|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Murdaugh Tampering Ruling: Three Strikes Against Jean Toal
Inside “the fix…”
Inside “the fix…”
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
15 comments
You should stick to politics, because your “legal analysis” leaves a lot to be desired.
Specifically, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals does NOT have “jurisdiction over South Carolina appeals” when those appeals arise out of state court. Any appeal from a South Carolina state court matter (including Murdaugh murder case) would go from circuit court to state court of appeals to state Supreme Court to United States Supreme Court (if cert was granted, which it most likely would not). The 4th circuit Court of Appeals would never get to rule on this case. Remmer is binding on cases in federal court in South Carolina but not on state court cases. Judge Toal was correct that Green points out that Remner is not binding on state judges in SC.
The juror that said that the comments impacted her verdict had previously affirmed that her verdict was her own. In the hearing, when asked about her previous affirmation, she said that her previous statement was true. Then, after this hearing, through her attorney, she went back to saying that she was influenced by the comments. The clarity you are applying to this wishy washy juror exists only in your mind and those feeding you this garbage.
Exactly
Absolutely
Where is your memorandum of law?
Toal asked the juror if her statement in her affidavit was a more accurate statement than what she said earlier. Why did Toal not just ask the juror “which is a more accurate statement?” She gave the answer in her question that she hoped the juror would give. This is a loaded question. She knew exactly what she was doing. In my opinion, Toal further tampered with the jury. Will, your article says it best. Regardless of our feelings about Murdaugh, how could anyone disagree with what you say in your article?
If Toal’s question was further tampering, what would you call Dick Harpootlian showing up at jurors’ homes after the trial and telling them to “lawyer up”? The verdict is captured as a snapshot in time, at the conclusion of adequate deliberation. There’s no do-over.
I think it ought to be against the law for jurors to be contacted by a party to the case after trial.
This article is wild. It’s a breathtaking misunderstanding of the law. Kind of par for the course here, unfortunately.
But at least there is humor: “The presumption of innocence is fundamental to our system of criminal justice.” This is at odds with your constant position that violent criminals (just accused, not convicted) should be held without bond.
But the brave new world says we say what gets attention right? No need to make any actual sense.
I can see your point about people not convicted being held without bond. I also agree you are innocent until proven guilty. Then again, and you know as well as I do, some cases have so much evidence stacked against a defendant accused of a violent crime, that common sense tells you this guy does not need to be released. What do you say for this type of situation? Are there exceptions in your opinion or do you believe everyone should receive a bond no matter what?
Any leads on the “real killers”?
J doe , Kendrick et Al are obviously at best below average attorneys. Total was absolutely incorrect in her reasoning and Doe , the South Carolina courts are absolutely bound by decisions handed down by the 4th circuit.
That isn’t even remotely true. Fourth Circuit opinions in no way bind the state courts.
Tell you what, why don’t you quit using a fake name and say what you want to say under your real name. I am guessing based on your prior comments you would be embarrassed.
But for the sake of debate, tell us where you find authority for the claim that a Fourth Circuit opinion “absolutely binds” a South Carolina state court.
Judge Clifton Newman and Judge Toal did their jobs. The South Carolina justice system shit, and everyone knows it. These two impeccable judges didn’t play the game. They got the job done.
Waffling jurors don’t get second chances. Toal made her tell the truth.
Total was right. There is no presumption of guilt in this state.
Presumption of prejudice is what I meant to say. In SC, there is no automatic presumption of bias. it has to be proven.
Total was right.