tvc184

  So you think a 17 year old with no record should get the same sentence as a guy that have been in prison three times previous? 

  Not if it is his first rodeo but for a repeat offender, sure. 

  No kidding. I saw that in 2012 when Obama lost 4 million votes and still squeaked by. I can understand fooling people once. 

  That "losing party" has had complete control of the House (the only politicians elected locally) for 4 of Obama's 6 years in office and is threatening to take over the Senate. 

    And had I seen this response first, I wouldn't have answered.    :)

  I have sat on about four juries and I have never seen any alternates. An alternate is merely to replace a juror that gets sick and most trials only take a day or two so there isn't much chance of a sick juror. When you have CA cases like the OJ trial that take almost a year, they need someone to sit in just in case. Those alternates sit in the jury box and hear the entire trial but once the trial ends, they do not get involved in the deliberation unless they actually replaced a sick or removed juror. 

  Kind of standard, especially in a high profile case.   Appeals are generally based on an error by the court (judge). They don't get to just routinely retry the case but have to show a valid reason why it was not a fair trial. There is always an argument to be made by a lawyer as long as he is getting paid.    It can be a racial appeal like the one I mentioned before. Even though there were three black men on the jury, another person may have been struck by race like maybe a black female was struck and the defense wants to contest it. Other examples of appeals might be like maybe an objection made by the defense on piece of testimony or physical evidence during the trial did not go the way the defense liked or they can simply contest the law itself as being unconstitutional.    Most cases are not overturned but you never know........... 

  There are supposed to be 7 neutral people in this case. They are the 6 jurors and the judge. Of those 7, 4 of them are black.   I saw (I think) the representative from the Beaumont NAACP and he called this a lynching of another black in Beaumont. Really? A majority of the participants were of the same race as the defendant. Did they take race into account of did they simply look at the video showing the very convincing evidence that Haynes was blocking the door? 

I don't think an alcohol related arrest means anything for any media celebrity or even politicians from any network or party.    It means nothing to either side's issues. 

Also, each state and the federal government systems have the right to make their own laws and may vary slightly from the TX system but they will essentially be the same. Some states or the feds might require a reason to strike anyone instead of a peremptory strike without a need to state the cause. Others might also have alternates in each trial instead of the usual 6 or 12 and other variations. 

  Typically there are twice as many people in the jury pool as will sit on the jury like 12 people on a 6 person misdemeanor or 24 people on a 12 person felony trial although on some trials it can be quite a few more like a Capital Murder trial.    After the questioning of the pool (voir dire) by the attorney for the state (DA) and defense, the attorneys "strike" (peremptory strikes) the ones that they do not like by reasoning that the person would have a hard time rendering a fair verdict. The first 6 (or 12 for a felony) members of the jury pool that are not struck will sit on the jury.    The pool sits randomly so it is not alphabetical or by another other segregated means. The bailiff will typically call the 12 members of the pool for a misdemeanor and shuffle the cards and then randomly seat the pool as it comes out after the shuffle.    Each attorney usually gets to strike half of the extra people in the pool. For example 12 people are seated in the pool for a misdemeanor. They need to get down to 6 for the trial meaning that up to 6 can be removed or struck. So each attorney then gets 3 strikes. Even if the DA and defense attorneys strike different people, there will still be 6 left for the trial. They may however strike the same person as the strikes are anonymous. For that reason, there may be more than 6 qualified jurors but the first 6 will get the job and the rest will simply be released.    Let's say the jurors are numbered 1-12 and each attorney gets 3 strikes. You might end up with something like this: 1  2 (X by DA) 3 (X by Defense) 4 5 6 (X by DA and Defense) 7 8 (X by Defense) 9 10 11 (X by DA) 12   You will see that 7 jurors survived the strikes but the first 6 will serve and  juror #12 will be the odd man out as 6 had already survived (1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10).   Clear as mud?   Also, the attorneys can strike for almost any reason HOWEVER they cannot be struck for race according to the SCOTUS ruling in Batson v. Kentucky (I think that is still the prevailing case). If one side thinks the other struck a potential juror in a peremptory strike based solely on race, they can challenge it and make the other side show the judge why the juror was struck. The judge can then accept or strike the juror, almost like ruling on an objection in trial.  I have been in cases where a challenge was made but the striking attorney has always been able to show why the strike was made other than by race. Like maybe it was a DWI trial where I was on the pool and when challenged, the DA said that during the voir dire the struck juror stated that he had two family members convicted of DWI, meaning that the juror might be prejudiced toward the police for a DWI arrest. The judge would then rule that that was a valid reason to strike the juror for fairness and not solely race based. 

.... and you've got to love the sentencing. She selected the judge instead of the jury to assess punishment and she got the maximum fine and two years of regular probation, meaning that it is permanently on her record. The DA offered $1,000 and 6 months of deferred meaning that it would show no record of a conviction.    What a great deal she made by going to a jury and then the judge for punishment.  :D

  Kind of.   They don't pick jurors, they eliminate them with strikes. Apparently all of the women on the pool were either struck or there were some remaining and the random order that they were seated had 6 men seated first. There may have been a couple of women left in the pool but the random order and the non-striking of the 6 seated jurors allowed them to serve. 

  How is it wasting "millions"? I don't think congressmen get overtime.    And what is this hypocrisy? 

  How many times is meaningless when evidence is being covered up.    I Hillary and others spout out that they have turned over "more than 25,000 documents". That means almost nothing as it is not the 25K that matter but what might be a very few that hold the smoking gun.   

  I agree. By TX law she is clearly guilty in my opinion but I thought a hung jury was likely as the defense brought up enough reason for a juror, looking for a reason not to convict, could justify (in his/her own mind) a not guilty vote. I know that a juror does not have to justify a vote but I think in a juror's mind, he/she wants to be able to fall back on something.   I applaud all members of the jury for following the law and the judge's charge and not falling to politics. 

  Probably not. He will simply fire the officer and deny everything like his mentor (and maybe more), Haynes.    It will all come down to a he said/she said ..... unless the officer was smart enough to record the incidents after the first occurrence..... assuming it happened.......

Recruitment drive.

  It is a felony.

  Why is there a trial in the place? Well, we have a person that on camera appears to have broken state law that says you cannot block access to a door or passageway.    The DA reviewed the video evidence and obviously saw what everyone else should have and that is that Haynes blocked a person from entering where the person had the right to be.    Why not give her a fine and move on? It appears that the DA tried to do just that and she would not accept it. Part of it was deferred adjudication meaning that if he does her six months on probation, the charge goes away like it didn't happen. I agree that they should move on but apparently she wants to pay more for a lawyer than she will save in probation fees and fine and then hope for jury nullification where they ignore the video and go with politics.    Also, the "bigger" issues as you are referring to probably deal with the school district. This particular county court deals with these kinds of cases every day and has nothing to do with any other government function or issues. The court will have a misdemeanor trial today whether it is Haynes or someone else. 

  .... as westend said and also to acquit. It has to be unanimous one way or the other or a mistrial will be declared. The defendant can be brought to trial again on the same charges at the discretion of the DA because a mistrial does not count against double jeopardy.    Locally I have seen mistrials tried a second time and if no conviction on the second attempt, the case is dropped as there simply is not the likelihood of enough evidence to convict. 

Yes they do. I worked a case where I recovered a firearm from a homicide from local canal when I called in a DPS dive team from Austin. Like every case that I am aware of (including at least one more from my agency) a suspect led us to the weapon. Out of the hundreds os square miles of water in this and most areas, the police don't simply start searching random bodies of water or anywhere else.

I have been a police officer for 31 years and do not remember a single case where a gun registration would have helped.

Her peers are not the issue if they follow the law however I think that some potential jurors may follow political affiliation rather than the law.

She is looking for sympathy and/or jury nullification. There is a chance that she might get it. All she wants at a minimum is a hung jury or one not guilty vote and then the DA might drop any retrial as not being worth it.