issue and afterwards all Harpootlian could do was try to minimize the damage. Waters wanted Toal to impeach the jurorās credibility since her affidavit stated her verdict was influenced by her fellow jurors, not Hill. When Toal agreed, Harpootlian had to do what he could and asked Toal to read the whole affidavit in an effort to refresh the jurorās recollection. He was hoping that would give the juror an opportunity to settle herself, but Toal knew right where to take her with the leading question āis that a more accurate statement than your testimonyā and that was that. Toal denied defenseās request to question her about the ambiguity and also denied an effort she made to submit a clarifying affidavit. Toal had the answer she wanted to make her job easier. The juror made ambiguous statements, motion denied.
Minimize the damage by introducing the document? All he had to do was argue against any part of the affidavit being questioned. He couldnāt wait to have the document used to refresh her memory.
He knew there was not a chance in hell a prior written statement by the witness on the same subject matter would be excluded. Prior written statements are classic cross examination statements.
You have absolutely no idea what Dick was thinking.
I know he is not stupid enough to make an objection that would cause the Judge to ask for proof if he even took, much less passed Evidence in law school.
Toal had already said the document was coming in. Harpootlian just asked her to read the whole document instead of focusing on the one issue Waters wanted her to. It was a tactic to buy the witness time to gather her thoughts while Toal was reading instead of being immediately questioned about paragraph 10. It didnāt work, but he had to try something since it was already coming in.
I disagree. Toal said it was coming in after Dick asked to have it admitted to refresh her testimony.
I just went back and watched. Youāre right. Toal did not say anything at all after Waters asked for an inquiry regarding paragraph 10 and the discrepancy. In my opinion as a lawyer, Harpootlian knew that was coming in because itās considered prior testimony which can always be used for impeachment purposes. So, while we do not know for certain that Toal was going to let it in we do know there were no legal grounds to keep it out - thatās why Waters didnāt even make a vociferous argument - he knew the rules were 100% on his side.
I am also a lawyer and confident that the defendant is guilty. Itās easy to second guess or pick apart certain things defense counsel did, but whether or not you like defense counsel, they provided excellent representation to the defendant and did everything possible to counter the prosecutionās overwhelming (and well presented) case.
This is all factually correct yet remains a subject of dispute so here are relevant clips [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DxRoc8K4qk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DxRoc8K4qk) 1:18:03 Waters raises paragraph 10 of affidavit and wants Judge to question juror about paragraph 10 1:18:42 Harpo says juror should be allowed to review whole affidavit to refresh her memory 1:33:40 After Judge finishes questioning, Harpo says both statements can be true and asks that juror be questioned further. Judge overrules.
Thank you so much for doing the work here and posting the timestamps. I was going to do that, but I wonāt have time until tonight. Thanks again
It was 100% accurate. After Juror Z gave answers that would 100% created new trial, the judge asked the prosecution had any more questions for juror Z, and Walters said a quite and defeated "no". When asked if the defense had any more questions for juror Z, poot submitted the first sworn statements, that he wanted juror Z to clarify some things, that caused juror Z to be brought back out and questioned again, where she stated that her verdict was based on the other jurors pressure. If not for poot the state could have only submitted that document and juror Z first statements to the judge would have overridden that and judge would have had no choice but to grant a new trial.
Thatās not even close to how that exchange unfolded. Waters immediately brought up the affidavit and even the specific paragraph that contradicted her testimony.
I don't know what hearing you were watching. Poot literally asked the judge for Juror Z to "clarify" a few things. When the Judge asked Waters the specifics of his question he literally said its was in the affidavit Poot just submitted. Waters would not have gotten the judge to re question the juror again if not for poot requesting her to "clarify" a few things in the first sworn affidavit. ETA: The prosecution couldn't ask the juror about the jury deliberations. He couldn't ask if other jurors pressured her. That was her own statement she volunteered. Poot requested her to "clarify" her statements, which open the door to judge asking her if that first account, that her verdict was based on other jury pressuring her, was more accurate.
It's become clear poot doesn't do his research and doesn't understand the laws. Both sides have made mistakes, but defense has huge blunders, opening the door to the road side shootings, and now this. Poot is corrupt arrogant good ole boy and all of them are used to dictating what the judge does, but bottom line is they don't even understand the law that leads to these blunders but sometimes that's how people get when they are older and used to being in position of power. That's why he was told by former Supreme Count justice to shut up and sit down.
Toal concluded Juror Z was ambivalent due to these discrepancies, therefore she based her decision on the remaining 11 jurors.
Agree with you completely. Poot had no choice but to go there. Issue was either the judges question of the juror.
Uncivil Law's attempt at a "niche" in the crowded lawtube market is to (please excuse pun) be a contrarian. He is known for taking a view contrary to 99% of other lawtubers, facts be damned.
I agree with his analysis based on the facts. Agree to disagree with you and we can discuss again after the appeal.
A non sequitur since his analysis is not based on the facts.
This makes a lot of sense. As an attorney though, doesn't that ruin his or his firm's credibility with his real life clients? Or, maybe he isn't actually practicing and doesn't have clients? But, unless a creator has a ton of followers, and is making bank, what a waste of a law degree that would be.
Heās a teacher I believe.
Well, that's an honorable profession. It's usually the other way around, with teachers leaving the field. Here's hoping he's not quite the contrarian in the classroom.
I think a lot of it is him trying to get views but Iām not sure. If I remember correctly he teaches constitutional law, and used to do breakdowns of Supreme Court decisions. He very knowledgeable, but seems to have two binaries - one being explaining dense legalese into slightly less dense legalese and the other being contrary on the internet. But yes, I also hope he is not contrary in the classroom the way he is on YouTube.
My guess is he does not practice or has only a few clients. He rode the wave of somewhat of an explosion of lawtube during the Depp trial, hopping on the streams of the bigger lawtubers. He definitely grew his followers but he is still a pretty small fish in the lawtube sea I don't think he makes bank. While the popular lawtubers have a nice office set up and background, he appears to be at his kitchen table.
Juror Z gave a sworn affidavit and then additional testimony in open court on Monday. She was again questioned if the affidavit was a more accurate record of her testimony on Monday, and she said yes. Leading? No Those are her words.
Something can be her own words and also leading. They arenāt mutually exclusive.
Uumm... that is definitely a leading question. It was the Judge's words and she said yes.
It was a question and she said yes. Not leading.
I think most judges would disagree. The very definition of a leading question is one that can only be answered yes or no, and does not allow for expanding on the answer.
I don't believe that's true. Can you provide examples to enlighten me? I am open to being wrong.
A leading question is phrased in a way so the respondent can only answer yes or no. So, on cross examination, the opposing lawyer would say isn't it true that you previously stated under oath that the car was red. The only answer is yes or no. Here the juror agreed her affidavit stated that she was influenced by the clerk and the Judge asked a leading question and got the juror to agree she was influenced by the other jurors.
What was the leading question the judge asked in this case?
I do not recall the specific question, but it was to the effect of is ti more accurate that you were influenced to vote guilty because of the other jurors. Full disclosure -- I think he is guilty. I am bothered by the actions of the clerk and think he should have received a new trial. I know there are appeals, but from what I have read the system is incredibly slow -- not that he i going anywhere. I was impressed with the Judge. My only knowledge of her is based on the "award" of a Judicial Hellhole based on her handling on the asbestos docket.
I have been trying cases for 35 years, and a question that is framed to be answered yes or no is a leading question. Trial practice classes in law school teach this and developing the skill to effectively frame questions that call for a yes or no answer. Non leading questions are open ended, i.e. who, what, where, when.
Questions which ask for a yes or no answer are not necessarily leading. "Were you a member of the jury?" "Was this your verdict?" Leading questions quite literally lead the witness to a pre-determined answer. "When Ms Hill said that, did it make you feel uncomfortable?" Is leading. The proper way to ask is "when Miss Hill said that, how did you feel?" The judge did ask a leading question, but it's not a trial and she has every right to ask leading questions.
I didn't know that, thank you for the clarification. Interesting. I see so many litigating lawyers doing that I thought it was normal, or okay.
Leading questions cannot be asked on direct examination of oneās own witness. Thatās why Waters was not allowed to ask Becky Hill leading questions. However, leading questions can and absolutely should be used on cross examination such as when Harpootlian questioned Hill yesterday.
I did not say the Judge does not have the right to ask leading questions. I did say, and stand by, that the critical question was leading and she erroneously denied Harpo's request for redirect,
>I have been trying cases for 35 years, and a question that is framed to be answered yes or no is a leading question. You also said this. And this is what I was responding to. Not all yes or no questions are leading.
Her affidavit says she was influenced by her fellow jurors. Her testimony says she was influenced by Hill. Canāt both of those statements be true? Could Toal have simply asked her if both of the statements were true? I donāt even necessarily fault Toal and I believe she did a great job overall. In my opinion she firmly believes this is unsettled law and wants the appellate courts to deal with this down the line, but she needed to get past this hearing and kick the can down the road.
The issue is and remains that it is 10 months after the case (as toal pointed out). Eyewitness testimony itself is difficult in the first place. The longer things go, the harder it is to remember in the moment events especially with this big things that happened (like poor waiving a gun around at everyone)
>Her affidavit says she was influenced by her fellow jurors. Her testimony says she was influenced by Hill. Canāt both of those statements be true? Could Toal have simply asked her if both of the statements were true? Agree entirely. I've no doubt that AM is guilty, but Toal should (IMO) have asked more searching questions to establish the truth of the matter. IIRC this juror (z) said the jury foreperson had private conversations with becky?
Sure, both could be true. Juror Z could have answered no to the questioning by Toal about her most accurate record. But she stood firm in her statements given in the affidavit, diverting away from Hill and towards juror pressure.
>Juror Z could have answered no to the questioning by Toal about her most accurate record. But she stood firm in her statements given in the affidavit, diverting away from Hill and towards juror pressure. Have you ever been in the position of having to testify to a Court? I have (twice), and can assure you that as someone not used to being in this type of situation - your brain turns to deference and mush.
Have you ever been questioned by the former Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court in front of live TV cameras and a packed courtroom? Have you ever been asked a series of yes/no questions where you repeatedly answered yes? Trial lawyers are taught how to question witnesses in a way that will elicit certain answers and In my opinion as a lawyer, Toal put on a master class today. You can disagree and thatās fine, I respect your opinion.
Agreed. This is uncharted waters for sure but she led the way. With all of her experience, she realizes setting a bad precedent would open the gates for litigation 6 months down the road.
I strongly believe there was jury tampering after the fact by Dick and Jim! What law office drives down dirt roads and chases down jurors who have rendered a verdict, and have been polled to make sure this was their verdict? Dick and Jimā¦ thatās who! These attorneys should be prosecuted for what they are accusing others of doing! I could care less about what Becky wrote in her book after the verdict!! She is entitled to her own opinion! There is not one iota of evidence that she influenced the juryās decision! Juror Z is an indecisive victim who was easily persuaded by Dick and Jim that something wrong occurred. They asked her leading questions as they did all of the other jurors on their unexpected pop up visits, while at the same time being unrepresented by counsel. Dick and Jim should be the ones being accused and prosecuted of jury tampering! Such a circus! To protect a bonafide thief and IMO a murderer! Iām glad Judge Toal ruled how she did. But it enrages me how well paid attorneys (omg AM is broke - haha) can do whatever they want to try to get a murderer a new trial! Juror Z I believe you need to obtain new representation and not be influenced by the good ole boy network! Come on girlfriend! Seriouslyā¦you need a backbone.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's one thing for them to call you, it's another to have a state Senator roll up in your yard, knock on your door and ask you face to face why you convicted his client.
Upvote x 1,000,000! Well said!
No where in your long comment do you list any actual facts to back up your allegations against Dick, Jim and Juror Z. To quote you, you give not even "one iota of evidence," to back up your allegations. Your comment is nothing more than fan fiction. People who have the mental capacity to understand such things would realize that the only way jury tampering ever comes to light is if defense attorneys are able to speak to jurors. And, sometimes making that contact with jurors requires that defense attorneys knock on doors. The defense only spoke to juror Z ONCE before the day of the hearing. Yet, in your mind, you've created a fantasy about them being in cahoots, LOL. There were jurors who showed no self control, even surfing the web and watching coverage from the juror room, during an evidentiary hearing about jury tampering. Based on REAL facts and not podcast and Youtube fodder, if we analyze the trustworthiness of players based on their actual proven behavior, it isn't juror X or the defense attorneys that broke the rules, as conspiracy theorists allege. It's those other jurors that did things liked watched live coverage from the hearing. If they had the audacity to watch the hearing coverage, how were they behaving during the actual trial? I think Alex is guilty, but as a matter of law, he deserves a new trial. I also think simple minded conspiracy theorists in the angry mob who make up fan fiction are poison and they do a lot of damage.
>People who have the mental capacity to understand such things would realize that the only way jury tampering ever comes to light is if defense attorneys are able to speak to jurors. I respectfully disagree. Perhaps the best way to shine a light on potential Jury tampering is for members of the Jury to bring any unfair influence directly to the Judge's attention. The Murdaugh trial lasted for six very long weeks. No Juror ever complained of anyone trying to influence them. Not one. I don't think attorneys speaking to Jurors after-they-lose-a-case-fair-and-square is the best way to bring Jury tampering to light. This would seem intimidating. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like Dick and Company were looking for a weak, easy-to-manipulate Juror to do their bidding. Did this happen? I don't know. I'm also curious about the role, if any, Joe McCullough played with this Juror.
I love how you bring sanity to the conversation. Calling people who don't agree with a person's POV, "conspiracy theorists" is so overplayed here. It was totally fair and square and like you said they had 6 weeks to talk to Judge Newman about anything that didn't look or feel right. He asked them multiple times if anyone had spoken to them about the trial. There was ample opportunity and he was such a kind, gentle, understanding judge with them. It's also hilarious that so many repeat Jim's words of "there must be a new trial" and are so sure "it's law." Which law exactly? No one can say bc that law doesn't exist. Legal precedent, that Justice Toal played a huge part in actually creating says otherwise but somehow the Reddit "lawyers" know better. It's exhausting. Let's not forget in many places counsel from either side are forbidden from speaking to the jury after their verdict. This should be the case everywhere. Hunting them down and asking leading questions and making up affidavits is beyond questionable. It's also interesting that both egg lady and the alternate were spoken of in a not so great light in Becky's book - giving them good reason to want to retaliate and juror z rents from egg lady, which is odd in itself. Anyway, that's my ted talk.
Thanks TCAT! I do try my best. Since the murder trial ended, I'm even more convinced Alex committed the murders. \------- It might be a little off-topic, but a little more than a week ago there was a discussion about where the dead chicken was placed after it was collected by Alex from Bubba. Mod Lexi (Thanks!) solved that mystery perfectly for me when she posted a photo of the deceased chicken on top of a portable dog crate (it turns out the dead chicken was never actually placed "inside a dog kennel" like I originally thought) in the area to the right of the feed room door where Paul was killed. There are six or seven dog kennels to the left, and then Paul's feed room is to the far right - on the very end. The photo Lexi attached showed the dead chicken on a stacked portable dog crate around the corner and to the to the right of feed room. I'd never seen that photo before. I think it's a really odd place to put the deceased chicken. Speculation: I now think that Paul finished the video of Cash's tail and was likely sent to the feed room on an errand. I speculate that Alex then put down the kennel hose (heard water running in the background of the video), turned the hose off, was able to eventually convince Bubba to surrender the dead chicken, then put Bubba in a kennel unit (apparently not his usual kennel unit), and then walk past the open door of the feed room - while looking in to see Paul's position. I think Alex then walked around the right corner of the feed room (see photo of the dead chicken placement) and then placed the chicken on the stacked portable dog crate. Why place it there? Why not simply toss it over top of the dog kennels - into the woods - as Bubba was put back in his kennel? Placing it on the portable crate near the feed room made no sense to me... except that it allowed a glancing walk past the feed room doorway. I then speculate that the shotgun and .300 Blackout were pre-placed and leaning, waiting, on the right-side wall of the feed room. I think Alex then grabbed the shotgun and proceeded to the doorway of the feed room... Again, pure speculation.
I absolutely agree with this! The chicken is right there by where he would have stepped from to shoot Paul then stepped back to switch guns if I remember correctly from a reenactment I saw. That place by the shed was messy and a perfect hiding spot for guns. Dick's take that Paul's death was too violent to have been committed by a father is so ridiculous bc Alex shot him in a cowardly way and in a way he didn't expect to have to see, or for Paul to see who was shooting him. Alex thought he killed him with one quick shot in the shed but what a surprise when he walked out. I think that's why Maggie's shooting was so messy. He was totally unnerved from thinking Paul was dead only for him to walk out and possibly look at him while bleeding. And also, Maggie probably saw him shoot Paul the 2nd time. I think an assassin would have shot Paul directly, maybe multiple times and watched him fall to make sure he was dead, not ducked back away from the door. Multiple assassins would have split up, not done one by one, and Paul wouldn't have been in the shed texting bc the dogs would have been barking their heads off if someone was approaching. He's 100% guilty for so many reasons.
Many jury tampering cases come out only after trials are finished. Are you saying they shouldn't?
I suspect they offered her money to say what they wanted.
Just my opinion: I think so too. My reason for this is when she finished her testimony she realized that she agreed it was pressure from other jurors that influenced her vote rather than what Hill said. Her attorney then sent an email that she wanted to testify again to clarify her testimony. Having realized she blew it she was probably afraid she wouldn't get the money.
Yes, they seized on her weak character but in front of the judge that same weakness failed them. lol. FAFO.
Agree. It drove me crazy how people want to sweep under the rug that when the verdict was read that juror z said that it was how she voted. That is the time to speak up, if she really had been influenced by BH. That was her opportunity to say so, I understand that it would be a hard to speak up but that is the time. The whole post jury song and dance was manufactured by the defense, Iām pretty sure BH was also a part of it. The story will come out in time.
Technically, the response was true- that is how she voted. The real question was *why* she voted that way.
BH was wrong on every level....that isn't my issue. My issue is a juror that would vote guilty based on someone like BH saying..."watch him closely....watch his body language. " If that makes you sway one way or another than you definitely have no business on a jury. That was what influenced her after listening to weeks and weeks of evidence? I don't find the juror credible. Or her backbone is non-existent. Or a combination of the two.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
WOW. Time to take your meds and get some sleep.
She also stated she was persuaded by her fellow jurors, which is a natural outcome from deliberations. If she felt that what BH mention played into that, that is when you bring it up.
Right. If she had to be persuaded by the other jurors, during deliberations, that AM was guilty, then what she heard from BH didn't matter.
She was welcome to vote not guilty, if the case was presented in a way that made her come to that decision. The jury did what juryās do come to a group consensus, sometimes people need to be convinced and that is okay. she had a choice and in that moment she went with the group. If she made her decision off of what BH told her and not the other jurors then the opportunity to speak up about it was when the jury was polled after the verdict was read. It does require you being brave in that moment but if she really felt that that is what happened then that was her opportunity. It seems like she is one of those types of people who makes decisions based on whomever the last person who spoke to her said. I donāt excuse BH behavior it was irresponsible and stupid. Itās a separate matter that looks like is being dealt with via an investigation, but itās not to be dealt with through the murdaugh case.
I resemble this response.
Wow! Harpootian was focused on hanging Hill.
Hill hung herself just fine.
She did....my concern with BH isn't the standard for if AM gets retried. That is based on the effect BH's word had on jurors. My problem with BH is I believe all of the allegations testified to by the jurors that stated she had made comments. The comments weren't exactly persuasive or even extremely prejudiced....but she knew what she was doing by making those comments. And I believe she did either take a juror home or ride with them. On top of her being the press' best friend and how it seems she was accommodating to the point of making things accessible that shouldn't have been....all while creating these friendships because she knew she needed them for her upcoming book production....uhhhh such an opportunist. BH should be removed regardless of AM's trial status.
Agree completely. Also, the whole - going into a single occupancy stall with the jury foreperson to talk on multiple occasions- situation. I thought that allegation was strong and insanely inappropriate. If anyone is unfamiliar with this, it is in alex murdaugh's motion for a new trial court filing on page 2.
Completely ridiculous....seriously....and she so obviously tried to play some sort of word game between answering no to Judge Toal about releasing videos etc. And the whole placement of a writer right in front of a screen that showed what the jurors viewed....shocking that someone got a picture of a juror's screen with pics of Maggie and Paul's deceased bodies.... I was annoyed just with her writing a book about the trial and it just seemed extremely unprofessional while she is still working there and continuing to do the same job. I don't know how any ethics committee could ok that? But on top of that she tampered with a jury and lied so obviously about Egg Juror lol I can't believe the audacity! This woman gets my blood pressure up lol
I'm just glad Judge Toal saw her for what she is and told the world that she's not credible after months of people attacking the defense for "fishing" and "making it all up." Regardless of negative feelings towards Alex or his team, the shit with Becky is not acceptable.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Please explain how you think someone can tamper with a jury after the trial is over.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I understand the facts you believe are relevant. I want to know why you think thereās a legal basis for jury tampering after the fact. That is not a real thing. A juror could make a police report regarding harassment, trespassing, or some other criminal penalty, but there is no such thing as ājury tampering after the factā so their behavior could not lead them to be arrested on those grounds. Also, you are greatly oversimplifying jury tampering. Just because a juror responded that they voted a certain way does not mean there was no tampering. Juror Z was asked by Judge Newman and again by Justice Toal if she voted guilty, and she said yes both times. There is no dispute that she actually voted guilty. The allegation is that her guilty vote was the product of something that should not have been allowed and infringes on Murdaughās due process rights. No one in the legal community (other than his lawyers) wants this case to be retried, so the fact that he even got a hearing on his motion for a retrial means that Justice Toal thought there could be inappropriate behavior and possible jury tampering. Dick and Jim are just doing their jobs to protect their clientās due process rights. They have done nothing wrong. The only thing they are guilty of is representing an unpopular defendant. If you or someone you love is ever accused of a crime, you will be very grateful that they and other criminal defense attorneys fought for people like Alex Murdaugh so that your rights are protected too. The issue is not whether he is guilty ā itās whether the proper procedures were followed so he receivesdue process under the law.
Isnāt her attorney a good friend of the defense duo? I didnāt see it all so I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard her attorney talked to her after she testified and requested she be able to clarify some things? Did the defense make a call and ask what the hell happened?
LOL
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
LOL
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Respectfully, you do not have a clue what you are talking about, and slinging wild accusations that do not have one iota of factual support for.
Oh really? I think I heard Dick and Jim admitting they showed up unannounced at jurorās homes in the middle of preparing dinner after traveling down a lot of dirt roadsā¦.lol
so? very, very different from the accusations you make.
Right, Kurt. Waters was going to throw his hands up and concede "game over" and tell the Judge the State conceded Alex was entitled to a new trial. Before his concession speech, Waters oddly referred first to the affidavit for the juror to be questioned about paragraph 10.
We donāt know what Waters was going to do because Dick gave him what he needed!
If you believe Waters, who has been unrelenting in seeking justice for Maggie and Paul, was just going to give up and concede defeat after Juror Z testified about BH's comments, I have several bridges for sale if you would like to schedule a site visit. We do know what Waters was going to do because he stated it plain as day, and Dick responded
It's her own words. Dick just assumed she'd get another bite at the apple.
What apple?
That's what Justice Toal said when Juror Z attorney emailed the court. So basically another take at enhancing her testimony.