Judge Newman Turns Slager Trial into Kangaroo Court – Verdict Now Irrelevant…

The afternoon story began with the announcement the jury in the Officer Michael Slager trial was hopelessly deadlocked.   Previously the State of South Carolina presented two options for verdict consideration, Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter.

Walter Scott - judge clifton newmanThe voluntary manslaughter option (lesser charges) was added AFTER the trial phase was concluded and the defense presented, then rested, its case.

The reason for the lesser charge was transparent to all who knew and followed the case closely, there was virtually no-way for a jury to convict on just the original charge of murder, hence the lesser included.

Adding the lesser charge option after trial testimony was yet again more evidence of a manipulative prosecution.

In essence, the State –with the full support of activist Judge Newman– timed the lesser charge inclusion to ensure the defense never used elements within their legal presentation that would have defended specifically against the manslaughter charge.

However, that said, what happened on Friday was even more insufferable.  After the jury announcing they were deadlocked, Judge Newman began by giving them an appropriate “Allen Charge” – essentially telling the jury to try again.

The jury returned a notification hours later they were still deadlocked; and in a rather disconcerting presentation the foreman stated they were deadlocked 11-1 with a single  holdout for non guilty.

No-one can know which charge the jury are deadlocked on, but reasonable followers conclude it’s most likely the lesser option of voluntary manslaughter. The original murder charge was politically beneficial, appeased the mob, made the media happy, but was essentially an impossible climb.   Most intellectually honest people knew this.

Stunningly the holdout juror provided a personal letter to the court as noted below:

walter-scott-juror-letter

[Keep this in mind, it becomes critical later in the day]

According to South Carolina statute, after receiving the 2nd deadlock notification, Judge Newman could not force the jury into a third round of deliberations against their will – unless the jury requested it, and specifically asked for clarification of a point of the law.

When Newman brought the jury back into the courtroom he informed them he could not force further deliberations unless they agreed to, and had a question of law.  Despite the 2nd notification of deadlock, the foreperson agreed to further deliberation and said they would seek the court to provide additional questions.

At that moment, Judge Newman screwed up – BIG TIME.

  • Mistake #1 – Judge Newman did not immediately ask the jury what point of law they needed clarification for.
  • Mistake #2 – Judge Newman did not reprimand the foreman from quantifying the numerical position of the current juror status (ie. 11-1).  Failing to tell the foreman not to quantify the jurors positions is the cornerstone for a coercion appeal.
  • [Remember, Newman also accepted and read the notification from the holdout juror]
  • Mistake #3 – Judge Newman was, as a matter of his own knowledge therein, bound to ask the foreman if he still represented the voice of all jurors – in the request for a 3rd round of deliberations, he didn’t.
  • Mistake #4 – Judge Newman then sent the jury, without any questions, back to the deliberation room – while he discussed the jury notification with the defense and prosecution.

All of these mistakes are solid appeal points regardless of outcome.

Fortunately, Defense Attorney Savage noted an objection to the courts’ decision and noted in the court record the jury did not have a question for the judge on a point of law AFTER they announced the second deadlock.

Judge Newman cannot, by statute, arbitrarily guess on the question, or seed the question – the inquiry must stem from the jury, not from Newman’s instruction to the jury.  FUBAR.

Judge Newman then sent the court official to the jury room to ask them for the statutorily required point-of-law question, for him, which is required for a 3rd round of deliberations to continue beyond the 2nd deadlock notification.

At approximately 5:00pm EDT, the response from the jury was to request a postponement of deliberations until Monday Morning 9:00am at which time they would have a question.  The Judge stunningly agreed to recess the court and deliberations until Monday.

Here’s where the outcome of the verdict is irrelevant.

Specifically because the hold-out juror has notified the court of their inability NOT to deliver a guilty verdict: “I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict” – and considering this was AFTER the 2nd notification of a deadlock – any reversal by that juror after a weekend recess, will make the verdict moot.

There is a ton of legal precedence for jury coercion and the elements in this case, especially the written notification, hit on every single aspect of them.  Judge Newman, by trying too hard to gain a verdict, has essentially ensured no guilty verdict outcome will matter.

FUBAR

And lookie here.… It appears the Judge just realized exactly what we said, earlier when he announced the weekend recess:

 

If Newman cannot get the juror replaced, the outcome of the jury decision, if guilty, is irrelevant.  Judge Newman is trying to protect himself and the verdict; this is how you can identify an “activist” judge.

Dr_Phil_teen_youtube_beating

Full Research on Walter Scott Shooting AVAILABLE HERE

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Cultural Marxism, media bias, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Walter Scott Shooting. Bookmark the permalink.

336 Responses to Judge Newman Turns Slager Trial into Kangaroo Court – Verdict Now Irrelevant…

  1. Howie says:

    June 15 2016 CRS was there.

    A community relations expert from the U.S. Department of Justice will offer two hour-long “engagement” forums in opposite parts of the city that start at 6:30 p.m. Monday and Tuesday, according to a police statement.

    The first will take place Monday on North Charleston’s southern end in the Alfred Williams Community Life Center auditorium at 4401 Durant Ave. The Cathedral of Praise at 3790 Ashley Phosphate Road will host the second event Tuesday.

    Walter Atkinson of the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service helped coordinate the forums.
    http://www.postandcourier.com/archives/forums-to-seek-north-charleston-residents-input-on-police-advisory/article_251ad431-0e67-5360-ba4b-c9f3e22490c3.html

    Walter Atkinson of the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service helped coordinate the forums.

    City officials first invited Atkinson to offer advice on how to improve relations between the police and residents after the fatal shooting of Walter Scott by a police officer. Atkinson met with local leaders, including members of the former community advisory panel.

    http://www.postandcourier.com/archives/forums-to-seek-north-charleston-residents-input-on-police-advisory/article_251ad431-0e67-5360-ba4b-c9f3e22490c3.html

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Howie says:

    Nikki was up to her ears in this too. She is perfect for the UN.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. georgiafl says:

    It’s almost as if the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Baltimore cases going without a conviction have it extra important to the powers that be to get a conviction in this one.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Charles May says:

    jury nullification??

    Like

  5. aprilyn43 says:

    But … isn’t replacing the juror who said, “I can not in good conscience consider a guilty verdict” illegal? Because, in essence the judge is saying, “I want a guilty verdict”.
    I don’t even see the legality of adding the “lesser charge” after the trial was over. How can you “convict” a man on a charge that they were never given the opportunity to defend against ?
    This trial was a mistrial from the beginning; but in reality, no charges should have been brought. The idea that you can’t shoot a fleeing, violent, subject in the back is “Bogus”. Of course you can shoot him in the back he’s resisting arrest.
    I a “white woman” would have expected to have been shot in the back if I’d have done what this suspect did.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Sunflower says:

      Sounds to me like rather than replacing the jury, they need to replace the judge!!!!

      Liked by 3 people

    • Boots says:

      In 1985, U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1.

      “A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead…however…Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”
      — Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner

      Slager stopped Scott for a tail light violation. Scott ran away. What probable cause did Slager have to believe Scott posed a threat of serious physical harm to him (Slager) or others?

      Like

      • Bildung says:

        Scott engaged the officer in physical combat prior to the video and turned his taser against him.

        Running from a misdemeanor inquiry is also a contributing factor.

        Scott was killed in the commission of a felony assault on a police officer.

        You don’t get to run away.

        Countless dash cam clips show cops dumping full mags at perps who hit them and run away from traffic,stops.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Keln says:

        By running, he became a fugitive. As a fugitive, he would have been desperate to not be caught. There is no telling what a person would do in such a situation. By default, he must be assumed to be dangerous, especially considering he attempted to subdue a police officer.

        I’m glad you have the luxury of second guessing the officer’s actions well after the fact instead of being the one in his position with everything happening in a matter of seconds. But that does not give you the clarity you think you have to decide that the officer acted maliciously towards the criminal.

        Liked by 4 people

      • aprilyn43 says:

        @Boots – The physical altercation which Scott “initiated,” where he used physical violence against Office Stager, even going so far as, to use the officers taser against him, shows a suspect, who “poses a threat of serious physical harm” … to possibly anyone.
        Also, there have been several violent offenders who have been caught b/c of malfunctioning equipment or just plain stupidity. I call these “happens chance” arrests, “acts of God” to defend the innocent !!
        Bottom line … If you are stupid enough
        to “Resit arrest & taser an officer,” you deserve what happens. I know that’s a Conservative, Godly, Mind Set – But .. There Are Consequences For Lawlessness & it’s about time those with
        the “racial, prejudice” mind set, learn
        Lawlessness will not be tolerated.

        Like

      • mike says:

        Boots, Scott is dead from liberal blindness and tolerance to crime.

        Sooner or later, criminals raised in a culture of crime and” didndu” are simply going to go too far and get arrested or get killed by someone else’s successful self defense. Scott basic persona was on display here. An individual willing and able to take down a police officer over a normally trivial matter is a dangerous individual.

        Liked by 1 person

      • amwick says:

        Why haven’t you bothered to read the earlier threads that SD linked to?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Howie says:

      If that crazed perp was running at my front door I would be glad Slager put the Kibosh on him.

      Liked by 1 person

    • mcmash54 says:

      What comes from these trials puts law enforcement in a precarious position. If a criminal knows that the police are not going to shoot him, then he has no incentive to follow an officers command.
      The old “stop or I’ll shoot” becomes an empty threat.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. oldguy says:

    Affirmative action law.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. remster says:

    What is the law in South Carolina pertaining to a Police Officer using deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Boots says:

      In 1985, U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1.

      “A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead…however…Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”
      — Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner

      Slager stopped Scott for a tail light violation. Scott ran away. What probable cause did Slager have to believe Scott posed a threat of serious physical harm to him (Slager) or others?

      Like

      • AghastInFL says:

        Cut&Paste responses are not appreciated on this site, formulate legitimate argument f you wish to reply.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Why are you leaving out the fight? Doesn’t fit your scenario?

        Like

      • Monroe says:

        Once again, Scott was not shot because of a tail light violation.

        Scott was shot because he assaulted a police officer, which included sitting on him on the ground, and using his taser against him. The first volley of shots occurred when the 2 were facing each other, tangled together in taser wires and engaged in hand to hand combat. Physiologically, the officer could not stop the muscle movement of continuing to draw his weapon and fire.

        However, the 2nd volley of shots the officer did adjust his stance and shoot while Slager ran. This is one of the major legal issues. Does the officer have standing to use lethal force? The defense needs to prove that Slager believed that Scott was a danger to society after attacking an officer.

        So no, Scott was not killed over a tail light. Nice sound byte to stir up the ignorant masses. Spend your trolling time educating people not to flee from police and stop the myth that police wake up and decide to hunt and kill black people.

        Liked by 3 people

      • aprilyn43 says:

        @Boots – Are you suggesting resisting arrest, by flight, is acceptable? That the officer shouldn’t have given chase? Scott was stopped for a tail light malfunction, but the “tail light” isn’t the issue! The resisting arrest, the fight with Slager and the taser Scott used, ARE THE issue; and they constitute “violent, aggressive behavior” and the reason Scott is dead.

        Like

  8. Kevin Eberle says:

    And lookie here.… It appears the Judge just realized exactly what we said, earlier when he announced the weekend recess:

    JUST IN: Judge in the trial of Michael Slager, officer who shot and killed Walter Scott, asks for undecided juror to be replaced.

    — CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) December 2, 2016

    Totally fake.

    Like

  9. Gnome Sane says:

    “… asks for undecided juror to be replaced.”
    Um, the juror was not “undecided” according to his letter to the court.

    Liked by 2 people

    • mike says:

      The juror sat through the show trial, He has decided, that’s his job. The other jurors have likely decided wrongly in the light of US law and customs. He is simply outnumbered, in a standoff or worse, and perhaps cornered by hostiles.

      Liked by 1 person

    • mcmash54 says:

      @gnome sane
      According to the judge there is only one decision acceptable, so making the wrong one makes the jurist undecided.

      Like

  10. Gnome Sane says:

    The kangaroo in this court has been replaced by another mammal.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. McBain says:

    From this NY Daily News article, it says the foreman said…
    “It is just one juror….. That juror needs to leave, he is having issues.”
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jury-weighing-verdict-ex-cop-slager-death-walter-scott-article-1.2896194

    Does that mean he’s having issues finding Slager guilty and therefore needs to be removed so they can get a conviction? Or does it mean he’s having other kinds of issues and needs to leave the courtroom to take care of something? If it’s the former, that almost sounds as if the foreman and judge are working together.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gnome Sane says:

      They don’t like being bitten in the ass by jury nullification.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Howie says:

        I do not think this is nullification. I looked at the facts presented and the law and would vote not guilty on the states own evidence.

        Like

      • Howie says:

        In the jury instructions the judge told them if they feel a hesitation to vote guilty, then that is a reasonable doubt and they must vote not guilty. The juror felt a hesitation and voted not guilty just as he was instructed by the judge. Now the judge wants to dump him so the judge can get his conviction. This Kangaroo Trial should have been moved from Charleston on the first motion by the defense. The judge say no. Judge bad.

        Like

    • mike says:

      the foreman said…“It is just one juror….. That juror needs to leave, he is having issues
      No, sir. The foreman and judge sound like super affirmative action issues and going back to tribal practices.

      Soap box, ballot box, jury box,…
      They not going to like that next box getting opened…

      Like

    • armie says:

      Yeah, it makes it sound, rightly or wrongly, like his impression of his job is to collude with the judge and prosecution to “get whitey”. The holdout juror deserves recognition for noticing that the foreman wasn’t properly representing the interests of ALL the jurors and fashioning a way to blow the whistle.

      Like

  12. Something interesting or at least odd to me was a statement made to jurors just hours before jurors left to deliberate: “If we don’t hold people accountable when they mess up, it all falls apart.” Solicitor Scarlett told jurors.

    The reason I found it to be interesting/odd is that this trial is about murder, not
    messing up. If messing up was the reason for the trial, then being fired from the police department would be the accountable action.

    Also, the statement by the juror was strange/odd in that a not guilty verdict is not the same as being innocent.

    When I think about what it would be like to be a police officer in the atmosphere we are living in today, I would decline. It seems as though a police officer should have a trial with his/her true peers as jurors, other police or law enforcement, if we truly seek justice.

    Like

  13. The Judges are the real criminals in the Opinion of the People.

    Like

  14. froggieleggs says:

    Looks like CBS posted a wrong Tweet (or so they claim)

    Like

  15. dalethorn says:

    I’ve read a lot, looked around, asked people, but I’m getting nowhere. First, it seems that the main outrage is that the shooting “looked really bad” on the video. Working backward from there, I have to ask a few things:

    [1] Is it wrong to shoot the person in the back after they attacked the officer and seized his weapon (taser)?
    [2] If the above might be OK when the officer is certain that the person is a real danger, what exactly makes this case a manslaughter?
    [2a] Is it the distance from the officer to the subject when the first shot is fired?
    [2b] Is it the number of shots fired?
    [2c] Is it the posture of the officer when firing?
    [3] If the officer is convicted, does this say to the people that you can physically attack a police officer and even grab his weapon, but as long as you run after the attack, you can expect to not be shot?

    Like

    • truthhurts says:

      [1] No, it isn’t, and there are documented cases of officers using lethal force on fleeing suspects without the threat of riots or imprisonment. People are selectively outraged.

      [2] Nothing makes this case a murder or manslaughter. Nothing makes this case a crime, once people accept that Officer Slager really did believe he still had the Taser at the time that he shot him.

      [2a] Distance is ultimately irrelevant when time is given its due consideration. In this case, it took him a whopping 1.5 seconds to draw, aim, and shoot his weapon from the moment he ran away again.

      [2b] Officers are trained to shoot center mass until the threat either falls or surrenders. The number is irrelevant.

      [2c] The posture of a trained professional doesn’t matter, neither does his looking like he’s shooting “coolly”. It was a “controlled shooting”, and that fact alone confirms this wasn’t an act in the heat of passion.

      [3] Yup. And a conviction would scare the “good” officers from even trying to do their job.

      Like

  16. Maquis says:

    The miscreant created his own criminal crisis and damn near killed a cop to get out of it.

    So he breaks free again, from HIS assault on the officer, and then…what? He’s going to walk home?

    No. He’s going to break into a home and hold hostage the poor souls whose home just became ground zero for a desperate felon.

    Or, he’s going to drag some “had it coming to her” white woman from her car to escape the consequences of his ignorant criminal savagery. Will she clear the car safely, or be dragged to her death?

    That fool “just” running away from that officer was a feral rabid maybe attempted cop killer completely desperate as his not so bright future is swirling around the toilet bowl he just flushed it down…he was a time-bomb self-set on fast-forward. If he wasn’t brought down there and then someone or several someone’s were very possibly going to lose their innocent lives.

    That officer saved lives. The only person that took Scott’s life was Scott himself.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. We NEED DJT! says:

    UGH…wonder how long it will take to hear about the outcome. Just hope that, that one juror is holding to his/her principles…and not cave into pressure. Stand up for what is right.

    Like

    • DT says:

      From the sounds of things this morning, there isn’t a consensus and a single hold-out. The jury sent out notes with questions and something indicating the majority were still undecided. Almost sounds like the foreperson is the one with issues. They might need to be the one removed rather than the person they referenced in their note Friday.

      Like

      • We NEED DJT! says:

        OH really? hmmm interesting. Wonder if this is another case of the “media” feeding us more half-truths. I guess we will see soon enough!

        Like

        • DT says:

          The media does suck, but I have been watching the streams. They are reporting pretty accurately, save for the tweet about the judge removing the juror.

          Something is up with the foreperson. The foreperson singled out a juror on Friday and said they had issues. The note from the juror stating they couldn’t vote guilty was not signed, nor delivered via the foreperson. Rogue foreperson, perhaps?

          I think this morning’s news is much more favorable than Friday’s news for Slager. If they are majority undecided, and asking for clarifications, they are still deliberating and his fate is not sealed. Still expecting the jury to hang but it may be more evenly split than 11/1 for a conviction.

          Like

          • We NEED DJT! says:

            Alright, thanks for the info. Yes, does sound like maybe the foreman is the one with issue in this, especially pointing out that one juror.

            Like

  18. dbethd says:

    Is it legal for the judge to ask for a new juror to replace the undecided one AFTER two deadlocked verdicts? Seems like a judge could do that whenever he wants just to get the result he desires,

    Like

  19. kathyca says:

    Just a reminder that the kangaroo court is continuing live today. You can watch a live feed of the clock on the wall here (there are many other links)

    http://www.postandcourier.com/news/watch-closing-arguments-to-begin-in-michael-slager-murder-trial/article_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

    Like

  20. Maj says:

    AAAAnd … ITS A MISTRIAL!!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s