« The verdict is in | Main | Reno's verdict »
Outbursts in the courtroom
By JJ MacNab | April 10, 2008
An excerpt of yesterday’s event from the Concond Monitor.Â
Gonzalez’s outburst
Lawyers for Gonzalez and the government met in a room adjoining the courtroom for more than half an hour following the reading of the verdicts. After their conference, they met with Singal in his chambers. The judge later instructed the jury to keep deliberating.
Just before the jury left the room, Gonzalez yelled a message to them.
“Jury nullification is your right,” he said. A second statement was difficult to hear.
Singal called the parties back into his chambers after the outburst.
To read the rest of the story, go here.
Topics: Cirino Gonzalez, Daniel Riley, Jason Gerhard | 18 Comments »
April 10th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I think the waiting is hard on everyone. My thoughts are with everyone.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
yeah it is….very….thank you Rose and thanks Admin
April 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Haas yelled, “point of order!”. What was that about? It seems if you’re going to yell something in court, you better go ahead and get it out and not try to raise a “point of order”. Strange man….
April 10th, 2008 at 11:50 am
His words were something to the effect of “Jury Nullification is your right, the Judge and Prosector doesnt want you to know!” which he is correct.
the stench of kangaroo crap from the court room made Mr. Haas pretty nauseated, im sure, which he felt the need to call for a “Point of Order!”
April 10th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Is Joe Haas the same guy who threatened the elderly lady? Either way, he’s a strange bird, but at least he showed up for the trial whereas most Brown supporters did not.
It does no good to yell out “jury nullification is your right!” to a group of jurors who may not even understand what jury nullification is. It also makes Reno look more radical, and may therefore affect their decision.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Haas has been posting on the New Hampshire Underground board. He has this theory that the federal court is illegally sitting in New Hampshire because the state didn’t give the federal government permission, and that, since the defense lawyers didn’t raise this issue, he can assert it by saying “point of order.” He cites Robert’s Rules of Order, which he thinks apply in federal courts.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“VanMeter Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 11:50 am
His words were something to the effect of “Jury Nullification is your right, the Judge and Prosector doesnt want you to know!†which he is correct.
the stench of kangaroo crap from the court room made Mr. Haas pretty nauseated, im sure, which he felt the need to call for a “Point of Order!—
What Van Meter means by “kangaroo court” I think, is any court and jury that finds her sweet ba-boo guilty of anything.
Since the jury was hung on counts 1 and 4, but found Reno guilty on counts 2 and 3, does that make it a “ngar” court, with no “ka” and no “oo”?
April 10th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“His words were something to the effect of ‘Jury Nullification is your right, the Judge and Prosector doesnt want you to know!’ which he is correct.”
That’s probably what he said. My notes are “Jury nullification is a right. The judge ????? to know what that right is.”
April 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Well Reno isnt always well understood when he talks so fast, plus add his accent to it all, makes it difficult to make out what he says at times.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Kudos to Reno for throwing the “Jury Nullification” their way
Hopefully other future jurers will research what jury nullification is all about.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Ani, if I’m on a jury, and the defendant raises “jury nullification,” I’d vote to convict with a clear conscience . . . because the defendant is saying, “Yeah, I did it.”
April 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
This is a horrible thought, so I will apologize right now for it.
But, whenever I see Ani’s name, all I can think of is Jar Jar Binks talking to Anakin Skywalker.
“Oh meesa tink little Ani is upset about someting…..”
April 11th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
But, whenever I see Ani’s name, all I can think of is Jar Jar Binks talking to Anakin Skywalker.
BWAHAHA! Soda all over the keyboard and monitor!
April 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Once again ignorance prevails. Jury nullification means they can throw the bullshit “laws†out and let the poor man go!
Yes, I understand that argument. However, invoking it requires the defendant to admit that s/he did, in fact, do what the prosecution says he did. After that, I’d have to look at the remaining circumstances of the case to determine if there were mitigating or extenuating circumstances that would, respectively, reduce or eliminate guilt.
Once one relies on nullification as a defense, they’ve made an effective defense on the ordinary merits (i.e., reasonable doubt) impossible. The only remaining defense would amount to a claim of extraordinary circumstances; I see no such circumstances in this case. Therefore, if I had been on that jury, I would have voted to convict Reno on all counts.
“Life is hard. It’s even harder if you’re stupid.” — John Wayne as Sergeant John Stryker, USMC, The Sands of Iwo Jima
You’d have to give up that cushy little gubmint “jobâ€/positon and accept the truth.
I don’t work for the government. (They can’t afford me.) I probably pay more in federal income taxes alone than you make in total income each year. And it seems obvious to me that I still live a far happier life than you do.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
For the blowhard no-nothings out there and you know who you are, the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT guarantee you a jury of your “peers.” What Amendments VI and VII state are:
“Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Go ahead, look it up – http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentvi
So what ever little punk was shrieking about getting a jury of their peers, you can suck green canal water, as no where are you guaranteed that right in the U.S. Constitution.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Sweet Jesus! yaddah yaddah
April 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
And in that little comment I in no way demean those that speak truth and facts. I just came to find out what the hell was going on with the case. Damn people. Thanks for the chuckles and better still the big sigh.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:56 am
LOOPHOLES…..HELLO! Excuse me. It must be a difficult strenuous task to fathom that of which is not of the great american NORM. Ehhhm…I mean dream. Hah! Are you’ll seriously as stubborn as you are ignorant? Who am i trying to kid. They go together hand in hand. Do yourselves a favor and peel open those eyes and take a look around you. Take some time to actually listen rather than hear and assume. Must you live in your comfy bubbles, floating around “safely” waisting both precious life and time? Fear the truth. Not like it comes as a shock. Pacify and comfort. My thoughts are with you cirino.