|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there.
No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial.
|
|
|
On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there.
I assume when they aproach the Judge it's supposed to be a private conversation, because they may be talking about things not admissable to the jury. Hearing about it would influence them.
|
On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there.
I did jury duty once, and they would put up white sound on the speakers so we couldnt hear them every time they went up to speak with the judge.
|
On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial.
Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really.
Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers?
|
On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial.
only the jury is not allowed to hear. the press can just request copies of the transcript. everything is recorded.
|
Canada23833 Posts
The stream can't rewind.... can anyone explain how she lied?
|
It's unfortunate some very important facts are only known by a person who is literally retarded.
|
On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really. Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers?
they are likely discussing the admissibility of some evidence. if they let the jury hear the evidence before its determined whether its admissible, you cant "unring the bell" so they have discussions outside the hearing of the jury.
|
On June 27 2013 05:18 Sufficiency wrote:
The stream can't rewind.... can anyone explain how she lied?
she lied about her age (said she was 16) for some reason I don't really follow, but that's the only thing I'm aware of.
|
On June 27 2013 05:18 Sufficiency wrote:
The stream can't rewind.... can anyone explain how she lied?
I don't know exactly the lie, but I heard her testify "yes" in response to his question that she had previously lied under oath at a deposition.
|
On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really.
Example of what? What they're discussing is whether certain questions get to be asked or whether certain evidence is admissible. If the answer is no, then they shouldn't be mentioned at all.
It's a very simple matter of weighing the risk of contamination versus the benefit of letting the whole world know what's being discussed.
|
On June 27 2013 05:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really. Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers? they are likely discussing the admissibility of some evidence. if they let the jury hear the evidence before its determined whether its admissible, you cant "unring the bell" so they have discussions outside the hearing of the jury.
Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, kinda. Where exactly is the jury sitting, are they in the courtroom or another room next to it, and actually watching it via stream? Might be a stupid question, sorry.
|
On June 27 2013 05:19 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:18 Sufficiency wrote:
The stream can't rewind.... can anyone explain how she lied? she lied about her age (said she was 16) for some reason I don't really follow, but that's the only thing I'm aware of.
She though she'd be more protected as a minor
|
On June 27 2013 05:19 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:18 Sufficiency wrote:
The stream can't rewind.... can anyone explain how she lied? she lied about her age (said she was 16) for some reason I don't really follow, but that's the only thing I'm aware of.
she also lied about why she didnt go to trayvon's funeral/wake.
|
On June 27 2013 05:18 heliusx wrote:
It's unfortunate some very important facts are only known by a person who is literally retarded.
The important part is that she is clearly biased. If she was a genius the diference would be that she would be making a far more compelling case, not that we would know the truth. That would be worse.
|
Canada23833 Posts
On June 27 2013 05:19 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:18 Sufficiency wrote:
The stream can't rewind.... can anyone explain how she lied? she lied about her age (said she was 16) for some reason I don't really follow, but that's the only thing I'm aware of.
She is over 18? Martin is 17???
|
|
|
On June 27 2013 05:20 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really. Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers? they are likely discussing the admissibility of some evidence. if they let the jury hear the evidence before its determined whether its admissible, you cant "unring the bell" so they have discussions outside the hearing of the jury. Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, kinda. Where exactly is the jury sitting, are they in the courtroom or another room next to it, and actually watching it via stream? Might be a stupid question, sorry.
prosecutor sits right next to jury; witness is also right next to jury. you cant see jury on stream because they have to be anonymous. and, honest to god, i swear the jury can hear lawyers during the private discussions with the judge so i always keep my voice a little up when im discussing damaging but likely inadmissible evidence during bench discussions. ;-)
|
On June 27 2013 05:20 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:19 Tewks44 wrote:On June 27 2013 05:18 Sufficiency wrote:
The stream can't rewind.... can anyone explain how she lied? she lied about her age (said she was 16) for some reason I don't really follow, but that's the only thing I'm aware of. She is over 18? Martin is 17???
I believe she is currently 20 (I think she said that at the beginning of her testimony). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
