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 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.
@@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?
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@ApolloMcrib 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...
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
The stuff I see on Netflix and TH-cam 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.
@@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.
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
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
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
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
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
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!
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?
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.
@@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 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?
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
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
@@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
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 ?
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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."
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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...."
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.
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.
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
@@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.
@@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
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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@Stealthbird97 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🤷♀️
@@Stealthbird97 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?
@@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).
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.
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.
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
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.
@@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?!
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
@@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.
@@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
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 🙄
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.
@@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!.
@TRAITOR TRUMP Sadly, that is the way of the world if we're lucky. No system will be perfect, most won't even be good, but we can always move a little closer to a better system. Even the best system of its time can be improved. Our current justice system is riddled with problems and corruption...which makes it all the sadder that it is even in the top half of justice systems on this planet. Possibly top 20. That is amazingly sad for the entirety of the world. Same thing with the levels of racism, poverty, economic mobility, freedom, and government competence: far less than should be considered adequate, but still in the top percentiles for the world at large. Not number one on any metric short of obesity (and I think we lost that one rather recently!), but still pretty high when graded on a curve. That should be the saddest, most embarrassing thing in the history books of the future. With all the horrendous, disgusting, horrific things that were going on in this country, it was still somehow better than so many other countries that people risked their lives to live here with not a thing to their name. As bad as this nation is, people still wanted to live here. That terrifies me, when I think how bad the rest of these nations must be that people would risk everything and more to be here. Here I am, born American, complaining about a nation so great that people romanticize some of the worst parts of our culture and will accept our worst with a smile on their face. What am I not seeing? What is so great about this country in their eyes? Something to keep us both up at night, I guess.
It's not their role to retry the case. It's their role to consider whether there has been a violation of the order of law committed by the judge in that case.
@@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
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.
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.
@@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 .
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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...
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.
@@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.
For those curious: the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court's granting of a new trial. I cannot find any news articles discussing whether they ever re-tried Mr. Hamilton.
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 :/
@@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 :)
@@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...
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.
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 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?
The main problem with a DA is, they don't care about guilt or innocence for the vast majority of cases. Only care about adding another notch on their bedpost of wins.
It’s about their conviction rate not about how many for the most part. They’d rather have a plea deal and get a “win” then have a 75-80% chance of getting a win and a longer sentence with a more serious charge
@@jackjon7763 So... that is to say... that the main problem with a DA is, they don’t care about guilt or innocence for the vast majority of cases. Only care about adding another notch on their bedpost of wins?
@B dun Right? I know that but thank you for adding it in case other people don’t. You and the other guy are both entirely missing the point of the comment. Element of Kindness said “(insert their post here)” and then jack jon basically said the same thing in different words while essentially saying EoK was wrong for the most part. A DA wants a high conviction rate so they can keep their “win rates” high. A low conviction rate makes them look bad so they keep pushing for plea deals regardless of guilt or innocence. Which means, they don’t care about guilt or innocence they just want to add another notch to their bedpost of wins, which is what EoK said. They don’t care about justice, just winning. They don’t care about who truly deserves what, just winning. They don’t care about guilt nor innocence, just winning. And that is a problem, as pointed out by EoK.
In this case the jury verdict was guilty.. and the judge overturned that verdict which seems to be a last gift from a judge retiring.. and if that last bit of a single piece of testimony that wasn't brought up at all in the trial. That alone limits the power the judge was invoking the overturn of the verdict. To me no matter who the victim was the man thst got off was guilty of murder.. he thought he was land owner he could do whatever he wanted and he was heard saying whst he would do if he caught up to them and illegal detention and trying to commit theft of keys under guise of the citizens arrest. Not to mention you point a loaded firearm at someone for not a legal reason. I.e. self defense of property or legal citizens arrest. It is aggravated assault. To each person so that's three counts as there were three people in that truck. And then he shoots and kills the man. That's a murder as result of prior felony.. hence felony murder.
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!
@@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.
Why is this panel of judges so anti this man's presentation. They keep interrupting this man. He is not able to put his case across. The judges are trying to support their fellow judge.
Because all the guy can argue is this guy was guilty as shit and the jury was totally right. But, the standard he's required to show is that no judge in their right mind could have concluded anything other than this guy is guilty. The lawyer literally has to prove the judge made an error of fact or that the judge couldn't have just been exceptionally stupid. He has to show that no judge could have reached that conclusion, not that the judge is wrong. And it's irrelevant if Hamilton is factually guilty so rehashing how good his case was doesn't speak to the point that the judge couldn't just be mindbendingly dumb and thought it was a shitty case. And without a good argument that the law required a guilty verdict the DA was going back to arguing how effectively he showed the guy was guilty.
It's much worse than that. Judge motes was judging a murder trial of a retired judge, which unanimous verdict he tossed of bs grounds. And the georgia supremes upheld judge mote's corruption. Retired Judges in georgia get to shoot anybody they want in front of witnesses, admit it, and then walk. The crooks in georgia go all the way to the top.
@@curtmayer1070 Wow. Seems weird nobody noted that as a source of this crazy bias: "Chief Judge David Motes of Jackson County was less than a week away from retirement when he used Georgia’s “13th juror” standard to grant the new trial to 78-year-old Paul Hamilton, a former Barrow County magistrate judge, report the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, WSB-TV and 11Alive." -- Guy was a former judge, judge does some crazy shit, to demand a new trial.
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.
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.
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
Retired police officer and former homicide detective. You are all seeing how frustrating it can be when common sense exists. Never assume that people with law degrees and who wear black robes act in any other interest than their own power.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@@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?
@@ogcatlady ever hear of a Citizens Arrest (Private Party Arrest)? The prosecutor clearly stated they were on private property. When posted, the sign are the trespass warning, and disregarding constitutes criminal trespass. Both concepts under law have origins in English Common Law, and predate the Constitution.
@@mr.funkalicioussplendiferous No he suspected that they might have previously trespassed, no current trespass and you have no right to shout or arrest someone for trespass, only a right to ask them to leave.
@@texasyankee3512 no sir, you are wrong. A posted sign is all that is needed to establish Criminal Trespass, an arrestable offense. That arrest may be carried out by either the property owner or police as established under English Common Law, and carried forth to our own legal system. It is the same principle that allows private businesses to affect an arrest on their private property.
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.
@@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.
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!!!!!
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
The judge should be removed from that bench and be barred from ever practicing law again. They definitely didn't follow the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with the code of conduct. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary, inturn injuring our system of government under law. We already have cops that can act without consequences abusing that power the last thing we need is judges doing it as well. That sounds like a catalyst to the USA losing any resemblance of Unity. 😞
It was straining my brain to reason why this had transpired. After researching a bit, come to find out the defendant was a former magistrate judge in the same county. So they are all taking care of their own. Smh
Explains the way the judges in this court are acting as well. They're treating the original judge as just a common juror. Not a judge who overturned a verdict without good reason.
The man shot his own son. I don't understand why no one has said this. This man could have told the police hey its my kid he lives over blah blah blah go get him. Instead he shot and killed his son.
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 .
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 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.
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.
"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.
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.
@@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.
It doesn’t seem the judge can make a not guilty jury decision be guilty. Only that they can weigh in a vote, which would mean really only “not guilty” with an otherwise “guilty” jury finding. Which would just make it a hung jury and be retried.
To be clear (and i learned it only on researching): The trial judge doesnt overruled the jury in that way that Paul Hamilton is now not guilty of felony murder and aggrevaded assault. The trial judge "just" ordered another trial. The video suggested me that the judge somehow let him go away as a free man, that isnt the case.
Sounds like she was helping the judge by having the judge get another bite at freedom bc who knows what judge he will get now and will be even more favorable to a fellow judge.
A dog and pony show doesn't work without the 'glorified spectators' that they like to call jurists, judges, justices, magistrates, etc... So the only reason really is that they're necessary in order to have the appearance of an adversarial system and it would be much more obvious how more of our "Criminal Justice" system is based upon declarations, behaviors, and actions of Criminals than attempts of gathering evidence for the sake of portraying the unbiased truth and manifesting the spirit of reverence towards the blindfolded lady we use in our personification of the Freedom of Equality and the Liberty of Justice. Sorry for the book but I hope it answered your somewhat rhetorically posed quandary. And it's just my opinion, so who the "f" knows if I'm even close to correct and if I have any idea what the "h" I'm talking bout.
Sounds like the appeal needed technical grounds and the prosecutor was trying to re-hash the guilt of the defendant instead of finding a procedural error by the judge to make the order to set aside the jury verdict invalid which he needed to do.
@@theyaden Right it sounds like the judge that overturned the verdict said there were inconsistencies but didn't explain what they were and exorcised a power only to be used in "exceptional circumstances". If the circumstances were exceptional why is the judge allowed to exclude to them from her reasoning. The prosecutor is asking for clarity on what are the limits of the judge's powers if they aren't boundless and the panel of judges essentially say "lol the law is the bound". They said if any person could come to the conclusion that the individual wasn't guilty then judges have no limits on the cases that can overturn.
@@theyaden except at the very end where the judges own cited reason seems based on testimony did not actually exist. But otherwise your summary is correct. The overturn of the judiciary power seems ONLY bound by technicality. Which is why there has never been a superior court overturn of a lower judges jury overturn. There has never historically been technical legal broken practice to cause/define fault.
I appreciate the passion of the States Attorney and agree he likely has a good case against the accused. Problem is, the Supreme Court is only able to challenge the judges decision, based on general rule. Not the strength of evidence in the trial. I give him credit for attempting to question the system. They weren't having any of it.
They did use more effort to avoid a decision than making a proper ruling. How can a man put a gun in a car and its not untent...if im cleani g my gun and it accidentally goes off killing a neighbor i still discharged a weapon killing someone. This guy pointed a gun inside someones car and his gun was fired with his hand on weapon.
@@markusdaxamouli5196 It's because you're not aware of all the facts of the case and the situation between a person confronting thieves and you shooting your neighbour accidently are two different things. There could be a fact that precludes a fining on a specific crime that the prosecutor charged the defendant with. The evidence may disagree with the statements of the individuals in the car or the defendant, leading to the ruling. It literally could be any number of things. The reality is that the judge was probably loathe to put a man into jail for trying to get his stuff back from thieves. We have to remember that jurors are not bound to the rules of decision making the court puts forth (even though the court implies that they are).
@@willdonaldson4634 No I'm not. A person has the right to confront those people. I would have been FAR worse if they hadn't stolen from him. The fact that you think that he has tot treat them like any other person is simply wrong.
@@willdonaldson4634 to further what rundvelt said - just as an example, the defendant may well have seen them stealing his stuff from the side of the road, which was only there as evidence from the U-Haul theft. That would make it suitable for a citizen's arrest given Georgia's (at the time) very old statute. If the defendant argued that the road-side theft led to a valid citizen's arrest, then he could be found innocent of mugging as he was engaged in a detainment. As he went for truck keys, and the victim grabbed his arm, he could argue accidental discharge, and as he wouldn't be found guilty by matter of law, he would be able to use the accident defence.
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.
That was only the prosecution. The defense lawyer got equal time too. Usually appellate judges challenge both sides. If we'd have heard the defense, it would have sounded like they were against the guy.
Sitting for two weeks on a jury, deliberating the case then having the judge overturn the ruling turns people off from jury duty. It's happened twice to me.
Do they ever explain the logic behind it? I know that the judge gets to see all of the evidence, even the evidence that isn’t inadmissible. I wonder if that sometimes plays a role, even if the inadmissible evidence is not supposed to be considered. But if a jury spends that much time to deliberate, do they explain to the jury why they would do it?
Even though it was not illegal to overturn the verdict but I didn’t hear anything to justify over turning the jury verdict. These judges seem set on protecting one of their own.
The process of weighing the evidence and deciding guilt is supposed to be impartial. Your scenario is the reason why there are rules against conflicts of interest.
@Danny DNA Sidney "Release The Kraken" Powell's defamation defense: “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact” Tucker Carlson's defamation defense: “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact” Fox News's defamation defense: “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact” One thing no one trying to overturn the election have done: Provide actual evidence instead of hearsay.
Omfg the replies to this comment are golden😂 remember, folks, the repliers to this comment may end up in your jury some day if you're ever framed for something.
the job of the supreme court here, like they are asking, is not to determine if the judge was right or wrong but if there is a legal reason to overturn the case. The lawyer isn't presenting enough information about the laws allowing the judges to over turn the former judge's ruling. The lawyer appears to have needed to have just presented the laws or court decisions that would allow the ruling to be over turned.
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.
It’s a good thing for them to protect this judge. Even though that’s not what they’re doing in reality. They are protecting this man’s innocence for protecting his property against trespassers with his right to bear arms
These comments are why the great, late Justice Scalia (and almost all Supreme Court Justices) are against making Supreme Court arguments available on video. People do not understand that appellate court judges asks tough questions to challenge the lawyers before them. These are QUESTIONS designed to test the lawyers. Most of the Judges who ask the toughest questions probably will vote to support the argument opposite their question. ... This is Law 101.
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 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.
@@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.
This is really weird. I saw your username & did a double take. My name is Karen Willer. And my Dad’s name is Stephen Willer. So just glancing down really quickly, I thought my dad had posted on here. Maybe we’re related. Does your family trace back to Iowa?? I met another Willer when I lived and worked in the Bay Area. Turned out he was my 2nd or 3rd cousin or something.
People already do, nobody with an IQ over 90 actually wants to serve on a jury....and if anyone actually did want to, they'd be the last person we'd actually want on a jury.
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.
@@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.
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.
The fact that he did not know who those people were when he blocked them in then approached them brandishing a weapon as he attempted to take from them their private property from them constitutes an armed robbery.
Would it be armed robbery if they were unlawfully on YOUR property, and you believed they had property belonging to you, or a relative of yours? That's what the shooter testified to. He made no bones about it. If someone you didn't know was on your property, thinking that they had something that belonged to your loved one, AND YOU HAD ALREADY WARNED THEM OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRESSPASSING... would that change your point of view?
You can’t go on someone’s private property without permission . That’s a great way to get shot... This is American and that’s exactly why the verdict was overturned by the judge as it should have been .
What?! So the judge apparently did this as his final act before retiring? Someone definitely needs to investigate that judge's personal connections... this whole thing stinks horribly...
@@TedTheAtheist Yea it's shocking. It's the first time I've heard of this even being possible. Then again... Georgia... so we really shouldn't be surprised anymore.
I think the point of the law is to prevent mob violence. Say this is a case where a black kid is being tried for the murder of some little southern girl. The town makes up their mind it was this poor little black kid and convict him without virtually any evidence. This law allows the judge to say, "hmmm, this trial didn't prove this kid did anything. Ya'll need to go find out who really killed that little girl. Not guilty." Normally, that can be done with the judge simply dismissing the case with or without prejudice. But, if the DA provides a critical witness, the judge can't justify dismissing the case. But, once the witness testifies and it is clear they are lying; this law allows the judge the opportunity to do the right thing.
And they wonder why nobody wants to do jury duty. I was on a federal wrongful death lawsuit for over two weeks and I would have been very pissed off if the judge would have overturned our UNANIMOUS verdict.
@@jigglymig What is the point of even having jury trials if the judge is just allowed to decide they don't like the verdict and change it. If there was something that went wrong in the process of the trial, isn't that what an appeals court is meant to hear?
Except in this case, the jury convicted the accused, and the judge set aside that verdict. What is the point of a trial, when the jury's verdict is tossed, and then the good-old-boy system refuses to hold a judge accountable, and backs him up? Guess it's okay to kill for some but not for others, huh?
the judge in question retired days later... this is rotten to its core... hard to say it is a case of classic overcharge when the jury returns a guilty verdict and if I recall, they can only overturn a jury verdict from guilty to not guilty, they can't do it the other way around...
@@drebk It's been tried. I watched a TH-cam video. I also wondered if this was a case of overcharging. While I don't have the facts his argument should have been about the sanctity of the jury system.
@@ernielarkin4793 what do you mean by "its been tried?" and I'm not sure that him droning on about the sanctity of jury trials would have carried the day... this panel of judges are all aware of that fact. And rightfully or wrongfully, that state has a 13th Juror law... which can be a good thing, but can also be abused. The legislative process deemed that the judge be granted authority to act as 13th juror...so the sanctity argument falls flat right there. No, the best argument had to be that the law couldn't support the judge acting as 13th juror. And the way to do that is to remind the judges about the elements of the crime and the fact that there was no potential defence... he couldn't have been found not guilty... we know he shot the dude... but more importantly, whether he intentionally pulled the trigger or not is simply not a relevant question if the defence of "accident" is not available at law. so unless the trial judge believed the dude didn't shoot the other dude... well, them his 13th juror override must have gone too far... it must have crossed the line. And the one gotcha moment that he had, but got brushed aside, was that the judge didn't event give coherent reasons for pulling the 13th juror card... in what universe can such a Trump card can be pulled without detailed and careful reasons from the judge? and no, it isn't at all fair to say that regular jurors don't have to give their reasons.... a judge does.
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.
@@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.
you don't go to someone pointing a gun and then cry it killed someone, you can say it was not its aim but at least it was murder (not 1st degree), it was not self-defense due to the lack of any mentioned risk to himself that would justify such, plus he was the one that approached them and forcefully tried to take the keys, whit the very defendant saying it , the fact that no judge sees the problem whit this while overwriting the jury its bullcrap
You are allowed to apprehend in a felony right. They tried to run over someone (on property that was not theirs that they had no permission to be on on top of that) So in that case he was apprehending people that commited a felony I do believe that is legal.
@@anamiller9848 He wasn't there when this "felony" happened, they weren't in the same vehicle, there was a pure innocent person in the vehicle at this moment and he even admitted that he didn't know if those people were related to the initial "felony" while approaching them... Girl, stretch it as much as you want, this man had no grounds.
@@anamiller9848 So he was scared enough to pull a gun but not scared enough to not approach? Cant have both. This is like the hillbillies in the arbury case. Turn off the tv, none of you are the equalizer or john wick.
@@anamiller9848 Actually he did not know that they were the ones who fled the hunters because they were no longer in the Uhaul truck and in someone else single cab truck that was not even apart of the interactions with the hunters. All he knew was there were some people who were stopped on the side of the road gathering items that may have fallen out of the Uhaul. As a private citizen, you are not allowed to draw a weapon on someone unless they are committing a violent act at the time against you or someone else that may end in loss of life. He had no idea if they were apart of the robbery or not.
I've seen a ton if cases where the judge shouldn't have even let the case go to trial due to lack of evidence and nothing but unsubstantiated police/prosecution theories but the verdicts were never set aside cause the judges are typically gonna side with the state that the jury's verdict is final even if it makes no sense...
these guys are not here to say guilty or not guilty. they are here to decide if the judge had the right to do what he did. that is it. they are not here to retry the case.
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.
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.
Appreciate that, i was left wondering wtf what happens?
@@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.
@@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?
@@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.
I'm 52 and no longer believe a single word ANYONE says...
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.
I don't believe you....
Can’t believe court system... absolutely no prosecution for lying in court... why not to lie !?!
@Umaxen 00, given your strategy, I wonder what are your thoughts about the 2020 election, was it rigged? or not?
@@bucherregaldomi9084 same as yours
And everyone else’s
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.
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.
It’s normal for lawyers to appear like this his argument was poorly delivered
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.
@@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.
I think that job is called a "teacher" :)
I would hire this guy in a second. The passion is amazing coming from a lawyer
He’s like a kid having a tantrum.
Passion? He sounds frightened like he knows he has no case.
I like him too
@@ApolloMcrib 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...
He is the prosecutor not the defense attorney.
Almost impossible to convince a judge that another judge did something legally or morally wrong. Especially in judicial review boards.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@VTArxelus i wonder if the judge in the case was related to the old man that pulled the trigger
@@josephfuller6229 Who can say? All we know is that this state attorney basically believes he was run in a kangaroo court.
Why did I this show up in my recommended? And why did I just watch the entire thing?
Same, we must be stupid fucks.
Same
I can’t stop watching it. I’m zoned in haha.
You got sucked in....just like the rest of us....lol. Here....listen to this. th-cam.com/play/OLAK5uy_ncD4ftpvJQfZGO7sXcazjuYsAh2viVw1U.html
Agree. However, it is pretty fascinating to watch.
Note to self: stay away from Georgia.
You should know that from the recent elections.
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.
The stuff I see on Netflix and TH-cam 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.
@@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.
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
WTF how it matters where he was pointing at. Trying to get the keys at gunpoint is a freaking crime.
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
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
@@tonyploma2330 it didn't happen on his property. The shooting occurred on a public street.
@@tonyploma2330 I thought the prosecutor said they were on a public access road? Unless I'm mistaken.
@@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
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.
Right?? I don’t even need one stuck in my car, I just need to see one and I’d be shitting myself!!!
No he asked if it is aggravated assault.
@@joescutari umm, well, is that any better?
@@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.
@@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.
I like the attorney's passion. You can tell he really believes in what he's saying.
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
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!
I like how the justices kept returning to applying the law and he had no real rebuttal to show how the judge errored.
His blinking eyes tell me something different
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?
If only these Judges fought this hard for all defendants and not just for one of their own.
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.
@@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.
@@kharnac3973 It matters your intent. I gun in the cab. Is not the same as point the gun at someone's head.
@@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?
@@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.
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.
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.
100%
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
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.
AND THEY ARE TOO LAZY TO READ THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS --- JUST GANG UP ON THE PROSECUTION LAWYER.
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
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.
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.
@@coreyg7364 Ruled new trial can proceed.
@@rifter0x0000 lol whered you find that because everything ive found about this case is well not what you said.
@@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.
14:53 "Putting a gun into a vehicle or holding a gun up here does not make it an aggravated assault"
Really 🤔?
Bruh ikr!! Crazy if I did that shit cops would shoot me. This def gotta be illegal
Funny how police officers can do that and get away with it though
The judge is asking if the act of doing so is aggravated assault.
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.
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.
We've reviewed our own actions and reached the conclusion we have done no wrong.
Seems reasonable
@@amelliamendel2227 Hey it works for Twitter, and reddit. soooo
@@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.
@@amelliamendel2227 don’t get it. Are you the owner? Sounds like an inside joke and we’re lacking context.
@@finejustgivemeaname Yes
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!
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.
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
@@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
Thanks you saved me from so much typing 😂
I was going to say the same thing!
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 ?
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.
darkomen42 , “ supposed “ being the key word here, because this rarely even happens .
@@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.
@@nettejohnson7492 Wrong! Plenty of Judges are elected.
@@MrIgorkap Not in the federal court system and not in long standing BLUE CROwn ryal stATEs...= template of corruption
The checks and balances are being side-stepped. And power is being abused.
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.
@@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."
You clearly have no clue what's happening in this video, vee elle. This video SHOWS THE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN ACTION.
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.
@@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.
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.
Maybe they tried to go for felony murder because the guy bragged about " shooting him deader then shit"?
@@antiochaldo6299 did the shootee deserve it?
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.
@@thedott6232 a jury is not subject to the same scrutiny.
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...."
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.
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.
need a couple thousand bucks
They're doing their job. The state filed the appeal. The burden is on them to answer these judges questions.
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
Prosecutor has the burden to defend his position and not the Supreme Court judges to guess.
Why have a jury when the Judge has the power to overturn a verdict.
That’s only in some states. Not all states allow that.
Well hopefully they’re only over turning guilty verdicts. Jury wrongfully convict people often.
yes, a judge can't overturn a not guilty and return a guilty instead...thankfully
@@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.
@@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
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?
90% Judges are freemasonic scum...
This is un-F Ing believable
Well he’s doing a great job. He obviously loves this stuff.
Personally prob wouldnt of made it 5 minutes before trying my hand with judge warren. That one fine ginger 🤣
Constantly interrupting him too
His last statement proved his entire point. The judge literally lied!
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.
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.
Or he was old and confused
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@Stealthbird97 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🤷♀️
They were thieves and deserved it . I’d have overturned it aswell
@@Stealthbird97 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?
@@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).
They sound like they’re trying to protect the other judge’s decision instead of following the law.
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.
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.
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
@@germanswede1781 Except the he didn’t know if it needed protecting at that time. Why does everything have to end with killing.
do you understand how the judicial system works?
Crooks. The defendant is a retired judge.
No he's not.
@@jgrenwod Yes he is. It's one of the reasons people alleged he let him off.
Yep. Freenasons occulturds first priority is loyalty to the brotherhood
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.
@@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?!
This is why people don't believe in their system. It's 💔
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.
@@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.
Federal courts r extremely Corrupt
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.
@@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
We need a different route for challenging the judicial system. Judges seem to rule in favor of other judges, if they can.
Sometime they can, but they ONE (criminal) that got away may come and get them after retirement...
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.
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.
The trial judge wanted to have his, "F it, I do what I want" moment before retiring.
I think that's what happened
@ROCKDUDESFORME I can tell you listened to Rush Limbaugh
@@blackviking2079 hahahaha! That's probably 100% accurate. RL was a "do as I say not as I do" pos.
@@joesites I can tell because he loved using the word "reprobate" when describing someone lol
.....could a one horned rhinoceros be referred to as a unicorn? :-)
See there is two classes of people. This is what happens when your in and when your not.
Good job proving you don't even comprehend what you just watched happen.
"It's a BIG club, and you're not in it"
~ George Carlin
@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.
*you're
@@paulfestmusic interesting
Can these people let this guy finish a statement?! Damn
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.
@@cmeadsboise This is not the SCOTUS. This is the Supreme Court of Georgia.
@@derkommentator7273 Pretty sure that @chrismedows knows that this isn't SCOUTS. His point is normally supreme courts are not filmed.
This is oral argument before a supreme court, the Justices are supposed to ask questions while he is speaking.
This is how literally all appellate courts work.
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.
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
@@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.
@@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.
@@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
While people who are innocent rot in jail. It is a mess
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 🙄
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.
@@ronaldbarnes1746 no that's not the same. Lolol
@@ronaldbarnes1746 wat about joe Biden he was accused as well!!!! And is his son that should be on jail. Lol the hypocrisies is halarious
@@craigbannister7826 lol… 🤦🏽♀️
@@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!.
Every one of these judges would have a bright future in the field of politics if they so chose. Not a single drop of justice between them.
Excellent.
@@TMASTT
Yeah, the best justice system in the world...when it's on your side. Otherwise, it's as corrupt and broken as all the others.
@TRAITOR TRUMP
Sadly, that is the way of the world if we're lucky. No system will be perfect, most won't even be good, but we can always move a little closer to a better system. Even the best system of its time can be improved. Our current justice system is riddled with problems and corruption...which makes it all the sadder that it is even in the top half of justice systems on this planet. Possibly top 20. That is amazingly sad for the entirety of the world.
Same thing with the levels of racism, poverty, economic mobility, freedom, and government competence: far less than should be considered adequate, but still in the top percentiles for the world at large. Not number one on any metric short of obesity (and I think we lost that one rather recently!), but still pretty high when graded on a curve.
That should be the saddest, most embarrassing thing in the history books of the future. With all the horrendous, disgusting, horrific things that were going on in this country, it was still somehow better than so many other countries that people risked their lives to live here with not a thing to their name. As bad as this nation is, people still wanted to live here. That terrifies me, when I think how bad the rest of these nations must be that people would risk everything and more to be here. Here I am, born American, complaining about a nation so great that people romanticize some of the worst parts of our culture and will accept our worst with a smile on their face. What am I not seeing? What is so great about this country in their eyes?
Something to keep us both up at night, I guess.
It's not their role to retry the case. It's their role to consider whether there has been a violation of the order of law committed by the judge in that case.
The should join the US police force were friends protecting friends even if the murder, pedophelia or assault are on film
Judges will NEVER limit the power of Judges, so even though they say the principle is not boundless in reality it is boundless.
Literally the job of appeal courts, state supreme courts and the federal Supreme Court. They do it all the time.
WE outnumber them by far so what's the problem? Why do we bow down to the few?
Nette Johnson stupid reaction, but to keep you satisfied.... Yeah sure
@@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
@@jhonathantejada3345 I'm no longer ABEL to take anyone down nor would I EVEr use violence to WIN...
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.
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.
WELL HE DID --- AND PROBABLY WELL REWARDED FOR DOING SO.
Kind of linked logically.
@@peoplez129 the judge believed that the burden of proof was not met. But then again
@@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 .
One person trying to tell his side of the story, to be constantly interrupted by nine people that are against his story.
Not even his peers right?
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.
@@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.
Yes, that’s how an appeals court work. Listen to SCOTUS arguments sometime.
@@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.
I guess we can all cite this case if we want to stick a gun in someone's face who did us dirt.
Sadly, you're right. It becomes case law to be cited in future trials.
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.
@@josephtorres3229 No it's not.
It kinda of is when they show back up after all that happened
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...
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.
It's the law.
You do realize that this particular statute protects against racist jurys more then anything else right?
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.
Oh please dude. Your “yee haw” comment tells me everything about your politics.
@@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.
For those curious: the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court's granting of a new trial. I cannot find any news articles discussing whether they ever re-tried Mr. Hamilton.
I'm not any kind of legal expert, but there is something seriously wrong with those judges. Truly feels dark!
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 :/
@@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 :)
Don't worry, it's obvious you're not! 😆
@@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...
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
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
@@y_strikes2770 so if the attorney has to prove it was unlawful, they indeed need to judge guilt or innocence....
@@jtfike No, you can determine whether or not a PROCEDURE was violated without determining guilt or innocence.
@@michaeldelyjah5696 the word used was "unlawful". You are changing the word to "procedure". There is a big difference.
@@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?
The main problem with a DA is, they don't care about guilt or innocence for the vast majority of cases. Only care about adding another notch on their bedpost of wins.
It’s about their conviction rate not about how many for the most part. They’d rather have a plea deal and get a “win” then have a 75-80% chance of getting a win and a longer sentence with a more serious charge
@@jackjon7763 So... that is to say... that the main problem with a DA is, they don’t care about guilt or innocence for the vast majority of cases. Only care about adding another notch on their bedpost of wins?
Thats every attorney. Its about winning. Would be hard to stay employed if you never won.
@B dun Right? I know that but thank you for adding it in case other people don’t. You and the other guy are both entirely missing the point of the comment.
Element of Kindness said “(insert their post here)” and then jack jon basically said the same thing in different words while essentially saying EoK was wrong for the most part. A DA wants a high conviction rate so they can keep their “win rates” high. A low conviction rate makes them look bad so they keep pushing for plea deals regardless of guilt or innocence. Which means, they don’t care about guilt or innocence they just want to add another notch to their bedpost of wins, which is what EoK said. They don’t care about justice, just winning. They don’t care about who truly deserves what, just winning. They don’t care about guilt nor innocence, just winning. And that is a problem, as pointed out by EoK.
In this case the jury verdict was guilty.. and the judge overturned that verdict which seems to be a last gift from a judge retiring.. and if that last bit of a single piece of testimony that wasn't brought up at all in the trial. That alone limits the power the judge was invoking the overturn of the verdict. To me no matter who the victim was the man thst got off was guilty of murder.. he thought he was land owner he could do whatever he wanted and he was heard saying whst he would do if he caught up to them and illegal detention and trying to commit theft of keys under guise of the citizens arrest. Not to mention you point a loaded firearm at someone for not a legal reason. I.e. self defense of property or legal citizens arrest. It is aggravated assault. To each person so that's three counts as there were three people in that truck. And then he shoots and kills the man. That's a murder as result of prior felony.. hence felony murder.
It's sad when everyone knows it's wrong but doesn't want to fix it.
It's not wrong. It is part of the judge's job.
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!
@@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.
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
dead men tell no tales
Why is this panel of judges so anti this man's presentation. They keep interrupting this man. He is not able to put his case across. The judges are trying to support their fellow judge.
Because all the guy can argue is this guy was guilty as shit and the jury was totally right. But, the standard he's required to show is that no judge in their right mind could have concluded anything other than this guy is guilty. The lawyer literally has to prove the judge made an error of fact or that the judge couldn't have just been exceptionally stupid. He has to show that no judge could have reached that conclusion, not that the judge is wrong. And it's irrelevant if Hamilton is factually guilty so rehashing how good his case was doesn't speak to the point that the judge couldn't just be mindbendingly dumb and thought it was a shitty case. And without a good argument that the law required a guilty verdict the DA was going back to arguing how effectively he showed the guy was guilty.
The judges all voted against the lawyer in this case and upheld the judge.
It's much worse than that. Judge motes was judging a murder trial of a retired judge, which unanimous verdict he tossed of bs grounds. And the georgia supremes upheld judge mote's corruption. Retired Judges in georgia get to shoot anybody they want in front of witnesses, admit it, and then walk. The crooks in georgia go all the way to the top.
@@curtmayer1070 Wow. Seems weird nobody noted that as a source of this crazy bias:
"Chief Judge David Motes of Jackson County was less than a week away from retirement when he used Georgia’s “13th juror” standard to grant the new trial to 78-year-old Paul Hamilton, a former Barrow County magistrate judge, report the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, WSB-TV and 11Alive." -- Guy was a former judge, judge does some crazy shit, to demand a new trial.
Because it’s about power not the actual trial. The argument is really about what a judge can do after a jury gives a verdict.
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.
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.
@@RavenGlenn then just have judges do it and not have any jury!
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
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.
The prosecutor was right but he didn't have a chance. That's very brave.
Summary judgment is in civil court, btw. Not here.
Retired police officer and former homicide detective. You are all seeing how frustrating it can be when common sense exists. Never assume that people with law degrees and who wear black robes act in any other interest than their own power.
Omg how badly have we twisted our "justice" system? Why have a jury if a judge can just go "nope"?
Crazy 💩
Because sometimes the jury does not understand what is before them and they make a blanket ruling because it’s convenient.
@@ArrowheadPride4Ever then why have the option of trial by jury? A brief look into the innocence project shows you how bad the system is anyway.
@@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.
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.
Are they just interrupting everything he says just to confuse him?
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.
This is nothing compared to the United States Supreme Court. During their hearings the Justices will inturupt the each other with their questions.
Yup! You have to practice your argument while anticipating random questions throughout. That’s how appellate arguments work.
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.
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.
I wonder who paid the judge off, considering he retired just afterwards?
"He literally admitted to shooting him"
"Mmmm not guilty"
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
@@misein1 what in the literal hell is wrong with you?
@@misein1 it's ok to shoot someone because they abuse a substance?
@@flogrown4333 Oh I don't know. Maybe common sense. You should just keep your mask on.
@@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?
Wasn't self defense. He had no right to detain these people or take the keys.
Yes he did, as they were trespassing on private property, a fact not in dispute...
@@mr.funkalicioussplendiferous are you the judge?? You're the thirteenth juror aren't you!?? 😆😆
@@ogcatlady ever hear of a Citizens Arrest (Private Party Arrest)? The prosecutor clearly stated they were on private property. When posted, the sign are the trespass warning, and disregarding constitutes criminal trespass. Both concepts under law have origins in English Common Law, and predate the Constitution.
@@mr.funkalicioussplendiferous No he suspected that they might have previously trespassed, no current trespass and you have no right to shout or arrest someone
for trespass, only a right to ask them to leave.
@@texasyankee3512 no sir, you are wrong. A posted sign is all that is needed to establish Criminal Trespass, an arrestable offense. That arrest may be carried out by either the property owner or police as established under English Common Law, and carried forth to our own legal system. It is the same principle that allows private businesses to affect an arrest on their private property.
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
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.
@@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.
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!!!!!
@@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.
@@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.
This is why YOU NEVER , EVER TAKE A PLEA DEAL. Go to trial cause ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN.
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.
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.
90% of the time in trial you will get more time then with a plea deal unless you are really innocent
Any judge that overrules a jury verdict should automatically face investigation just to make sure they're clean!
The judge should be removed from that bench and be barred from ever practicing law again. They definitely didn't follow the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with the code of conduct. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary, inturn injuring our system of government under law. We already have cops that can act without consequences abusing that power the last thing we need is judges doing it as well. That sounds like a catalyst to the USA losing any resemblance of Unity. 😞
It was straining my brain to reason why this had transpired. After researching a bit, come to find out the defendant was a former magistrate judge in the same county. So they are all taking care of their own. Smh
Explains the way the judges in this court are acting as well. They're treating the original judge as just a common juror. Not a judge who overturned a verdict without good reason.
The man shot his own son. I don't understand why no one has said this. This man could have told the police hey its my kid he lives over blah blah blah go get him. Instead he shot and killed his son.
J. Betts....Are you serious? He was a former judge!!! OMGGGGG
@@ThePuddinpie Yup
@@jeromebetts Wow!!! Just when you think you've seen it all.......
So The Defendant in this case just happens to have been a retired Judge
This isn't that kind of court.
@matt keese I don't think you understand. That's ok .
Yes- a former associate magistrate judge. How honorable..
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 .
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 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.
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
@@georgeschnakenberg7808 the judges did not refer to the facts
@@meistyfeisty1236 he did refer to the relevant facts. What facts are you saying he didn't refer to?
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.
"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.
Completely agree. But they’re just interpreting the law as written. Seems to me the bigger problem is the law.
Next time i get a letter for jury duty ima just throw it away if the judge can just decide either way
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.
@@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.
Why have a jury if the judge is going to rule what he or she wants the verdict to be...
It doesn’t seem the judge can make a not guilty jury decision be guilty. Only that they can weigh in a vote, which would mean really only “not guilty” with an otherwise “guilty” jury finding. Which would just make it a hung jury and be retried.
To be clear (and i learned it only on researching): The trial judge doesnt overruled the jury in that way that Paul Hamilton is now not guilty of felony murder and aggrevaded assault. The trial judge "just" ordered another trial. The video suggested me that the judge somehow let him go away as a free man, that isnt the case.
Sounds like she was helping the judge by having the judge get another bite at freedom bc who knows what judge he will get now and will be even more favorable to a fellow judge.
Thank you for the clarification.
@@Platoface Sounds like you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
@@andrewvelonis5940 he sounds alot smarter than you do
The prosecutor has to decide if they will retry the case. It costs money.
Jury- He's guilty
Judge- No he's my huntin' buddy
Supreme court- Our fellow Judge wouldn't be corrupt he's our huntin' buddy
exactly!
@Depressed Unwanted Man I wouldn't. A thousand is too much
What's the point of even having a jury ruling on a case if a judge can overrule it anyway?
A dog and pony show doesn't work without the 'glorified spectators' that they like to call jurists, judges, justices, magistrates, etc... So the only reason really is that they're necessary in order to have the appearance of an adversarial system and it would be much more obvious how more of our "Criminal Justice" system is based upon declarations, behaviors, and actions of Criminals than attempts of gathering evidence for the sake of portraying the unbiased truth and manifesting the spirit of reverence towards the blindfolded lady we use in our personification of the Freedom of Equality and the Liberty of Justice. Sorry for the book but I hope it answered your somewhat rhetorically posed quandary. And it's just my opinion, so who the "f" knows if I'm even close to correct and if I have any idea what the "h" I'm talking bout.
Chauvin like trials.
@@NewsRedos Chauvin deserved what he got and more.
@@TDoK54 clown town population you. Multiple jurists said they were scared what would happen if they found him innocent.
@@NewsRedos love to see your sources for that one bud. Dude committed murder. Get over it
I'd love to hear what this man's talking about, but the judges keep obstructing.
Did these judges get their education out of a vending machine? Their questions are insane.
Sounds like the appeal needed technical grounds and the prosecutor was trying to re-hash the guilt of the defendant instead of finding a procedural error by the judge to make the order to set aside the jury verdict invalid which he needed to do.
They wanted to run his timer out. Oops time's up too bad, you lose. Go home.
@@theyaden Right it sounds like the judge that overturned the verdict said there were inconsistencies but didn't explain what they were and exorcised a power only to be used in "exceptional circumstances". If the circumstances were exceptional why is the judge allowed to exclude to them from her reasoning.
The prosecutor is asking for clarity on what are the limits of the judge's powers if they aren't boundless and the panel of judges essentially say "lol the law is the bound". They said if any person could come to the conclusion that the individual wasn't guilty then judges have no limits on the cases that can overturn.
@@theyaden except at the very end where the judges own cited reason seems based on testimony did not actually exist. But otherwise your summary is correct. The overturn of the judiciary power seems ONLY bound by technicality. Which is why there has never been a superior court overturn of a lower judges jury overturn. There has never historically been technical legal broken practice to cause/define fault.
I appreciate the passion of the States Attorney and agree he likely has a good case against the accused.
Problem is, the Supreme Court is only able to challenge the judges decision, based on general rule.
Not the strength of evidence in the trial.
I give him credit for attempting to question the system.
They weren't having any of it.
They did use more effort to avoid a decision than making a proper ruling. How can a man put a gun in a car and its not untent...if im cleani g my gun and it accidentally goes off killing a neighbor i still discharged a weapon killing someone. This guy pointed a gun inside someones car and his gun was fired with his hand on weapon.
@@markusdaxamouli5196 It's because you're not aware of all the facts of the case and the situation between a person confronting thieves and you shooting your neighbour accidently are two different things.
There could be a fact that precludes a fining on a specific crime that the prosecutor charged the defendant with. The evidence may disagree with the statements of the individuals in the car or the defendant, leading to the ruling. It literally could be any number of things.
The reality is that the judge was probably loathe to put a man into jail for trying to get his stuff back from thieves. We have to remember that jurors are not bound to the rules of decision making the court puts forth (even though the court implies that they are).
@@Rundvelt "...loathe to put a man in jail for trying to get his stuff back..." You're leaving out the accidentally killing someone part.
@@willdonaldson4634 No I'm not. A person has the right to confront those people. I would have been FAR worse if they hadn't stolen from him. The fact that you think that he has tot treat them like any other person is simply wrong.
@@willdonaldson4634 to further what rundvelt said - just as an example, the defendant may well have seen them stealing his stuff from the side of the road, which was only there as evidence from the U-Haul theft. That would make it suitable for a citizen's arrest given Georgia's (at the time) very old statute. If the defendant argued that the road-side theft led to a valid citizen's arrest, then he could be found innocent of mugging as he was engaged in a detainment. As he went for truck keys, and the victim grabbed his arm, he could argue accidental discharge, and as he wouldn't be found guilty by matter of law, he would be able to use the accident defence.
The judge overturns a guilty verdict you know damn well he got pay
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.
WoW. I don't know about this case...But they were definitely on the perpetrator's side. Period.
That was only the prosecution. The defense lawyer got equal time too. Usually appellate judges challenge both sides. If we'd have heard the defense, it would have sounded like they were against the guy.
More like defending a fellow judges actions.
This wasn't even about that case. He was using the case as a reference.
They upheld the judges ruling, They were less likely on the perpetrator's side and more on the judge's side.
They were on the judges side
Sitting for two weeks on a jury, deliberating the case then having the judge overturn the ruling turns people off from jury duty. It's happened twice to me.
Do they ever explain the logic behind it? I know that the judge gets to see all of the evidence, even the evidence that isn’t inadmissible. I wonder if that sometimes plays a role, even if the inadmissible evidence is not supposed to be considered.
But if a jury spends that much time to deliberate, do they explain to the jury why they would do it?
I would be so angry
Cap
We're they civil or criminal trials, and what were the circumstances?
@@1Outis1 They're lying. Dont waste your time.
Doesn't the defendants prior statement "if they come back here again you better call a coroner" show prior forethought calculation and design?
Malice aforethouggt
Hopefully the thiefs are DEAD
Not to a corrupt judge I guess.
Not when you have no idea who you looking for, which is why i think the judge overruled it 🤷🏾♂️ DA had the wrong charge to begin with.
People often make threats like that without actual intention. So no, it doesn't.
Even though it was not illegal to overturn the verdict but I didn’t hear anything to justify over turning the jury verdict. These judges seem set on protecting one of their own.
I bet if it was a family member of the judge, the trial would be over with the person serving life for murder.
The process of weighing the evidence and deciding guilt is supposed to be impartial. Your scenario is the reason why there are rules against conflicts of interest.
That's what I think...the judge secretly knew the dependent and helped out a buddy before he retired. Judges will protect their own
@@bigtomgun16 your statement is not supported by evidence and lacks any credibility whatsoever. Do you also believe the election was stolen ?
@@tonypegler3618 you know they admitted it right
@Danny DNA Sidney "Release The Kraken" Powell's defamation defense: “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact”
Tucker Carlson's defamation defense: “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact”
Fox News's defamation defense: “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact”
One thing no one trying to overturn the election have done: Provide actual evidence instead of hearsay.
Never in all my years of patrolling the Mojave have I been so confused
Nobody gives a sh1t that you patrolled!!
@@radarwill I don't think you get the joke, ya tool.
so he watches court videos too interesting...
😂
Omfg the replies to this comment are golden😂 remember, folks, the repliers to this comment may end up in your jury some day if you're ever framed for something.
Holy shit these judges are GRASPING at straws to protect a fellow "judge"
the job of the supreme court here, like they are asking, is not to determine if the judge was right or wrong but if there is a legal reason to overturn the case. The lawyer isn't presenting enough information about the laws allowing the judges to over turn the former judge's ruling. The lawyer appears to have needed to have just presented the laws or court decisions that would allow the ruling to be over turned.
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.
It’s a good thing for them to protect this judge. Even though that’s not what they’re doing in reality. They are protecting this man’s innocence for protecting his property against trespassers with his right to bear arms
These comments are why the great, late Justice Scalia (and almost all Supreme Court Justices) are against making Supreme Court arguments available on video. People do not understand that appellate court judges asks tough questions to challenge the lawyers before them. These are QUESTIONS designed to test the lawyers. Most of the Judges who ask the toughest questions probably will vote to support the argument opposite their question. ... This is Law 101.
@@matthewbaringer1486 law 101? You a lawyer? A judge? Or.... an internet comentor. Lol
I just happened to watch this and was amazed at the prosecutor's passion and he literally nailed every word ❤
The level of civil discourse shown here is what I wish existed in the house and senate
I mean it exists on one side
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.
@@zacheryhershberger7508 This was a State court case, so Congress had nothing to do with it.
@@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.
@@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.
So moral of the story, people should just refuse to be jury members until this law is changed.
This is really weird. I saw your username & did a double take. My name is Karen Willer. And my Dad’s name is Stephen Willer. So just glancing down really quickly, I thought my dad had posted on here.
Maybe we’re related. Does your family trace back to Iowa?? I met another Willer when I lived and worked in the Bay Area. Turned out he was my 2nd or 3rd cousin or something.
It might be a bad ruling, but it's a good law.
@@moonglow630 Do you think you're related to everyone with the same surname?
People on TH-cam always say "we should all" do this or that but never do it themselves
People already do, nobody with an IQ over 90 actually wants to serve on a jury....and if anyone actually did want to, they'd be the last person we'd actually want on a jury.
Why does it seem unusual that there are 3 very young looking judges on the Georgia Supreme Court.
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.
@@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.
@@icarian76 was just about to say the same thing.
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.
@@PeterSedesse unbelievable☹️
I appreciate this man and his passion.
Any one notice Judge Clarence Thomas asleep as usual...
Who else is watching this during the Derek Chauvin trial?
The fact that he did not know who those people were when he blocked them in then approached them brandishing a weapon as he attempted to take from them their private property from them constitutes an armed robbery.
Would it be armed robbery if they were unlawfully on YOUR property, and you believed they had property belonging to you, or a relative of yours?
That's what the shooter testified to. He made no bones about it. If someone you didn't know was on your property, thinking that they had
something that belonged to your loved one, AND YOU HAD ALREADY WARNED THEM OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRESSPASSING...
would that change your point of view?
You can’t go on someone’s private property without permission . That’s a great way to get shot... This is American and that’s exactly why the verdict was overturned by the judge as it should have been .
@@danigirl2597 how does one get permission inn the event of no contact details?
@@danigirl2597 how does one get permission?
@@Seemsayin robbery is robbery no matter where it occurs.
What?! So the judge apparently did this as his final act before retiring? Someone definitely needs to investigate that judge's personal connections... this whole thing stinks horribly...
Facts brother
I thought a judge can't do that.
@@TedTheAtheist Yea it's shocking. It's the first time I've heard of this even being possible. Then again... Georgia... so we really shouldn't be surprised anymore.
One judge ignored ethics to save another judge, while an entire panel of other judges ignored ethics to save the first judge.
Umm… what is the point of wasting the jurys time and paying them pennies?
I think the point of the law is to prevent mob violence.
Say this is a case where a black kid is being tried for the murder of some little southern girl. The town makes up their mind it was this poor little black kid and convict him without virtually any evidence.
This law allows the judge to say, "hmmm, this trial didn't prove this kid did anything. Ya'll need to go find out who really killed that little girl. Not guilty."
Normally, that can be done with the judge simply dismissing the case with or without prejudice. But, if the DA provides a critical witness, the judge can't justify dismissing the case. But, once the witness testifies and it is clear they are lying; this law allows the judge the opportunity to do the right thing.
And they wonder why nobody wants to do jury duty. I was on a federal wrongful death lawsuit for over two weeks and I would have been very pissed off if the judge would have overturned our UNANIMOUS verdict.
Looks at today’s “unanimous” guilty decision. There’s no way in hell it was given honestly. But we already knew which way the judge blew.
@@jigglymig What is the point of even having jury trials if the judge is just allowed to decide they don't like the verdict and change it. If there was something that went wrong in the process of the trial, isn't that what an appeals court is meant to hear?
@@ObservationofLimits If you are referring to the Chauvin trial, Chauvin was 100% guilty of all three counts. Buh bye.
@BannedGamer998 he
Maybe the judge was paid to overturned the verdict. Can the prosecutor prove that?
No the guy on trial wasn't rich
Judge overruled Jury?? Why even have a damn Jury?????
"Wickedness in high places "
Yep. Those high places are most likely a Masonic Lodge...cough cough
Asking judges to curtail judicial power is a futile argument. This is one of the biggest weaknesses in our system, if not the biggest.
Yeah it's like asking politicians to quit wasting our money
Sometimes the prosecutor overcharges the defendant. They do it all the time and wind up losing.
Except in this case, the jury convicted the accused, and the judge set aside that verdict. What is the point of a trial, when the jury's verdict is tossed, and then the good-old-boy system refuses to hold a judge accountable, and backs him up? Guess it's okay to kill for some but not for others, huh?
@@originalskepticphd Juries, as wall as judges, sometimes need to be overruled. You can't tell much from a little snippet that we got here.
the judge in question retired days later...
this is rotten to its core... hard to say it is a case of classic overcharge when the jury returns a guilty verdict
and if I recall, they can only overturn a jury verdict from guilty to not guilty, they can't do it the other way around...
@@drebk
It's been tried. I watched a TH-cam video.
I also wondered if this was a case of overcharging.
While I don't have the facts his argument should have been about the sanctity of the jury system.
@@ernielarkin4793 what do you mean by "its been tried?"
and I'm not sure that him droning on about the sanctity of jury trials would have carried the day... this panel of judges are all aware of that fact.
And rightfully or wrongfully, that state has a 13th Juror law... which can be a good thing, but can also be abused.
The legislative process deemed that the judge be granted authority to act as 13th juror...so the sanctity argument falls flat right there.
No, the best argument had to be that the law couldn't support the judge acting as 13th juror. And the way to do that is to remind the judges about the elements of the crime and the fact that there was no potential defence... he couldn't have been found not guilty...
we know he shot the dude... but more importantly, whether he intentionally pulled the trigger or not is simply not a relevant question if the defence of "accident" is not available at law.
so unless the trial judge believed the dude didn't shoot the other dude... well, them his 13th juror override must have gone too far... it must have crossed the line.
And the one gotcha moment that he had, but got brushed aside, was that the judge didn't event give coherent reasons for pulling the 13th juror card...
in what universe can such a Trump card can be pulled without detailed and careful reasons from the judge? and no, it isn't at all fair to say that regular jurors don't have to give their reasons.... a judge does.
I will say one thing. The lawyer arguing this is simply put "Incredible and very believable
The lawyer is against lawiers lol
As a judge you don't work with "believe". Facts and evidence, for anything else you go to church! 😂
incredible means unbelievable. it means not credible. so like, which is he, believable or not? 😅
"Let's just assume that the man's confession isn't a confession. Does that change the validity of your case?"
Agreed admitting Guilt is not being guilty apparently
Admitting guilt of what?
@@ObservationofLimits That the man on trial did, in fact, shoot his weapon inside the truck.
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.
@@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.
All you have to do, is pay of the judge, and that's all you need!
You also need to be on their team. Be a cop, be a politician, be a judge, be an oligarch.
Using that simple brain of yours again, I see.
@@michaeldelyjah5696 you don't even have a brain!
This is true during the cocaine cowboy era in south Florida Jon Roberts notoriously paid off judges to escape prison
you don't go to someone pointing a gun and then cry it killed someone, you can say it was not its aim but at least it was murder (not 1st degree), it was not self-defense due to the lack of any mentioned risk to himself that would justify such, plus he was the one that approached them and forcefully tried to take the keys, whit the very defendant saying it , the fact that no judge sees the problem whit this while overwriting the jury its bullcrap
You are allowed to apprehend in a felony right. They tried to run over someone (on property that was not theirs that they had no permission to be on on top of that) So in that case he was apprehending people that commited a felony I do believe that is legal.
@@anamiller9848 THAT he did not see commit a crime......AND had no sworn warrant.
@@anamiller9848 He wasn't there when this "felony" happened, they weren't in the same vehicle, there was a pure innocent person in the vehicle at this moment and he even admitted that he didn't know if those people were related to the initial "felony" while approaching them...
Girl, stretch it as much as you want, this man had no grounds.
@@anamiller9848 So he was scared enough to pull a gun but not scared enough to not approach? Cant have both. This is like the hillbillies in the arbury case. Turn off the tv, none of you are the equalizer or john wick.
@@anamiller9848 Actually he did not know that they were the ones who fled the hunters because they were no longer in the Uhaul truck and in someone else single cab truck that was not even apart of the interactions with the hunters. All he knew was there were some people who were stopped on the side of the road gathering items that may have fallen out of the Uhaul. As a private citizen, you are not allowed to draw a weapon on someone unless they are committing a violent act at the time against you or someone else that may end in loss of life. He had no idea if they were apart of the robbery or not.
I've seen a ton if cases where the judge shouldn't have even let the case go to trial due to lack of evidence and nothing but unsubstantiated police/prosecution theories but the verdicts were never set aside cause the judges are typically gonna side with the state that the jury's verdict is final even if it makes no sense...
These judges seem disgusting inept to me. It's almost like they don't care about justice...They just care about defending the judges actions.
these guys are not here to say guilty or not guilty. they are here to decide if the judge had the right to do what he did. that is it. they are not here to retry the case.
Those "justices" are the type of people Reba McIntyre was trying to tell us about in "The night that the lights went out in Georgia."
Everyone in that song is trash. Cop, lawyer, judge, wife, "friend". Andy was gonna commit murder and his sister did.
Vicki Lawrence did it better.
I think using the word "Supreme" to describe this court is wrong. Better word would be "Monkey".
Supreme as in pizza. It just means all the toppings are used.
I believe the term is "kangaroo"
Look in the mirror if you want to see one.
@@andrewvelonis5940 that only works for you. Your parents didn't tell you that part?
Das rasisms
They had their minds made up before the prosecutor started talking