That is a very strong man. To have multiple people coming at you at one, asking you multiple questions and still being able to remain focused is amazing.

@lelandunruh7896

Жыл бұрын

This is a very poorly-made oral argument. His passion and belief in Mr. Hamilton's guilt made him unable to effectively advocate for his position. Justice Warren kept giving him chances to reframe his argument and he wouldn't take her up on it. This is why trial counsel generally ought not argue appeals.

@eagleclaw1179

Жыл бұрын

It’s normal for lawyers to appear like this his argument was poorly delivered

@B_Bodziak

10 ай бұрын

But, he is not focused. The red-haired judge gave him a couple of opportunities to save himself by providing a legal argument, but he kept trying to re-narrate the trial.

@Aneuren

10 ай бұрын

@@B_Bodziak in his defense, and with my own proviso that a trial counsel should generally not advocate their own appeal (because it blinds them to misconduct claims, mainly), to win on this argument the state's lawyer needed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the new trial. That order was based on the judge, sitting as the thirteenth juror, making evaluations of credibility and fact. And it sounds like the GA law concerning this gives some pretty extreme deference to the sitting judge. So, in this limited circumstance, I can understand why the state's lawyer would emphasize the facts of the case to contrast with the judge's ruling - the trial court abused its discretion because its opinion was demonstrably grounded in fantasy and completely contrary to what the evidence at trial revealed. Abuse of discretion can be found when a judge's actions are truly beyond the pale - but it's a very high threshold. Based only on what was recorded here, his strongest showing of this was how the court invented a fact from whole cloth about meth use during the oral ruling, but then again the written order sounds like it was much more robust. It does seem that he failed to capitalize on the legal argument that was being spoon-fed to him. However, it is also possible that he knew that argument may have been a loser for him for some other reason. I would need to read the brief to really get a handle on that, but something about how the law of accident does not apply to criminal negligence. But during his own argument he went out of his own way to say that it was negligence "at least." Did he not truly believe this was a negligence case? What was specified in the indictment or particulars? Was that a lesser charge during the trial? I do not know, but I can surely say that judge did seem to be sympathetic to the state's case. I just don't know if the proffered argument would have guaranteed the state's success. To me, the scariest part of all of this is that apparently, in Georgia, even where a jury has returned a verdict, an appeal from a judicial order setting aside the verdict is not reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict as found by the jury. That's a terrible law, antithetical to our entire system. The standard should be a light most favorable to the verdict, with the appellate court then evaluating whether the trial court's diversion from that verdict was rational or whether no rational jury could have found similarly to the jury in this case. Honestly, I am skeptical of any state law that allows the trial judge to sit as a thirteenth juror. Far better for that power to rest in the appellate courts, leaving issues of credibility where they rightly belong - the trial jury - and then determining whether, based on the trial evidence, the verdict was sound. @torreclark3862 I agree that it takes great skill to advocate on appeal. Honestly, based on the questioning, this case was probably decided on the submissions, long before the oral argument took place.

@Exchiefboy

7 ай бұрын

I think that job is called a "teacher" :)

I'm 52 and no longer believe a single word ANYONE says...

@ronaldtucker4219

3 жыл бұрын

Can't blame you. It's a shame to see these times. People need to be held responsible for there actions. I've had enough.

@rherman9085

3 жыл бұрын

I don't believe you....

@simduk9621

3 жыл бұрын

Can’t believe court system... absolutely no prosecution for lying in court... why not to lie !?!

@bucherregaldomi9084

3 жыл бұрын

@Umaxen 00, given your strategy, I wonder what are your thoughts about the 2020 election, was it rigged? or not?

@simduk9621

3 жыл бұрын

@@bucherregaldomi9084 same as yours And everyone else’s

WTF how it matters where he was pointing at. Trying to get the keys at gunpoint is a freaking crime.

@Tanniss

2 жыл бұрын

no it isnt especially when this persons property was just burglarized and said criminals tried to take out the hunters just to get away using a vehicle in the commission of a felony as a weapon is yet another felony

@tonyploma2330

2 жыл бұрын

No it's not. Not when they are on your property. Castle doctrine. A man's home is is castle. For example true story; one day I went to my brother's house he opened the door stuck a gun in my face and told me gtoh. I called the cops they came out , wouldn't even write a report much less charge him with a crime. I'm like wtf? They said you were on his property. He could have shot me if he wanted to. He could have killed me and got away with it. This Fla baby. You don't go on another man's property with that bs haha I was pissed

@depannist

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonyploma2330 it didn't happen on his property. The shooting occurred on a public street.

@rabd3721

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonyploma2330 I thought the prosecutor said they were on a public access road? Unless I'm mistaken.

@RavNivara

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonyploma2330 people who do not think or reason are why Florida's legislature had to change their fatally erred Stand Your Ground law as it departed from the True Man Doctrine. Shame so many in Florida got to shoot the person they provoked with situations they created, then BAM. Fcukin bunch of fools

I would hire this guy in a second. The passion is amazing coming from a lawyer

@jeremyashford2145

2 жыл бұрын

He’s like a kid having a tantrum.

@MrYuck-ec5do

2 жыл бұрын

Passion? He sounds frightened like he knows he has no case.

@Elena-sg5ix

2 жыл бұрын

I like him too

@abrakadabra9210

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrYuck-ec5do either way.. He presents his case.. Its their DUTY to do so.. This is a guy arguing his case to a higher level of courts than we usually see.. Id hope for someone to do so for me...

@blackpz2379

2 жыл бұрын

He is the prosecutor not the defense attorney.

If anyone is curious about what happened next, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the trial judge's decision to grant a new trial. Put more simply, the prosecutor lost the argument. So, there is no conviction of murder for the defendant, but he can still be put on trial again. The prosecutor's office indicated that they would put him on trial again, but no trial date has been announced as far as I can tell.

@oldyeller9849

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for that update. It’s beyond me why someone would go to the effort of posting a 20 minute video of this type and completely omit the ending.

@patwebster9597

3 жыл бұрын

Appreciate that, i was left wondering wtf what happens?

@HighChancellorAdam

3 жыл бұрын

@@oldyeller9849 The Court does not make its decision immediately. I think they issued their written opinion about 3 months after the oral arguments. Interesting case to be sure.

@oldyeller9849

3 жыл бұрын

@@HighChancellorAdam I’ll admit I hadn’t considered that but from the perspective of information sharing/storytelling etc, I would respectfully submit that until you have that decision you don’t in fact have the story and should hold off until you do. Why would I or anyone spend 20 minutes listening to a story that has no conclusion?

@emersonharris142

3 жыл бұрын

@@oldyeller9849 The video was posted on "Jul 31, 2019". In the world of media the first to post is the winner, even if the story is incomplete or an out right fabrication. They don't have the time, the economic incentive. or cultural incentive to make a "good" story (or true story for that matter). They only care about being the first ones in your face so they can sell ad space.

Why did I this show up in my recommended? And why did I just watch the entire thing?

@PaulBrown-uj5le

3 жыл бұрын

Same, we must be stupid fucks.

@timothyharden5505

3 жыл бұрын

Same

@pippinskillz

3 жыл бұрын

I can’t stop watching it. I’m zoned in haha.

@thommysides4616

3 жыл бұрын

You got sucked in....just like the rest of us....lol. Here....listen to this. kzread.info/head/OLAK5uy_ncD4ftpvJQfZGO7sXcazjuYsAh2viVw1U

@Cid_Coletti

3 жыл бұрын

Agree. However, it is pretty fascinating to watch.

I've always known the trial judge has the power of being the 13th juror and throwing out the conviction but this is the first time I've ever heard of it happening. This fascinates me cause of the fact that it's been so obvious that a lot of innocent people have been convicted and the trial judge would have every right to overthrow the verdict but never does. I wish more trial judges would use this power for the good of the railroaded defendents!

@apocalypsebandit7023

2 жыл бұрын

They always had the power to overturn jury verdicts, but its a power that is rarely used which is why we usually don't see it happen, not too sure what the rules are for judges overturning jury verdicts but I imagine they can only do it if they have a justified reason and evidence to back up their reasoning. I seen a case where a judge later overturned a DUI case after a jury guilty verdict, even though it was known the DUI blood test was forged.

@O.J._is_Guilty

2 жыл бұрын

You say it’s so obvious that a lot of innocent people have been convicted because they are railroaded by the prosecution even though they are innocent. If this were true to the extent you say it’s happening then this wouldn’t be the first time you’re seeing it. Judges would use this more often if random innocent people are being arrested and accused of crimes. In this case the guy was obviously targeted and railroaded by the prosecutor for doing nothing wrong and by nothing I mean he stuck a loaded gun with the safety off inside a car and tried to take the keys out and then shot a guy “deader than shit”. This is an obvious case of a prosecutor who has too much power convincing a jury of his peers the defendant committed murder with no evidence so the judge decides it’s not murder because the guy is obviously innocent. He totally didn’t shoot somebody and kill them “deader than shit”. That’s obviously just assault according to the judge. And lions fan you’re an idiot btw

@mrsjayhoward

2 жыл бұрын

@@O.J._is_Guilty have you not heard of the innocents project, and if you think a judge is just ready to throw out a jury conviction publicly making a statement by doing it potentially affecting their career and political standing no I don’t think it’s something a judge would do lightly even if they feel like they should do it

@8Platinum8

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks you saved me from so much typing 😂

@SSHitMan

2 жыл бұрын

I was going to say the same thing!

This is why YOU NEVER , EVER TAKE A PLEA DEAL. Go to trial cause ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN.

@jermainerace4156

2 жыл бұрын

Anything can happen, but "never take a plea deal"is just dumb. Going to trial when you are clearly guilty is a great way to get yourself a maximum sentence, just ask Traveon Blount, who got a life sentence for EACH of 6 victims of an armed robbery, plus 100+ years for other offenses (later commuted to 14 years) while his CDs took the plea deal and only got like 10-13.

@adamlv1

2 жыл бұрын

That is not good advice. The court system is so stacked against defendants they are sheep being led to the slaughter. They have been given a low budget defense attorney and they don’t have the money to hire expert witnesses, or labs to test materials, they are lucky to even have an attorney that is familiar with their case when they go to court. They are up against prosecuting attorneys with an unlimited budget. The very best and brightest attorneys are hired by the state to prosecute people. Good defense attorneys are few and far between. Unless you are Kyle Rittenhouse, or you have an unlimited budget, you definitely do not go to trial.

@permabearxbt

3 ай бұрын

90% of the time in trial you will get more time then with a plea deal unless you are really innocent

Almost impossible to convince a judge that another judge did something legally or morally wrong. Especially in judicial review boards.

@FrogToadBug

3 жыл бұрын

Well, kinda. But also the way law works it doesn't matter if he did "wrong" it matters if what the judge did went against the letter of the law. It's all about technicalities.

@Ozzy_2014

3 жыл бұрын

Worse. Trying to convince 5 of 9 judges ( minimum) that a now retired judge did wrong by overuling a former judge's murder trial's guilty verdict. If the only basis was a false memory ( we hope) of a statement not otherwise in dispute over credibility of a witness, then it seems baseless to overturn the verdict reached by the jury. I have no idea what happened during the crime, or the later trial. Though I agree in principle that without extraordinary grounds Judges should not overrule verdicts. Obvious bias being such grounds imo.

@VTArxelus

3 жыл бұрын

@@Ozzy_2014 Close. The judge overruled the jury, and retired three days later. The next judge refused to hear the state's arguments, declined a motion to extend time to file, and then there was the bring up of the fact of non-existent information from the judge. The state has clear reason to be mad. The judge just went abound on his last major case, made up information, and just threw another case to a superior court to clog the system.

@josephfuller6229

3 жыл бұрын

@@VTArxelus i wonder if the judge in the case was related to the old man that pulled the trigger

@VTArxelus

3 жыл бұрын

@@josephfuller6229 Who can say? All we know is that this state attorney basically believes he was run in a kangaroo court.

This is a MIND BLOWING experience..and I'm just watching. IMAGINE being the this lawyer with all these judges coming at you? And you gotta still remain focus?

@sarahconner9433

2 жыл бұрын

90% Judges are freemasonic scum...

@petecarroll3949

2 жыл бұрын

This is un-F Ing believable

@amazingsupergirl7125

2 жыл бұрын

Well he’s doing a great job. He obviously loves this stuff.

@DIRTDIVER882

2 жыл бұрын

Personally prob wouldnt of made it 5 minutes before trying my hand with judge warren. That one fine ginger 🤣

@ashleyc2525

2 жыл бұрын

Constantly interrupting him too

My gawd that prosecutor was brilliant! There's nothing worse than when the judge performs a summary judgment BUT this sounds like it was crazy.

@maplebones

2 жыл бұрын

The prosecutor was right but he didn't have a chance. That's very brave.

@mikesilveira719

2 жыл бұрын

Summary judgment is in civil court, btw. Not here.

After rewatching it I understand what the judges are saying. The point of this hearing is NOT to retry the case to find the defendant guilty. It’s to prove that the judge acted inappropriately by overturning the jury verdict.

@peoplez129

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is, he kind of has to lay out the facts of the case in order to show why the judge was acting inappropriately. In fact, it's not even really within the judge's purview to decide whether a witness was credible or not. It's only in the judge's purview to decide whether they reasonably believe the person is guilty or not based on the totality of the evidence. That one witness he claims he thought wasn't credible, was not even a lynchpin in the case. He was 100% guilty based on the simple facts of what took place, and the proof of the outcome of what took place. When a judge overrules a jury, they better have a darn good reason, and in this case there wasn't one. The judge can only overrule based on issues with the process itself. For example, if a jury comes back with a guilty verdict, but there were never any facts presented toward the guilt of the defendant, i.e. a hollow trial. A good example would be the Rittenhouse trial where he was clearly acting in self defense. There was nothing to indicate that he was never not acting in pure established self defense even. He acted inappropriately because there are actually solutions for a person lying under oath. So what should have been the right course of action is for the judge to charge the witness they thought was lying with perjury. Of course, the judge would need to have evidence of perjury to do that. Then and only then could the judge overrule a verdict. You can't say "I felt like this witness was lying". You actually need evidence to prove perjury before making a decision to strike a witnesses testimony and disregard a verdict. And they didn't even do that, they never strike the witnesses testimony. If the judge couldn't do that before a verdict was deliberated, then they have no standing to make those decisions, because the judge themselves can stop deliberation to handle process issues before allowing deliberation to occur. The fact that the judge still sent it off to the jury anyways, is very inappropriate.

@barrymcdougal4816

2 жыл бұрын

WELL HE DID --- AND PROBABLY WELL REWARDED FOR DOING SO.

@pippipster6767

2 жыл бұрын

Kind of linked logically.

@alkazar625

Жыл бұрын

@@peoplez129 the judge believed that the burden of proof was not met. But then again

@peterrenshaw9237

Жыл бұрын

@@peoplez129 No it is not inappropriate a judge can not influence jury so he had every right to allowing deliberation to occur. , what is inappropriate is to be on meth and up to no good and then send the person who stopped them to prison . if he was being a good citizen he would of not got shot .

14:53 "Putting a gun into a vehicle or holding a gun up here does not make it an aggravated assault" Really 🤔?

@ajmcintee548

3 жыл бұрын

Bruh ikr!! Crazy if I did that shit cops would shoot me. This def gotta be illegal

@SuperGunners69

3 жыл бұрын

Funny how police officers can do that and get away with it though

@brkbtjunkie

3 жыл бұрын

The judge is asking if the act of doing so is aggravated assault.

@jonathanrabbitt

3 жыл бұрын

I think the context of this comment is whether the occupants of the vehicle saw the weapon and were cognizant of the danger - which goes to the apprehension element of the common law assault.

@dougwarren8569

3 жыл бұрын

I feel in the case of any one of the Appeal Judges having a gun within 30 feet of their person whilst the holder of said firearm is ragingly upset would be the first to scream, “Aggravated Assault”. Any person with reason, knowing that law enforcement is on the way, would simple hold the persons with the implied intent of using force if necessary. Pushing the limit to barrel in your face, no sorry Appellate Honors, that is aggravated and assault.

Note to self: stay away from Georgia.

@achilleonv

3 жыл бұрын

You should know that from the recent elections.

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

Why? Because you might actually get a second chance if your murder trial was conducted improperly? That's a reason to STAY AWAY? Sounds to me like a great reason to go to Georgia - they respect civil rights enough to vacate a guilty verdict and give you a second trial if anything questionable happened in your first one. That's a reason to WANT to live there.

@Jin-Ro

3 жыл бұрын

The stuff I see on Netflix and KZread on the various US justice jurisdictions tells me to stay away from the USA, especially small town sheriffs and judges. We should definitely not send Assange to the USA.

@tomjackson4374

3 жыл бұрын

@@ajm5007 Because cops are quick to arrest, juries are quick to convict and your constitutional rights mean nothing. Judges overturning convictions are incredibly rare and this judge retired. I stay far away from the South and I grew up there.

@idobbs737

3 жыл бұрын

A good rule in 'merica is don't talk to strangers. In small towns don't act weird, be nice and friendly. When you see rough trade, run down dwellings, abject poverty, grimy homeless encampments, open-air drug markets/shooting galleries... just move along, nothing weird going on there

The defendant in the case was a judge magistrate himself who worked with and knew the original judge for years. Not to mention the original judge on this case retired only two days after they overturned this case of their former colleague/friend. How this is not a conflict of interest and misconduct in every sense I will never understand. He called himself "the 13th juror" but somehow overturned the whole case despite the other 12 jurors finding Hamilton guilty. Our tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen. It's all about who you know, you can literally get away with premeditated murder!

@CoriHaws

2 жыл бұрын

To answer your question, If you are going to take away someone's freedom, you have to be sure. If all 12, or in this case 13 if you really consider the judge to be a 13th, jurors can not come to a unanimous verdict, there there is at least an indication of some degree of doubt. In which case, the conviction would be "unsafe" as the standard for conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". Judges have a unique position. They are meant to know the law. A jury is meant to follow the law but doesn't have expertise on the law, and if a judge believes that no reasonable jury could come to a certain conclusion based on the facts following the law, and the jury did come to that conclusion, they may give a ruling notwithstanding the verdict for a retrial.

@illbeyourstumbleine

2 жыл бұрын

@@CoriHaws I'm not sure what question I asked after reading my comment again. I may have said something sarcastically like "How is this not a conflict of interest I will never understand" but I didn't end that with a question mark, it was more rhetorical. We see backwards things like this happen in our "justice" system everyday. The corruption is rampant and who you are, the money you make, the color of your skin along with many other things go into what sentence you're given and if a judge feels the need to step in and overturn an unanimous guilty verdict. We all know what happened here, just like when white collar criminals do half the time for stealing 100x the money of an everyday thief. Nothing is blind about lady Justice, bot only is she peeking, she apparently has a seat on the judges bench and jury box🤷‍♀️

@HotBrass-Lead

2 жыл бұрын

They were thieves and deserved it . I’d have overturned it aswell

@LucenProject

2 жыл бұрын

@@CoriHaws I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff, so forgive me if this is dumb question. Why does this 13th juror thing exist? Was there a particular situation that led to the creation of this power? like was there a heavily biased population where particular defendants might always be found guilty regardless of evidence and therefore need a judge that could save them if they found the jury decision to be unreasonable?

@CoriHaws

2 жыл бұрын

@@LucenProject I don't really know the answer to that question I'm sorry, but you're likely on the right lines. I think the consideration would be that jurors do not have detailed understanding of the law. Their job is to ascertain the facts of the matter, and indicate whether or not the law has been broken. The judge should know the law much better, and in particular the standards required to secure a conviction. It the evidence is weak, and the judge determines that the standards were not met, but the jury returns guilty then perhaps the jury wasn't returning a verdict based on the evidence, but rather other considerations (which wouldn't be allowed).

These judges are sad. Aren't they supposed to know the law? Why are they grilling this lawyer? This lawyer is really impressive! I would hire him any day.

@hhhggbg3000

2 жыл бұрын

That’s how this works. The prosecution brought the appeal, and now has to defend and sell that appeal. Also that man is a prosecutor. You wouldn’t be hiring him, he’d be the one charging you.

@johnwilson6707

2 жыл бұрын

need a couple thousand bucks

@ditherdather

2 жыл бұрын

They're doing their job. The state filed the appeal. The burden is on them to answer these judges questions.

@dermadawg

2 жыл бұрын

Most state Supreme Court Justices are the trash at the bottom of the lawyer barrel because the good (competent) lawyers don’t want the job, the pay is too low

@atlpeach3653

2 жыл бұрын

Prosecutor has the burden to defend his position and not the Supreme Court judges to guess.

Did we really just hear a judge ask if it's illegal to stick a gun in someone's car, assault them, and shoot them? I want my taxes back.

@Candigale

3 жыл бұрын

Right?? I don’t even need one stuck in my car, I just need to see one and I’d be shitting myself!!!

@joescutari

3 жыл бұрын

No he asked if it is aggravated assault.

@nicholaskillmeier4895

3 жыл бұрын

@@joescutari umm, well, is that any better?

@joescutari

3 жыл бұрын

@@nicholaskillmeier4895 Its not that its any better or not. Its that they are two very different things in the eye of the law. if he stuck his gun in the car, pointed to a part of the car where there was no person, a good lawyer can argue that that is not the same as aggravated assault where there is intent to hurt someone vs intent to scare someone. Regardless if we personally feel there is no distinction, there is according to the law.

@nicholaskillmeier4895

3 жыл бұрын

@@joescutari People have been charged with assault for as little as lifting their shirts to show they have a gun, which i think is a little extreme, but that's the other end of the spectrum. It's up to the interpretation of the court.

The checks and balances are being side-stepped. And power is being abused.

@hellasow

3 жыл бұрын

The hearing is a check and balance on the judge overturning the verdict. The standard should be the judge should have some overwhelming evidence the jury disregarded the evidence and made up their own verdict.

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

@@hellasow That would be a reasonable standard were the judge simply DECLARING a verdict other than the one the jury chose, but the judge is simply calling for a re-trial here. The standard for that should be "the judge has reasonable doubt about the veridity of the verdict."

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

You clearly have no clue what's happening in this video, vee elle. This video SHOWS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN ACTION.

@doozerchuck8625

3 жыл бұрын

Aaron j, I dont think you recognize the elemental certainty in the video. Check 171.6.1 via 166.7.2 of the GA statute. Nontheless it is unprecedented that a theoretical precedent has been established, arguement notwithstanding.

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

@@doozerchuck8625 There is no "elemental certainty" in this video. That's exactly the point. The trial judge vacated the verdict because, in his opinion, the elements of the crime had not been established at trial, but the jury erroneously entered a guilty verdict, anyway. That's legitimate grounds for the judge to vacate the verdict and order a new trial. In this video, the prosecution is TRIYING to argue otherwise, and has failed. > That sentence literally means nothing, and proves you have no clue what you're talking about.

I wonder who paid the judge off, considering he retired just afterwards?

It's sad when everyone knows it's wrong but doesn't want to fix it.

@roseroses7576

2 жыл бұрын

It's not wrong. It is part of the judge's job.

@illbeyourstumbleine

2 жыл бұрын

The defendant in the case was a judge himself who worked with the original judge. Not to mention the original judge on this case retired only two days after they overturned this case of their former colleague. How this is bot misconduct I will never understand. Our tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen. It's all about who you know, you can literally get away with premeditated murder!

@Ryan-nq3qp

2 жыл бұрын

@@illbeyourstumbleine Can you prove that the defendant worked with the presiding judge? Please show me. Because any conflict of interest would've forced the judge to recuse himself.

His last statement proved his entire point. The judge literally lied!

@davidolsen1222

3 жыл бұрын

That's not the standard. The Judge being stupid should actually *help* the judge's case since it means that the judge is just wrong about the facts of the case and drew an entirely stupid conclusion. To win the lawyer needs to show that the judge could not possibly have gotten that conclusion that, and being very stupid, the judge obviously *could* have gotten that conclusion. Outside of showing that conviction is a forced move, so to speak, the lawyer loses this. --- He consequently did lose this.

@drewvinar9005

3 жыл бұрын

his last statements were contradictory, he said that the judge said that the witness didnt admit something. then he said the judge said that the witness said something.

@jessp3021

3 жыл бұрын

Or he was old and confused

@Rundvelt

2 жыл бұрын

No it didn't. The fact that he's able to shoot down (which may not be the case), a comment from the judge doesn't mean that the judge only had one. He only stated one. It's amazing how people listen to one side of the argument and then reach a conclusion. Please, never, ever be a juror.

@Rundvelt

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidolsen1222 Even assuming the lawyer is correct in the ruling of the judges' position, which hasn't been shown, he'd also have to demonstrate it was the ONLY reason the judge had. The judge could have had 200 reasons for all we know.

I'm so lost the dude admitted with out coercion that he killed him and they are saying the judge was right to say he isn't guilty

@coreyg7364

3 жыл бұрын

they are saying the judge has the right to overturn the jury verdict based on any reason he chooses including not believing the evidence and he doesn't have to give an explanation. The attorney is arguing that the judge has too much power and overturned a good verdict but can't provide any evidence that the judge did anything against the law....which is the attorney's point...the judge overturned a provably proper verdict, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. This is indeed the place of the supreme court to set straight. I wonder how this turned out.

@rifter0x0000

3 жыл бұрын

A group of meth heads robbed someone and tried to kill people who had come on his property. When they returned, the property owner tried to detain them so the police could deal with him. The driver of the truck tried to grab the gun and it went off, killing one of the robbers. The owner admitted that the robber was killed, but killing in self defense or by accident isn't murder. It's kind of fucked up, tbh that the prosecutor is more interested in putting away the property owner than the robbers who had been trying to kill people who tried to question their presence. If someone has already tried to kill people a few hours before, a reasonable person would feel their life was threatened. This should never have gone to trial in the first place, IMHO, based on what the prosecutor is arguing here.

@Iansco1

3 жыл бұрын

@@coreyg7364 Ruled new trial can proceed.

@metalfan4u

3 жыл бұрын

@@rifter0x0000 lol whered you find that because everything ive found about this case is well not what you said.

@truffleshuffle009

3 жыл бұрын

@@coreyg7364 It turned out how everyone expected it to turn out since the law at least in Georgia states a judge can overrule a jury for whatever reason he likes and he does not even have to give any reason. But they are trying to change the laws at least in Georgia to where if you overturn a conviction you can't do it and retire instantly as this judge did. They also want you to let the prossicution know that you are going to overturn the verdict and give the reason for overturning it.

A lot of you are not understanding what he is trying to argue. He has to prove that the original judge made a decision he isn't allowed to make. They aren't interested in determining if the defendant was guilty or innocent. That's not up to them to decide. They are only deciding if the judge at the time was within his right to make the ruling he did. That's all they have to determine. They are not there to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

@FluffeyPandasWorld

2 жыл бұрын

What I'm not understanding is what gave him reasonable grounds to overturn 12 other people to be honest. According to the attorney he didn't provide enough guidance to overturn the original jury. I honestly only know what's been said in the video, but overturning 12 people without gross negligence by the 12 people or irrefutable evidence even if it is allowed doesn't seem right and should be addressed it's literally taking power away from the people.

@doom-driveneap4569

2 жыл бұрын

100%

@gabrieldacruz3150

2 жыл бұрын

But if the judge put in the record about a witness saying something that she never did say during the trial and he's using that to base his decision on I think they should take it away from him

@kewlztertc5386

2 жыл бұрын

Appeals are about procedure. The only valid question was if the judge had the authority to do what he did. If there was some mistake that wasn't fair.

@barrymcdougal4816

2 жыл бұрын

AND THEY ARE TOO LAZY TO READ THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS --- JUST GANG UP ON THE PROSECUTION LAWYER.

I appreciate this man and his passion.

@Downsouthroots

2 жыл бұрын

Any one notice Judge Clarence Thomas asleep as usual...

I like the attorney's passion. You can tell he really believes in what he's saying.

@johnnyutah4584

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, in his quest to purify. The fact is criminal justice in the US needs to end. There is 1.2 Trillion in direct and indirect costs with little to show for it. It’s an old antiquated system that is for the Middle Ages and not for post modern economy’s

@CutterDriftwood

3 жыл бұрын

No he doesn't he's kust angry he lost! That's what the state always does when things don't go fully their way! He could give two shits whether the persons innocent or guilty just so long as he wins! He's not even making any legitimate legal argument either! He's just rambling making a total fool of himself!

@2Truth4Liberty

3 жыл бұрын

I like how the justices kept returning to applying the law and he had no real rebuttal to show how the judge errored.

@HaLarryUs1

3 жыл бұрын

His blinking eyes tell me something different

@Steve_Hayden

3 жыл бұрын

He had passion, but not the intelligence to argue it correctly. The judges were even trying to steer his arguement into something useful. Do you know how they ruled on this case?

We've reviewed our own actions and reached the conclusion we have done no wrong.

@amelliamendel2227

3 жыл бұрын

Seems reasonable

@Cramblit

3 жыл бұрын

@@amelliamendel2227 Hey it works for Twitter, and reddit. soooo

@amelliamendel2227

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cramblit On the weekends were so short on people I help out on the floor. It's a joke when someone asks for something I just stay I'll bring it up with the owner - everyone laughs I have a great crew.

@finejustgivemeaname

3 жыл бұрын

@@amelliamendel2227 don’t get it. Are you the owner? Sounds like an inside joke and we’re lacking context.

@amelliamendel2227

3 жыл бұрын

@@finejustgivemeaname Yes

Y the HELL is this even LAWFULL for Judge to overturn a Jury ?

@Charlesbjtown

2 жыл бұрын

Because sometimes juries are so stupid, and make egregious moronic decisions. That's when the judge has to step in.

@mba2ceo

2 жыл бұрын

@@Charlesbjtown then WE do NOT have a JURY trial

@1holytara

2 жыл бұрын

It's actually not. They don't want to you to know about the true power of our juries. It's called jury nullification.

@mba2ceo

2 жыл бұрын

@@1holytara correct

@nicholasflorida1994

5 ай бұрын

@@mba2ceo The judge can ONLY overturn a guilty conviction, and not the other way around. This is absolutely FAIR, AND NECESSARY. We must ALWAYS side with the extremely important GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. If a learned judge, much more experienced and usually more intelligent than most jury members, believes the jury got it WRONG in convicting someone, they can absolutely use their authority as the "13th jury member" and overturn a conviction.

We need a different route for challenging the judicial system. Judges seem to rule in favor of other judges, if they can.

@ikafmedia2007

2 жыл бұрын

Sometime they can, but they ONE (criminal) that got away may come and get them after retirement...

@Gwentheferret

2 жыл бұрын

Gee, maybe that's because to even become a judge, you need to have an incredible grasp of the law and how the justice system works. And they didn't say "judge was right, not guilty". They said "gotta redo the trial". HUGE difference.

@Captain-Cosmo

2 жыл бұрын

I make certain to read every single higher court ruling in three different states (one of them GA). Judges are overturned all of the time. Most of the time, they just did sloppy work to begin with.

Crooks. The defendant is a retired judge.

@jgrenwod

3 жыл бұрын

No he's not.

@JPoleet

3 жыл бұрын

@@jgrenwod Yes he is. It's one of the reasons people alleged he let him off.

@strongholds12

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. Freenasons occulturds first priority is loyalty to the brotherhood

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

Stop lying. The defendant is not a retired judge. The lower court ruling being reviewed was issued by a judge who has since retired. The DEFENDANT has no judicial or legal background at all, though.

@pat5star

3 жыл бұрын

@@ajm5007 In all the news reports I’ve read (including the one linked to in this videos description) they do state the defendant previously served as an associate magistrate judge in Barrow county. Also, when the trial judge was interviewed he stated himself that they ‘may have crossed paths in the past’ but insisted he did not know the defendant personally. Are you saying they’re all wrong?!

If only these Judges fought this hard for all defendants and not just for one of their own.

@kharnac3973

3 жыл бұрын

It seems to me the judges were twisting themselves in knots to find a reason to not over turn the ruling. If you put a gun in through the window of a single cab truck, everyone in that cab is in jeopardy. This is frustrating to watch.

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

@@kharnac3973 They weren't. It's their JOB to challenge what the attorney says. They treated the other attorney the same way. The judges in an appellate case are supposed to raise challenges like this, not just nod and agree with the attorney. They do it to both sides.

@colecole3352

3 жыл бұрын

@@kharnac3973 It matters your intent. I gun in the cab. Is not the same as point the gun at someone's head.

@kharnac3973

3 жыл бұрын

@@colecole3352 So, only if it was pointed at someone's head? Do you really believe that what was described in the case was perfectly safe? Do you really think that in the act of pointing that gun into the driver's side window using his right hand that his barrel never swept any part of anyone from either inside or outside the cab?

@anthonymartial2832

3 жыл бұрын

@@kharnac3973 the point is. The appeals court isnt there to try the case again.. they arent interested in the facts of the case because that's what the lower court's job was.. the issue is.. the standard for overturning a judge's decision is quite high...you have to demonstrate that the lower court came to decision that NO REASONABLE court of law could arrive at.. and that's quite high... the problem for the prosecution is that there is no precedent that sets the legal limits for when a decision is too outrageous..and how he has to rely on the facts yet this isn't a retrial... the judges aren't at fault really.

The judge overturns a guilty verdict you know damn well he got pay

@duradim1

2 жыл бұрын

Possible but not probable. Think about O.J. Simpson. Everyone knows he was guilty as sin. I don't know if California law will allow a judge to overturn an acquittal, but it should have happened.

They had their minds made up before the prosecutor started talking

See there is two classes of people. This is what happens when your in and when your not.

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

Good job proving you don't even comprehend what you just watched happen.

@jacobmccandles1767

3 жыл бұрын

"It's a BIG club, and you're not in it" ~ George Carlin

@paulfestmusic

3 жыл бұрын

@James Huffman if you actually research the case (beyond what is in this video alone) you will find out that the defendant used to be a judge also.

@jacqueline3782

3 жыл бұрын

*you're

@jacqueline3782

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulfestmusic interesting

Stay off of private property. You never know what crazy guy owns it. Dose not matter if he was right or wrong when you are 6ft under

@markperry2827

2 жыл бұрын

dead men tell no tales

One judge ignored ethics to save another judge, while an entire panel of other judges ignored ethics to save the first judge.

That lawyer is good, resilient, bold. A good reminder of the excellent legacy of the American justice system. But one has to wonder how broken a society has to get when a guy goes Scot free who pointed a loaded gun at a group of people, and lets it go off while he busied himself with stealing their car keys, and kills someone in the process. AND 9 justices have to debate his culpability.

@GeorgeBonez

2 жыл бұрын

Your portrayal of the defendant is disingenuous and factually wrong. You are trying to do the same thing this liberal whaco lawyer is trying to do and that is to retry the original case without any of the players involved in the trial. THATS WRONG! Judges can and have overruled jury’s in many cases over the years and most of the time for good reason! This supreme court realizes that. It’s too bad that you don’t

@ojstephen1866

2 жыл бұрын

@@GeorgeBonez It didn't appear to me whether the facts were debated. With those set of facts as I have assumed in my comment, I still remain amazed that the question of guilt is debated at all. Obviously, if a new trial was ordered as someone has stated in the comments, it follows even the new judge thought the older judge had overreached.

@Tancent051

2 жыл бұрын

@@GeorgeBonez I’m not arguing that power should exist, however I believe this lawyer is arguing it should have well regulated standards “in the books” so to speak. The judge did not present good evidence for violating something that is sacred in our law and important to every citizens rights in the United States: No matter what you did, you deserve a trial by your peers. Members of your community that do not have the “benefit” of knowing the law cover to cover can review the evidence vetted by a “fact finder” and the defense while the judge guards over your constitutional rights and the bounds of the law. Then if the jury could REASONABLY make their verdict off of the facts presented by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty or not guilty, their life is decided by the 12. This judge VIOLATED that right blatantly and without due reasoning. If a judge is going to overturn a Jury verdict it’s my beliefs they should have to provide their reasoning, preferably an in depth explanation at the least.

@Tancent051

2 жыл бұрын

@@ojstephen1866 that was my assumption as well. He didn’t come to argue about the facts. The judge that asked him to present it in a more vague way, rather than quoting arguments from the case, should of stepped in way earlier

@claudeyaz

2 жыл бұрын

While people who are innocent rot in jail. It is a mess

The trial judge wanted to have his, "F it, I do what I want" moment before retiring.

@lauralishes1

3 жыл бұрын

I think that's what happened

@blackviking2079

3 жыл бұрын

@ROCKDUDESFORME I can tell you listened to Rush Limbaugh

@joesites

3 жыл бұрын

@@blackviking2079 hahahaha! That's probably 100% accurate. RL was a "do as I say not as I do" pos.

@blackviking2079

3 жыл бұрын

@@joesites I can tell because he loved using the word "reprobate" when describing someone lol

@gabrielhodgson4113

3 жыл бұрын

.....could a one horned rhinoceros be referred to as a unicorn? :-)

Can these people let this guy finish a statement?! Damn

@cmeadsboise

2 жыл бұрын

That’s how all Supreme Courts work. It’s frustrating and mentally draining for the lawyers arguing their case. I’m shocked we have video. I’ve never seen video of SCOTUS in action, but I’ve never tried looking either.

@derkommentator7273

2 жыл бұрын

@@cmeadsboise This is not the SCOTUS. This is the Supreme Court of Georgia.

@outspoken5808

2 жыл бұрын

@@derkommentator7273 Pretty sure that @chrismedows knows that this isn't SCOUTS. His point is normally supreme courts are not filmed.

@outspoken5808

2 жыл бұрын

This is oral argument before a supreme court, the Justices are supposed to ask questions while he is speaking.

@Elysiadon

2 жыл бұрын

This is how literally all appellate courts work.

I just happened to watch this and was amazed at the prosecutor's passion and he literally nailed every word ❤

This guy did a great job with his argument. The underlying basis of the judge overruling the jury is based on a lie rather than a fact. His discretion to be the 13th jury and overrturn the verdict is premised on a lie rather than a factual determination and should be a abuse of discretion. This is a grave injustice.

@georgeschnakenberg7808

2 жыл бұрын

I disagree. Don't trespass. I think laws should be firmer for just a case like this. Also it seems you didn't listen to the judges

@meistyfeisty1236

Жыл бұрын

@@georgeschnakenberg7808 the judges did not refer to the facts

@georgeschnakenberg7808

Жыл бұрын

@@meistyfeisty1236 he did refer to the relevant facts. What facts are you saying he didn't refer to?

This is why people don't believe in their system. It's 💔

@kettch777

3 жыл бұрын

Actually, this is not unprecedented. Judges do have the authority to override a guilty verdict (not an acquittal) in cases where the judge has cause to believe that despite the jury verdict, the prosecution has not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I doubt this challenge succeeded. A verdict was entered, and jeopardy has been attached. If they order a new trial, the defendant will have an excellent Constitutional case that this constitutes double jeopardy.

@2Truth4Liberty

3 жыл бұрын

@@kettch777 The judge can order a new trial but cannot enter acquittal instead of a guilty verdict and a new trial is not precluded by double jeopardy. That said, the defendant has yet another chance to be acquitted by a jury.

@petesfarm7830

3 жыл бұрын

Federal courts r extremely Corrupt

@1991Nodoubt

3 жыл бұрын

Why? Did you listen to the case? What the prosecutor was saying happened and why the judge had done what he done? The system definitely has holes, but this isn’t a case in support of that issue.

@2Truth4Liberty

3 жыл бұрын

@@1991Nodoubt "this isn’t a case in support of that issue." Yep. Quite the opposite - this case shows an appellate court not making exceptions -- that is, applying equal treatment regardless of the stage of the proceeding or the perception of the outcome

Looking at the case, the prosecution tried to get a conviction on felony murder based off of aggravated assault. I believe that's why the judge over turned the verdict. If the state would have went for something less like manslaughter, I believe it would have stuck. And this video was not about the guilt of Hamilton. It was about the process of the trial.

@antiochaldo6299

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe they tried to go for felony murder because the guy bragged about " shooting him deader then shit"?

@anagramconfirmed1717

3 жыл бұрын

@@antiochaldo6299 did the shootee deserve it?

@thedott6232

3 жыл бұрын

Thank youuuu! Everyone is in the comments thinking this testimony hearing is about wether the defendant was guilty or not, but really this hearing is about discussing the original Judge’s decision to overrule the Jury’s guilty verdict. Like the lawyer is just giving the court a summary of the case and information about the case to support his argument that there should be more scrutiny (I can’t think of the right word right now so ‘scrutiny’ is as close as I could get) in situations where a judge overrules a Jury’s decision.

@udaybhanupuchakayala2581

3 жыл бұрын

@@thedott6232 a jury is not subject to the same scrutiny.

@guttahgang2300

3 жыл бұрын

Wow....Somebodynthat actually understands the context of CHARGES/INDICTMENTS....DA over reached and paid for it....Language is critical, such as, "The gun went off...." or "I made the gun go off...."

The Supreme Court says this is the law...but their whole job is to decide on constitutionality of laws/rulings etc. They just did not want to remove judicial power. They kept interrupting when he was trying to explain why the man was clearly guilty, isn't that what you have to do to "prove no rational juror could come to a different conclusion" as said by one of the justices.

@MichaelPhillips-jw4bj

2 жыл бұрын

''The Supreme Court says this is the law...but their whole job is to decide on constitutionality of laws/rulings etc.''. . There's very specific rules on appeals... Your not there to re argue your case, your there only to argue the specific reason for your appeal. Which in this case is a mistrial or possibly a JNOV (which is legal just about everywhere and been law for centuries.) i read above He only gave a mistrial, not a mistrial with predjudice ('with prejudice' meaning he can't retried) . 15:50 The female judge had it dead on when she said,, don't re argue your case, tell me why the JNOV or mistrial was not legal?,,,( the mistrial call is pretty boundless. Likely there was some dodgy evidence or witnesses or something else. That he hoped the jury would see through... But after the verdict the judge called a mistrial. Which is legal and the courts don't MAKE or change laws so they can't do much).... He can retry the case BTW. i wonder why he didn't? likely its weak as hell and he's just mad he lost the verdict (a big career win) to a mistrial. especially if felt it was uncalled for. Either way The appeal try was worth it, but its hardly a outrage. The state has overwhelming power in such cases and has unlimited resources to retry people

@Iloveidiots1

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is that the Judge is part of the Jury.... It would be really difficult to prove that the judge was irrational, or incapable of coming up with a different conclusion, especially since the Judge did come up with a different conclusion.

I will say one thing. The lawyer arguing this is simply put "Incredible and very believable

@valentinvelazquezreyes9724

2 жыл бұрын

The lawyer is against lawiers lol

@taunteratwill1787

2 жыл бұрын

As a judge you don't work with "believe". Facts and evidence, for anything else you go to church! 😂

@zubetp

11 ай бұрын

incredible means unbelievable. it means not credible. so like, which is he, believable or not? 😅

Are they just interrupting everything he says just to confuse him?

@texasforever7887

3 жыл бұрын

That's how appellate courts work. They oversee the lower trial courts. Both attorney's would have submitted what happened in the case and their arguments weeks before this hearing. The losing side on the case is appealing the ruling of the lower trial court for either procedural issues or if they think there is something legally wrong with the ruling or the trial itself and it needs to be overturned. The judges are trying to focus on the question at hand and are trying to get answers on what they don't fully understand about the issue or on an aspect they think is being overlooked. Usually each side gets 1 hour in front of the panel of judges to present their argument and answer any questions they have. Depending on what is being appealed, the appellate court will generally either uphold the lower courts decision, send it back to the lower court with instructions on how to proceed or overturn the lower courts ruling.

@texasforever7887

3 жыл бұрын

This is nothing compared to the United States Supreme Court. During their hearings the Justices will inturupt the each other with their questions.

@DSKSeattle

3 жыл бұрын

Yup! You have to practice your argument while anticipating random questions throughout. That’s how appellate arguments work.

@goMANgo84

3 жыл бұрын

If you get a chance or can ever find it. Look at Laurence Fishburne's play "Thurgood"' When he was arguing in front of the Supreme Court it was just like this. I guess all they really do is test the theory of the plaintiff counsel in order to be persuaded to change what happened previously in lower court decisions.

@samanthajames-cooper5529

3 жыл бұрын

Some interruption is to keep the counsel on point. The long and winding road will time all out, both the appellant who needs the Court to decide for them and the Court who need to get it right.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our law system. Guy says what he’s going to do, does it, is convicted by a jury, and is then let off by his buddy. Amazing 🙄

@ronaldbarnes1746

2 жыл бұрын

Similar to Trump. He is on tape saying he just starts kissing them and that they let you grab em by the P. Then when females came out that he did that to them they were called liars, ugly and democrats.

@craigbannister7826

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronaldbarnes1746 no that's not the same. Lolol

@craigbannister7826

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronaldbarnes1746 wat about joe Biden he was accused as well!!!! And is his son that should be on jail. Lol the hypocrisies is halarious

@baanjones5910

2 жыл бұрын

@@craigbannister7826 lol… 🤦🏽‍♀️

@northeastrailway.

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronaldbarnes1746 when you are rich, women do let you do that to them.. in fact they invite it. If you or I did it, (people who aren't rich and aren't famous), the woman would not be happy because they don't know either of us. I'm not condoning grabbing women in that way but just like a rock star, they get p***y without saying a word.. they can grab, take, point them out of a crowd, etc, and have sex with them after. What Joe Biden does is disgusting and disturbing. He smells married women with their husband standing right next to them basically saying "I have the power to do whatever I want to your wife and you can't stop me".. he also does it to little boys and girls.. there are so many creepy videos of him doing this and saying how beautiful a 12 year old is, touching her hair and you can see she is uncomfortable, wanting to get as far away from that creep as possible. There are way more allegations against Biden than there are if Trump, and bidens are recent.. not from 11 years ago!.

I love how he shut the judge down from interrupting him @19:30 with the hand 🤚 block and the excuse me

@morganmoves1318

Ай бұрын

That was such a shoddy spot to try and interrupt him too. I get keeping the man on point, but at least let him finish A point that he's dead set in the middle of, for listeners in posterity if nothing else

"The judge is the 13th juror!?!?!?" What kind of nonsense is that? The judge's only job is to make sure court procedures are followed and answer questions that the jurors have about those procedures and how the law reads. The GA Supreme Court should have seen this case come before them, overturned the judges ruling, and proceeded to send the case to another court for sentencing based on the jury's decision. We have an obvious crime, ample witnesses and an admission of guilt. Why was there even a trial on this? What a waste of everyone's time. Dude walks up to a truck with ill intent, then follows through with that intent? That's cut and dried first degree murder, or cut, dried, packaged and sold, second degree murder. Guy wasted another person in cold blood and admitted he did it in front of witnesses. Send his ass to jail.

The level of civil discourse shown here is what I wish existed in the house and senate

@NymbusCumulo928

3 жыл бұрын

I mean it exists on one side

@zacheryhershberger7508

3 жыл бұрын

Courts are governed by rules but congress decides what the rules are. Congress is inherently more a fast and loose kind of world. They write the laws and are not beholden to decorum when they can rewrite them. It may not seem relevant but power makes a difference in terms of the psychology and culture of court proceedings vs debate in congress.

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

@@zacheryhershberger7508 This was a State court case, so Congress had nothing to do with it.

@zacheryhershberger7508

3 жыл бұрын

@@ajm5007 I don't think you're following but its all cool yeah I know that the video had nothing to do with Congress. i was responding to another comment.

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

@@zacheryhershberger7508 Congress does not decide the rules that STATE courts are governed by. What you said was inaccurate. That said, replace "congress" with "the state legislature," and it's entirely accurate in cases like this one.

Why have a jury when the Judge has the power to overturn a verdict.

@NoobPatel

3 жыл бұрын

That’s only in some states. Not all states allow that.

@billknight5332

3 жыл бұрын

Well hopefully they’re only over turning guilty verdicts. Jury wrongfully convict people often.

@drebk

3 жыл бұрын

yes, a judge can't overturn a not guilty and return a guilty instead...thankfully

@BlueOriginAire

3 жыл бұрын

@@drebk The case before this court is to show why a new trial should be granted ? Prove the Judge knew the hunters ? , the guy taking people hostage ?, prove they all knew each other. That’s the argument for the prosecutor.

@drebk

3 жыл бұрын

@@BlueOriginAire You might be commenting on the wrong video... That wasn't the point of the case, and those facts aren't the facts of the alleged crime. The guy wasn't a hunter and he didn't take hostages. And it beggars belief that this panel of judges wouldn't know such a basic characteristic of the accused. but I will admit, this is speculation on my part...maybe they thought it wasn't relevant... although judges and lawyers are and others are held to a higher standard... so, that doesn't hold water either. The point of this case was to prove that there should NOT be a new trial, but that the verdict of the jury should stand. The point of the case was to get this panel of judges to recognize and agree that invoking the 13th juror here was inappropriate and legally unsupportable. and IMO he did a good job and focused on what he needed to... the fact is no panel has ever overruled a trial judge on a 13th juror claim. in that state. ever. which is why he spent a fair bit of time talking about how the law says there's a limit on their discretion to invoke it, but so far no panel has been brave enough to show us where that line might be. when the 13th juror is invoked, the prosecutor can just retry the case, he doesn't need the panels approval...but it would be helpful if he knew "why" the trial judge felt the guy was innocent... hence how much time the prosecutor spent discussing the abject lack of rationale, discussion, or reasons. the panel glossed over this fact with a flippant comment about how it would be nice, but that rule doesn't apply to regular jurors... but a judge is no regular juror. Also, immediately resigning afterwords? yup, sounds totally legit

Tough one, but I’m not a fan of a judge overruling a jury’s decision. There’s certainly enough there to support the 12’s decision.

@coin.guy8411

2 жыл бұрын

It sounds like the original judge got paid off and retired...

This man is so intense… and these judges sound so negative.. I cannot even pretend to understand this but that lawyer is passionate. I’d hire him.

Omg, this guy... How do I hire him?! Taking a technical knock out to the state supreme court? What dedication to the law and procedure

@williambixby3785

3 жыл бұрын

He knows his shit. That’s for sure! I didn’t like his performance tho... he let them dictate the show and seemed nervous the whole time. He’s young enough that he will turn that part around before long tho.

@williambixby3785

3 жыл бұрын

@@rickfreed2 I agree. It felt like watching someone trying to load a .45 in a BB gun. His argument was valid, but his delivery was weak. He was scared and it showed.

@rickfreed2620

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah prosecutors rarely have to argue their cases in appellate courts and are often only dealing with rubber stamp local judges who back them up to huge degree. But appellate courts are brutal. You have to anticipate every question in advance and have a plan to address those quickly and firmly with precedent or demonstrate no precedent. You can’t be doing things like say “I forget the actual case or the specifics.” Done!!!!!

@eweezy946

3 жыл бұрын

@@rickfreed2 Yeah all he did was try to go in there a paint a narrative and just start spew his case to put as much of how he saw it into their head until he gets shut down so that maybe it would sway them to side with him. But that's not what he was there for so they are getting pissed because he is just blowing smoke up their ass and wasting their time.

@Seemsayin

3 жыл бұрын

@@williambixby3785 He seemed to be very pushy, talking over the judges. I thought his arguments were weak, in that he found it unrealistic that a judge could overturn a jury's verdict, despite the defendant admitting fault. What he didn't seem to understand is that a jury can be just as wrong about a their verdict, as a judge can be wrong about an acquittal. That, and his diatribe about the virtues of not sticking a weapon inside of someone's vehicle after they were warned about trespassing on private property, while they were trespassing on private property.

What is the point of a jury if a judge can over rule there verdict ...? This alone proves the lack of “justice” in our judiciary system ! Would you agree ?

@darkomen42

3 жыл бұрын

Because judges can set aside verdicts in favor of defendants if there is not sufficient evidence presented to justify the verdict. Our justice system is supposed to favor the accused, that's why we have innocence until proven guilty.

@johnsmith-so5do

3 жыл бұрын

darkomen42 , “ supposed “ being the key word here, because this rarely even happens .

@nettejohnson7492

3 жыл бұрын

@@darkomen42 Judges are not elected and thus they CAIN't make 'case' laws from the bench.. this Judge set a precedent with this 'case law' to be the standard for all Judges$. HErod = Judges$ multipLIED.

@MrIgorkap

3 жыл бұрын

@@nettejohnson7492 Wrong! Plenty of Judges are elected.

@nettejohnson7492

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrIgorkap Not in the federal court system and not in long standing BLUE CROwn ryal stATEs...= template of corruption

The problem with the system is we have criminals being judged by even worse criminals and and they’re all payed by the very worst criminals.

@northbound5493

2 жыл бұрын

well bill do you pay taxes because i have some upsetting news for you

@chopinchef

2 жыл бұрын

@@northbound5493 problem is our taxes go to do I g other people’s dirty work. As long as there’s private money in politics, our tax dollars do not represent our will.

@northbound5493

2 жыл бұрын

@@chopinchef yes yes yes on getting private money out of politics, we couldnt agree more there i think. i dont think its fair to say that all or even a significant number of judges are criminals. they absolutely do make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes cost people dearly, but we all make mistakes. you never know, the next mistake you or i make could be that one that costs somebody everything

@chopinchef

2 жыл бұрын

@@northbound5493 agreed. Mistakes are inevitable, but a great portion of the wickedness that currently exists within our system is not a mistake and that is what needs to be addressed. We’re only human. We need all the help we can get.

We don't have a "justice system" in America, we have a JUST US system.

@clems6989

2 жыл бұрын

Never heard this one before. VERY TRUE !

"He literally admitted to shooting him" "Mmmm not guilty"

@misein1

3 жыл бұрын

him shooting anybody was never in doubt. Good for the judge for overruling the verdict. Some methhead gets whacked. who freaking cares. we need more Judge Roy Bean's

@flogrown4333

3 жыл бұрын

@@misein1 what in the literal hell is wrong with you?

@xanderisloading8310

3 жыл бұрын

@@misein1 it's ok to shoot someone because they abuse a substance?

@misein1

3 жыл бұрын

@@flogrown4333 Oh I don't know. Maybe common sense. You should just keep your mask on.

@flogrown4333

3 жыл бұрын

@@misein1 I think you're letting the keyboard warrior mentality get to you. You're genuinely supporting a rogue dictatorship for the justice system. That's dangerous for everybody, including you and your family.... And what the hell does wearing a mask have to do with this topic?

Why even bother with seating a jury if the jury has no authority to convict? I’d be pissed to sacrifice that much of my life in jury duty, only to find out that it was all fake. These Supreme Court judges completely ignore that this is a government of the people. The people of Georgia need better judges.

@RavenGlenn

3 жыл бұрын

Judges have the ability to do it because the people are not as educated on the law as the judge is. Infact one of the duties of the judge is to inform the jury of important aspects they need to pay attention to, the laws that would be applicable, any testimony or evidence that is inadmissible, etc. But if in the end they still vote to convict someone that there clearly isn't sufficient evidence for the judge can decide to overrule them. They can choose to end a court case as well if they feel evidence or proceedings warrant it. Like if suddenly a new piece of DNA evidence clearly shows it would have been impossible for the defendant to have committed the crime(or say there is clear evidence the defendant was elsewhere at the time like on the other side of the country or planet), a judge has the power to end the trial at that point. They arent going to keep going and eventually let the jury decide. There is no reason for it. Or if they did go to a jury verdict and they voted guilty the judge could overrule because the defendant is on video in another country and their passport is stamped for that period of time(for example). There are lots of reasons judges can overrule things.

@TENNSUMITSUMA

2 жыл бұрын

@@RavenGlenn then just have judges do it and not have any jury!

@noretreat151

2 жыл бұрын

RavenGlenn ... “not so fast” there is a point at end of trial where agreement is acknowledged > all evidence has been submitted...Judge can only voice his opinion if a deceptive misleading act has been committed by Prosecution or Defense. IMHO

I'm no legal expert, but that judge is gorgeous.

@GoBucks21

2 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂

@ketchupschouppe8497

2 жыл бұрын

She farted at Applebee's one time

@hnhgnjj6078

2 жыл бұрын

@@ketchupschouppe8497 how do you know this🤣

This Supreme Court as well as the laws in Georgia is crazy. Watching this makes me believe there is a modern day legal “Wild Wild West”. I am thankful, this video exists, as it informs me, why I should never make Georgia my home as well as not spending to much time there.

@VZBudgetBuildz

2 жыл бұрын

Been here my whole life, place is great, never been shot at, only had a gun pulled on me once. It wasn’t ever pointed at me though, I was in HS and was basically lost, at 11PM, looking for my buddies who were throwing a bonfire party in the middle of nowhere. After what feels like miles of dirt road, I see a razor side-by-side in my rear view, chasing me down, flashing the brightest lightbar. I pull over and get out and he hops out the razor ultra fast, I see the gun and start to panick a little. He’s yelling telling me I’m trespassing, and after telling him I’m just looking for a friend (and his name) he puts the gun up. Ends up, it was bros dad the whole time🤣

All you have to do, is pay of the judge, and that's all you need!

@dishonoredundead

3 жыл бұрын

You also need to be on their team. Be a cop, be a politician, be a judge, be an oligarch.

@michaeldelyjah5696

3 жыл бұрын

Using that simple brain of yours again, I see.

@fabricioemmanuelli1115

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldelyjah5696 you don't even have a brain!

@phillipdrake4371

3 жыл бұрын

This is true during the cocaine cowboy era in south Florida Jon Roberts notoriously paid off judges to escape prison

Omg how badly have we twisted our "justice" system? Why have a jury if a judge can just go "nope"?

@OmertaDon

3 жыл бұрын

Crazy 💩

@NerolNiethsreg

3 жыл бұрын

Because sometimes the jury does not understand what is before them and they make a blanket ruling because it’s convenient.

@Joe-pz7cg

3 жыл бұрын

@@NerolNiethsreg then why have the option of trial by jury? A brief look into the innocence project shows you how bad the system is anyway.

@NerolNiethsreg

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joe-pz7cg sir I certainly agree that the judicial system leaves much to be desired to oversimplify it for the purposes of brevity here. Part of that problem is in fact the jury’s ability to be truly impartial AND properly accounting for the actual evidence and legal precedence in cases - not just going along with the consensual thought. Justice is and should be blind but it shouldn’t be stupid either. And this rare statute is in place not for open season for judges to do this but to make sure that in the rare instance there are major issues omitted by the jury for consideration, the judge can step in and ensure fair and just practice. While I agree that the juror system is the best possible thing in place for our judicial system it doesn’t absolve it of flaws and after reviewing this case very very closely, this decision was warranted. I would hope if I’m on trial for a serious offense that a jury of my peers would be able to justly reach the proper verdict because they took in account the actual evidence in the case and to be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.

@nigsbalchin226

3 жыл бұрын

One of the judges responsibilities is to assist and supervise the jury. Juries are not made up of legal experts, rather they are made up of average citizens, most of whom are fairly ignorant of the law. Juries are in a position to make terrible mistakes, and the possible consequences of a jury's mistake can be horrific.

If I ever need a defense attorney, I guess I can just go to the KZread comments now.

@89medic

2 жыл бұрын

You didn’t know? If you need a doctor you can also log on to Facebook. They’re everywhere.

Simply, the judge should never over-rule the findings of the jury unless there is a reason to believe that the jury is operating without any consideration to the facts. The US justice system is broken, but I don't expect that will be a surprise to anyone.

@huntergrant6520

2 жыл бұрын

Except they can. I think they should ve able to. Im gonna dig into this and try to see what lead this judge to this.

@roseroses7576

2 жыл бұрын

the judge has the power to overturn a guilty verdict if the judge believes that the prosecution didn't prove their case within a reasonable doubt

@jamescollins1757

2 жыл бұрын

Nope

@dm0065

2 жыл бұрын

Nah it's good the judge can set aside a guilty verdict. It's in the interest of justice. I wouldn't want them to set aside a not guilty verdict though.

@roseroses7576

2 жыл бұрын

@@dm0065 It's unconstitutional to set aside a not guilty verdict.

They sound like they’re trying to protect the other judge’s decision instead of following the law.

@beastshawnee

3 жыл бұрын

knightwing4 They are only there yo protect the process. This hearing is only about the process nit about the merits of the actual case of whether he was guilty or not. This hearing is about the judges actions.

@ajm5007

3 жыл бұрын

You clearly don't know what the law is, then, because they ARE following the law and not protecting anyone. The other judge wouldn't get in any trouble even if they overruled him. They can't be protecting him because he's not in any danger. They are, instead, following the law.

@germanswede1781

3 жыл бұрын

In reality and what it comes down to is they are protecting the man who won the trial. This scumbag is trying to get somebody a guilty verdict for protecting his property with the right to bear arms

@knightwing4

3 жыл бұрын

@@germanswede1781 Except the he didn’t know if it needed protecting at that time. Why does everything have to end with killing.

@singlepringle6241

3 жыл бұрын

do you understand how the judicial system works?

Why does it seem unusual that there are 3 very young looking judges on the Georgia Supreme Court.

@davidlevy6418

3 жыл бұрын

Because it is unusual. Most Justices are on the more "seasoned" side of things. Most likely these are Trump appointments. Whether you were a fan of Trump or not he did do some really smart things. Nobody up until him even thought about appointing younger justices. These are federal appointments for life. So instead of having a "seasoned" judge for 20 years he gets a judge for 40 years. These Justices are still appointed by the politics they believe in, so being "seasoned" in the end doesn't matter if the potential justice in question agrees with your particular brand of politics. Trump made more federal appointments than any President before him even with only one term. Trump essentially "changed the game". Presidents never considered using the federal bench as a tool to further ones politics. It was always just "part of the job" to fill appointments when they came up and generally no rush. Most Presidents left office leaving quite a few appointments not done. Trump saw this as a huge opportunity and singlehandedly changed the politics of many influential federal courts around the country. 9th circuit is one of those courts that was extremely left leaning and now is more balanced. So in the end it was decided that having "control" of sorts, of two branches of government was far better than just one. Again, like Trump or not the move was simply brilliant. This opportunity had been standing in the face of our great presidents throughout the decades and only one person saw what every other President missed. Even though "brilliant', it's not an overly complicated plan. In fact it's rather simple which is what makes it brilliant.

@icarian76

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidlevy6418 God bless you that you wrote all that...but Trump did not directly have any appointments to this court. THIS is a state supreme court-not Federal. His hand (or Mitch's) was not in it.

@roninbushida1180

3 жыл бұрын

@@icarian76 was just about to say the same thing.

@PeterSedesse

3 жыл бұрын

They are not Trump appointees, but they are GOP appointees. It is one of the things that have gone wrong with our judicial system. Nobody is going to appoint a 60 year old person anymore. Instead they appoint 30-40 year olds who will hold the seat for 40 years. Also, a huge part of it is the wive's of major donors. ACB is the wife of a very big GOP donor... this young lady is the wife of a very prominent Wall Street GOP donor.. I believe she was around 34 when appointed to the Supreme Court and had no experience at all as a judge, same as ACB.

@jamielancaster01

3 жыл бұрын

@@PeterSedesse unbelievable☹️

There was nothing the laywer could have said, to overturn the bias on those judges

Judges should have term limits and accountability.

I guess we can all cite this case if we want to stick a gun in someone's face who did us dirt.

@farleysnerdcaveofdoom5195

3 жыл бұрын

Sadly, you're right. It becomes case law to be cited in future trials.

@josephtorres3229

3 жыл бұрын

if they are on your land, and they tried to run your friends over with a UHaul 3 hours before you arrived - well - yes... totally within reason.

@hvmetalwarmonger178

3 жыл бұрын

@@josephtorres3229 No it's not.

@landonquavis4753

3 жыл бұрын

It kinda of is when they show back up after all that happened

@neamia3

3 жыл бұрын

They were living on his property with no permission then try taking stuff from his trailer which is theft but they did no dirt WTF DID U EVEN LISTEN...

"Wickedness in high places "

@Mischa21xo

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. Those high places are most likely a Masonic Lodge...cough cough

The main problem here comes when " BEILIEVING " its a part of the equation, beilieving does not mean shit! It not be relevant! End of the story.

@Adamorevo

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds sound to me!

The Prosecution lost. No surprise, the way this panel of judges kept interrupting him was the first clue. Being a judge, especially down in that part of the country, is to be a member of an exclusive fraternity that is as insular as it gets. They are loath to overturn any decision, because they are invested in a public perception of judges being all knowing and wise. The female judge here best of all reveals her mind was made up before this Kabuki Theater production happened. Pathetic, but not at all surprising.

@nikolaikalashnikov4253

10 ай бұрын

Their job at the Appellate level is simply to determine whether or not any actual *_Legal Errors_* were made at the Trial level and if so, to remedy them.

20 minutes of what it is like talking to a robed brick wall.

All I can see here is a bench full of jurists telling the lawyer that the judge can do whatever the hell he wants and the jury can go screw itself. No examination of the dangers of letting a single person wield such power, or the scope of abuse of that power which it allows because there are no set boundaries. They see a person questioning that scope and are bound and determined to shut him down.

@pseudorandomly

3 жыл бұрын

"They see a person questioning that scope and are bound and determined to shut him down." I don't see this the same way you do. The problem is that there is apparently no statutory limit on the judge's discretionary power to vacate a jury verdict and order a new trial. Given that, there must be some reasonableness test one can apply to determine whether the presiding judge in the trial in question has exceeded his discretionary authority. The DA provided citations that the discretionary power is not unlimited, but provided no argument as to what that limit should be. He was even asked about that directly by one of the justices, and more or less ignored the question; the SC was open to an argument on limits, but never got one. The DA wasted a lot of time retrying the case in front of the justices, when guilt or innocence was not the question before the Court. The question was exactly as you observed: how can we reasonably set a limit to a judge's discretionary power in this circumstance? The DA should have concentrated on that. Instead, his argument was "well, the guy was obviously guilty, so the judge shouldn't have vacated the guilty verdict", and that's why he got so many questions about the actual facts of the case. In the end, however, even if all the justices were convinced the defendant was guilty, the question of what limits to place on the judge's power to set aside the guilty verdict was left unaddressed.

@moonglow630

3 жыл бұрын

Completely agree. But they’re just interpreting the law as written. Seems to me the bigger problem is the law.

@dabndangle

3 жыл бұрын

Next time i get a letter for jury duty ima just throw it away if the judge can just decide either way

@Stryyder1

3 жыл бұрын

A judge can set aside a jury verdict if he or she believes that the evidence presented does not support that verdict. They should issue some type of statement that explains the details of that conclusion. The attorney here should not be presenting every argument as a 'fact' of the case. He should be addressing specifically the point the Judge made on why the evidence was insufficient and presenting reasons why legally it was sufficient. He is not retrying the case which is what he is seeming to try to do at first. He should be arguing why the case was sufficient which he gets to. Starting to argue that the judge shouldn't or cant overturn the jury that is not something he should have ventured into. He lost a lot of his time doing that. His strongest argument is he surprised the State, which again has no legal bearing, and him consistently saying they wanted a hearing when one wasn't required. That one female Judge was actually telling him the argument to make and he seemed to either was unwilling or incapable of doing it.

@9999plato

3 жыл бұрын

@@moonglow630 If the Judge had ordered a retrial when it was lets say, for arguments sake an all White Jury all members of the Daughters of the Confederacy who did acquit a toothless white guy with Nazi symbols tattooed on his face after he clearly burned a home for handicapped minority children shooting each of them as they plunged from the 30th floor, on fire, screaming. Sorry, I had to make it so blatantly wrong on so many levels to make the point. Would you then be bemoaning the law that allows the Judge to order a retrial in that case. I know that is a highly charged negative stereotype against many groups and no DA would be so foolish to allow that jury to be empaneled but the argument remains. Do juries make errors and if that state allows the judge this authority then who is this DA to complain about it. It's only because his case must be retried that he cares. He has to protect the rights of Meth heads around the world to commit criminal acts and escape in GA. I bet if more criminals were prosecuted instead of getting released as we have seen in many places where leftist Billionaires bought elections for their puppets this last year the country would not be the putrid shit pile it has become. Too bad we could not break 2 fingers each time they were arrested. Soon they would not be able to wipe their own asses and would not have been able to loot, beat, commit arson, murder and countless other crimes let alone carry torches and explosives to have caused Billions in damages. Whole cities destroyed and we wonder why we are about to be hit with massive inflation wiping out the savings of generations and the middle class. I cant pin this on one guys back but rather the corrupted system.

That’s tough. Trying to get your point across & staying focused while several people constantly interrupt you.

@godominus9222

2 жыл бұрын

It is pretty standard. They are asking questions to get a clearer picture. He can't write a script that answers all their questions and he surely expects exactly this. By asking questions, they GAVE him the opportunity to clear their misgivings

Some of these judges are in my opinion trying to steer this hearing in a certain direction. Their facts and logic did not add up. Sorry.

@leonaboson3070

2 жыл бұрын

You don't get to argue the facts of the case on appeal, simple as that.

@TheJacklikesvideos

2 жыл бұрын

Ignorant opinion. They're trying to steer him to the subject of the hearing; the overturning by the judge and if it is lawful or not.

To be honest, this discussion scares me. It opens the possibility that somebody approaches me with a loaded gun and can call it an accident.

@benjamindeh873

2 жыл бұрын

It happens all the time in the US. People try to intimidate someone else with a gun, shit happens, and then they shoot, and if they claim they were fearful for their lives they get off (Ex: Traivon Martin)

@joyaustin6581

2 жыл бұрын

Officer in Texas tried to get away with entering the wrong home and killing someone because she felt threatened. He was a normal person and she broke into his house and shot him

@amazingsupergirl7125

2 жыл бұрын

@@benjamindeh873 yeah but they were wrong to go for murder instead of manslaughter. I think that’s why he overturned it.

Y'all better be ready when you go down Old Hog Mountain Road........

What I hear from these judges is "Well, we're not gonna give up our power, no matter what you say! We can do anything we want because we're a bunch of spoiled brats! Wah WAHH!"

@yobaby7780

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly now if the driver grabbed the cops arm and reversed it out the window ,and the cop was shot by pulling the trigger on himself wounding as well . I would say it was the cops fault regardless the scenario.

@Elysiadon

2 жыл бұрын

What? The prosecutor is asking them to EXERCISE their power, not restrain it.

Lol he really fumbled around when he could have led with that last statement that the trial Judge based his overruling of the Jury's verdict on imaginary evidence.

@ryanwilson5936

2 жыл бұрын

This is a court room, setting the scene is kind of the point.

I'm not any kind of legal expert, but there is something seriously wrong with those judges. Truly feels dark!

@dier7470

3 жыл бұрын

It seems they were trying there hardest to disagree and change the subject. Glad its nit just me. But who knows, maybe the people in the UHaul were some real dirty people with a record :/

@sheldonmurphy6031

3 жыл бұрын

@@dier7470 I definitely believe there is way more to this story! This is how my mind saw this. The man stick his gun into the car, says all those words..God pushes the pause button. Two officers begin debating the situation in the mindset of those judges, before God pushes play, and let's the officers handle it. Lol Sorry, it because a role playing scenario in my head. Lol Good Morning Sir :)

@Random-JustAnother

3 жыл бұрын

Don't worry, it's obvious you're not! 😆

@markdarragh6620

3 жыл бұрын

@@dier7470 They were actually trying to help him. He was retrying his case, and that's not why he was there. The female judge in particular tried to put him back on track. When in front of the supreme court, each side is given a limited time to present their case/evidence. He was wasting time on arguments that didn't apply. Doesn't matter how any of us or he feels about Hamilton's guilt. He now has to present a case as to why the trial judge overstepped his authority. His most compelling evidence, that the trial judge based his decision on a false memory of testimony (concerning meth, I believe) should have been both his opener and his closer. These Supreme Court jurists were simply trying to apply the law...

@nomore1371

3 жыл бұрын

There's something wrong with 99.9% of all Judges and it's something TERRIBLY wrong! They have no remorse, they don't care about the truth, they don't care if you actually need correction or not, they don't care about your achievements. You are a criminal, and the same level of scum as any other criminal for ANYTHING from Jay walking to murder. But when a judge gets caught drinking and driving he gets an escort home and treated holy instead of a case.

Judges protecting judges is anyone surprised. NO

@y_strikes2770

3 жыл бұрын

They weren't protecting the judge, it's not their job here to judge guilt or innocence on that case, the prosecutor had to prove the judges rule was unlawful

@jtfike

3 жыл бұрын

@@y_strikes2770 so if the attorney has to prove it was unlawful, they indeed need to judge guilt or innocence....

@michaeldelyjah5696

3 жыл бұрын

@@jtfike No, you can determine whether or not a PROCEDURE was violated without determining guilt or innocence.

@jtfike

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldelyjah5696 the word used was "unlawful". You are changing the word to "procedure". There is a big difference.

@michaeldelyjah5696

3 жыл бұрын

@@jtfike Put "unlawful" into where I put "procedure" and tell me how that sentence even makes sense. An appellate court is only tasked with looking at the "actions" or "procedures" inside of a trial court, they don't need to determine whether ANYONE is guilty of anything, that's not their job. They only decide if the statute(s) allowed the district court to do what it did. You initially wrote, "they indeed need to judge guilt or innocence....", what do you think "they" need to determine guilt or innocence of? The only question being asked of the court is what are the bounds of the district court judge? How much discretion does he have? You see how guilt or innocence doesn't make sense here?

Very articulative, critical and strong arguments. The way this Counsel made his submission is just mind blowing. What an art of litigation 🙏🙏🙏

I can see it…why can’t a whole courtroom of judges? Absolutely ridiculous.

15:20 That closed caption though! "My cooter is different than Mustang fur" X^D

@Dogpoundpony

3 жыл бұрын

I’m dead! Lmao

@bootysniperllcpage2929

3 жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂

@twistedfeature6696

3 жыл бұрын

Hahahaha

@YourRoyalMajesty.

3 жыл бұрын

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 I just donkey laughed so hard omg

@richt961

3 жыл бұрын

Haha thanks for sharing this. That's awesome.

Judges will NEVER limit the power of Judges, so even though they say the principle is not boundless in reality it is boundless.

@allgoodnamesgonefyi

3 жыл бұрын

Literally the job of appeal courts, state supreme courts and the federal Supreme Court. They do it all the time.

@nettejohnson7492

3 жыл бұрын

WE outnumber them by far so what's the problem? Why do we bow down to the few?

@ekidmusic

3 жыл бұрын

Nette Johnson stupid reaction, but to keep you satisfied.... Yeah sure

@jhonathantejada3345

3 жыл бұрын

@@nettejohnson7492 because when you take them down, you will be with the few, and the many will also want to take you down, after all thats what you did, so why wouldn't they treat you the same

@nettejohnson7492

3 жыл бұрын

@@jhonathantejada3345 I'm no longer ABEL to take anyone down nor would I EVEr use violence to WIN...

This happened also in Texas in 1952. A man was found guilty of Murder and 11 out of 12 jurors also recommended the death penalty. The 12th voted for life in prison. The judge gave the man 5 years suspended sentence. He was free to go. The man was Malcolm Wallace who worked for Lyndon Johnson

@stevenk-brooks3459

2 жыл бұрын

Wow!

Hi from India- Amazing display of lawyererly skills by the prosecutor - he holds his cool despite a highly focussed panel of judges - excellent clarity of thought and eloquence - i think he was born with these skills !!!

"Let's just assume that the man's confession isn't a confession. Does that change the validity of your case?"

@Mel-em9wd

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed admitting Guilt is not being guilty apparently

@ObservationofLimits

3 жыл бұрын

Admitting guilt of what?

@Seemsayin

3 жыл бұрын

@@ObservationofLimits That the man on trial did, in fact, shoot his weapon inside the truck.

@kevreeduk222

3 жыл бұрын

Based on what was said, my reading is that the "confession" was that he was holding the weapon extended into the cab and it went off, combined with conflicting accounts of whether the trigger was intentionally depressed, or had been such when one of the occupants tried to grab it. It could be read as a confession of merely threatening someone with a loaded weapon rather than the murder charge that the prosecutor wanted the panel to find in favour of. This is likely the nuance that the panel were aiming for, while the prosecutor was angling for any admission being interpreted as evidencing the intent necessary for even the most serious finding.

@Rundvelt

2 жыл бұрын

@@Seemsayin That wasn't an admission of a crime. When he was asked point blank if there was a legal standard, he dithered and said he'd assess it as such. Well, I'm sorry, an assessment is only good for wiping your ass with. This lawyer was just bad.

So The Defendant in this case just happens to have been a retired Judge

@timothywilliams8530

3 жыл бұрын

This isn't that kind of court.

@karlypearl9701

3 жыл бұрын

@matt keese I don't think you understand. That's ok .

@eej902

3 жыл бұрын

Yes- a former associate magistrate judge. How honorable..

@anamiller9848

3 жыл бұрын

No you did not listen correctly. The defendant is a normal run of the mill citizen. The Prosecutor does not like that a Judge over ruled a jury convicting that normal citizen and the judge said No I am the 13th juror he is not guilty .

@dumbassdriversofdenver9113

3 жыл бұрын

This is appeals court. The issue at hand is whether or not a judge made a legal error when he overturned a jury verdict in a murder case. The jury found him guilty but judge didn't believe the witnesses and overturned their verdict.

This is why I would never serve on a jury. When a judge has power to overturn a jury what is the point?

I wish I could force these lawyers to take a sip of water every now and then.

To me anyone that comes up to your car holding a gun and pointing it through the window of a persons car is an attempt to murder .

The trial judge behaved very suspiciously. Waiting until last possible days to overrule a jury, just before retiring, while entering facts to support his decision not presented during the trial he presided over. Judges are given a lot of power in overseeing the operation of their court proceedings. They can determine the rules of conduct; they can hold any participants in contempt for most any reason they feel; they can instruct the jury to consider or disregard most any evidence in coming to the verdict. With all that power, the summary disregard for the jury verdict should not be made lightly, and that decision should have something compelling presented as a reason. It didn’t sound like this happened in this case. If his reason for tossing the jury verdict was not being satisfied with what the State was charging in the case, it seems he would have been better served giving the jury different instructions on what the defendant should be on trial for.

@nikolaikalashnikov4253

10 ай бұрын

The Trial Judge would likely have purview over Evidentiary Motions & Depositions that never get into Trial and hence, wouldn't be in the transcript.

@nikolaikalashnikov4253

10 ай бұрын

@theprogram863 ...I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions... Prosecutors are allowed to _LIE_ with absolutely no repercussions at all.

Someone putting a firearm in your general direction inside the cab of your vehicle is guilty period! Even if he did accidentally discharge the weapon, he should never have fired or even drew the weapon unless his life was eminently in danger.

@jamie91433

2 жыл бұрын

If anyone was coming at him, he has the right

@kamman1374

2 жыл бұрын

@@jamie91433 Did u not read his comment. Stand your ground is not in question.

14:55. "Putting a gun in a vehicle does not make an aggravated assault". What planet does this judge live upon? Ridiculous!! This is like trying to argue with a street preacher about religion. These judges are so sad.

@thepigproductivity

2 жыл бұрын

That’s true though

@sir7544

2 жыл бұрын

@@thepigproductivity It is true but in the described circumstances of this case it seems to definitely be aggravated assault.

The Judge is the thirteenth jurist. Twelve good men and true and one who can over rule the other twelve. Yee haw. While I agree that these Judges have to be skeptical in order to get at the crux of the matter, it simply appears that they are trying to defend the actions of one of their own and support the regime.

@robdewey317

3 жыл бұрын

It's the law.

@johnlinkman7760

3 жыл бұрын

You do realize that this particular statute protects against racist jurys more then anything else right?

@andrewvelonis5940

3 жыл бұрын

Well, that's how it appears to you. This video does not show the presentation of the other side, they may have been just as rigorous.

@MrBe787

3 жыл бұрын

Oh please dude. Your “yee haw” comment tells me everything about your politics.

@johnlinkman7760

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrBe787 Yea as if you cannot even imagine how a judge being able to overturn in favor of a defendant in any way could protect someone from a prejudicial jury. Just because you do not like how this was handled does not mean that this power of a judge is not important. Nice emotionally charged response though. Do you often not think before you speak.

One person trying to tell his side of the story, to be constantly interrupted by nine people that are against his story.

@jett888

3 жыл бұрын

Not even his peers right?

@Longtack55

3 жыл бұрын

They are seeking clarity, e.g. did the witness say "the gun went off" or did he say "I pulled the trigger, " before proceeding to the next assertion/evidence. Not to do so would go against standard Appeal Court discourse in many countries. If you carry a loaded firearm and intimidate people with it then there is a reasonable assumption that you are prepared to use it to harm someone. This is not a High School speech competition. Many countries offer a choice of Judge alone or Jury trial. If I was not guilty I would choose a Judge-alone trial, and if I was guilty I would choose a Jury trial.

@lj6278

3 жыл бұрын

@@Longtack55 Do you think It's fair to interrupt him, possibly distracting him from a fair point. I think he did an amazing job staying on track. also, he is given a time limit that seems one-sided. is this how the US supreme court works. why not let him have his 5 - 10 minutes. then ask probing questions. I agree that the jury system is flawed. I have been on four juries and only feel good about two of them, Some of the people I dealt with were morons. excuse me if you're a republican (no jab intended) but the recent actions of some people is fighting. I don't remember being told at jury selection that the judge is the 13th juror.

@TobyK123

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, that’s how an appeals court work. Listen to SCOTUS arguments sometime.

@thoelle5607

3 жыл бұрын

@@lj6278 That is how an appelate court works dude. Someone presents statements, and the judge, or in this case, judges, may ask for clarification throughout. Their job is to determine A: If there is truly grounds for the the judges verdict to be overturned because of misuse of law, and B: If the facts support the shooter's actions which would give the judge grounds to have overturned the jury's rulings. They aren't "retrying" the case, they are determining a set of facts. To do that, they may, and in the case of a supreme court, certainly WILL pick apart this man's statements like a pack of vultures until only the absolute bare bones of legal fact remain.

This is 1 example of corruption in the court system on a state level. I beat my case though and it didnt ruin my life but if I had lost, It definetly would have been hard to get past. Citizens who decide to take there criminal cases to trial for the purpose of proving there innocents are sometimes exposed to judges and prosecutors collaborating for the purpose of creating a guilty verdict. I believe that, part of the oath that a judge takes says that they are to remain neutral in the court room. *At my jury trial in Hamilton County IN, back in 2010. Not only did this not happen but after final arguements were presented by both, my defense attorney ( Lawrence M. Hansen ) and the D.A. Prosecutor* *When the judge ( Gail Z Bardach ) gave the jury there instructions for jury deliberation, She added a new charge to my case for the jury to deliberate on. She practically took part of my defense and made a new charge out of it and this was after final closing agruements. I think what she did would have been illegal even if it had happen before final closing arguements but the fact that she did this during the process of reading the jury instuctions for deliberating innocent or guilty on each individual charge. Well thats beyond illegal, that's straight up corruption.* *Also at the beginning of the trial during jury selection. One of the citizens who was called in to possibly be selected as a jury member was a bar tender from the very same bar that called the police on me in the case that I was fighting against & taking to trial. My lawyer had the bar tender removed but outta around 330,000 residents in Hamilton County Indiana, I find it very suspicious that one of the 20 or so citizens that were selected to come in for possible jury duty on my case was a bar tender from the very same bar that called the law on me in the very same case that I was fighting against in trial.* My lawer was : Lawrence M. Hansen ( 317 ) 219-3600 , 152 S. 9th street Noblesville, IN 46060 The Judge was : Gail Z. Bardach ( Hamilton County Indiana )

@DeanDangerousTDD7

2 жыл бұрын

this whole situation shown here in this video is the opposite of what I wrote above regarding judges & prosecutors being together against the defense. This video is a very rare accurance in my opinion.

Judge overruled Jury?? Why even have a damn Jury?????