Judges mad that it's taking too long then proceeds to do something that will guarantee a retrial that will waste the court systems time even more. Go figure.
A good judge can use his/her control of the proceedings to insure that little time is wasted. Unfortunately many judges are not good and this judge was obviously in that category.
THIS judge is just another example of what's becoming an "epidemic" of judges dismissing the Constitution in favor of their own beliefs....I've seen at least 7-8 videos in 2024 already with judges pulling similar stunts of demanding things that go completely against Constitutional rights.
The case went to the jury. The jury couldn't come up with a verdict and the case ending in a mistrial. Prosecutors have dropped any attempt to retry the case.
Oh so, then absolutely nothing will happen to this judge. This is just a funny story with no further court attention with a not guilty. Sad fact, judges can violate the rights of innocent people WAYY more than they can for guilty people.
@@Dingokiller420it wasn’t a NOT GUILTY. It was a mistrial with prosecution deciding to not re-try. There’s still a hearing pending on whether the dismissal with will be with or without prejudice. So depending on how the judge rules with that, it’s completely possible the prosecution could refile sometime down the road.
@@Dingokiller420Judges can get away with anything they want because of judicial immunity. This is pure misconduct and this judge is playing with people’s freedoms. He should be removed and disbarred.
The most objectionable part, to me, is the judge saying, essentially, 'the _prosecution_ has dragged this case out so long that I'm now going to limit time for the _defense_ ', which, if allowed to set the standard going forward, would lead to prosecutors intentionally dragging out cases to induce judges to effectively sabotage the defense on their behalf.
Not so. The problem is that the defense, through its pleadings, which the judge has read and YOU have NOT has made allegations that have clearly been proven erronious and not recognized in the law as defenses to the crime Trump is being charged with, Basically it is more of his bluster and whining as opposed to a denfense that the law recognzes so the defense is being told to stick to the defensive issues that are material to the case and not the nonsense.
No longer than it takes to write the ticket unless the officer see something that needs to be researched further the average is about 20 minutes and after that it becomes a prolonged stop what's the officer hands your license back and he says you can go even if he comes back to the car and says hey wait a minute you do not have to answer questions asked him for longing the traffic stopped and it's already been proven in court it's unconstitutional
People want to win. We see it in the Law & Order series where the laws and Constitution are just obstacles for the cops and DA to circumvent to put the people they "know" are guilty in jail.
in case you havent been paying attention, the US justice system is completely broken for 99% of the population. It is close to being broken for the remaining 1% as well.
@@MonkeyJedi99 actually it's like this: - judge: did you VOTE?? - dependant: yes, a lot.. - judge: congrats, you played the STUPID game, so you now won the STUPID prizes.. 😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 Back at your stupid "did you vote" shenanigans again, eh, newman? - Have you maybe thought of asking your supervisory agent if you can have an alteration of your script so there would be a slight chance people would actually agree with your group's tactics?
When I clerked for a federal judge, I was sitting in a trial presided over by another district judge, one notorious for interfering with defense counsel cross-examinations, and watched him take over cross-examination and proceed to prejudice the defense counsel's strategy of impeachment of the witness. Defense counsel objected without avail. That judge never interfered with prosecution examinations in any way. The courts are not functioning any longer as neutral bodies and are part of the prosecution.
@@MrNorker77 maybe, but somethings gotta be done. We have judges suppressing evidence, suppressing witnesses, restricting testimony, just declaring people guilty, and upgrading charges based on "crimes" outside of their jurisdiction that were never even filed, better yet ever tried. It's ridiculous.
@@everythingpony It was an 8-person panel. Seven said not guilty. One said guilty. The guy shot a man trespassing on his ranch. The ranch borders Mexico.
@@everythingpony-- A _hung jury_ is when the jury gets stuck with no unanimous decision and indicate that the situation cannot be resolved. It can be 50-50 or all but one in agreement; either way, that's a _hung jury._
even in a misdemeanor case you don't cut the defense short. The risk of a retrial is too high. If the DA thinks a misdemeanor case is stalling for no reasons for minor technicalities, just drop the side charges and offer a deal for the core packet. This is an other form of corruption - why does the punishment depend on negotiation instead of offense? - but at least there is the illusion of... due process?
The judge changed the rules after the prosecution presented their case. Has he been found guilty it would have surely been overturned on appeal. Hung Jury and they’re not going to retry
It’s ridiculous. I also just watched a video of a defense attorney who told clients to plead guilty to probation violations that they had reasonable defenses to. She literally acted more like a prosecutor. A woman who drug tested on the 5th and 7th. She was supposed to go on the 6th but got a text from the drug testing company that she didn’t need to go. The judge was like “wait, you have that text? You’re not guilty!” and then the defense attorney says “WeLL sHe NeEdS tO caLL tOO!!!”. The judge dismissed it. Next case: woman “tampering” with alcohol monitoring device. Same “defense attorney” says she tampered for 3 days. Judge asked defendant “so you tampered to drink?”. Defendant explained that her work boots causes device to not register with skin. So judge gets angry at defense attorney like “so it wasn’t off for 3 days… she doesn’t sleep in the boots, right?!” No. “Ma’am you aren’t guilty!” It was shocking to see a defense attorney telling people to plead guilty to violations they had legit defenses to. They are lucky they had a judge paying attention.
If this is the case I read about this morning, it is an awful situation. The defendant had a gun pointed at him on his own property, fired a shot in the air to scare off the intruders. A dead man was found on his property, and investigators claim that he shot him, and arrested him for murder. They had no probable cause to arrest him, could not match the bullet, but kept him in jail for 22 days and released him on a $1 million bond. Thankfully, this was declared a mistrial and the prosecutor says they are not going to retry. Unfortunately, this man is out $2 million defending himself.
Reading up on the case the whole thing stinks, and that includes the victim and the defendant. The behavior of the court itself is just one more problem on top of many numerous problems.
@@keres993 It sounds like a lot of the evidence is eye-witness testimony. If so, that's a big IF he is guilty. In any case, justice includes letting a guilty person free if the prosecution can't make their case or if they didn't get a fair trial.
The judge and the prosecutor are upset that the defendant didn't just plead guilty and go to prison for defending his wife and his home from criminal invaders.
Yep... armed illegal immigrants were wandering around, outside his house. What's he supposed to do, offer them a cookie? Enough of this crap, already. THEY are the criminals, not him. WHERE'S THEIR TRIAL? The broke into our country, armed with rifles. WHERE'S THEIR TRIAL?
If you really want to hear about some wild judicial impropriety, look up the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling that said "The Second Amendment violates the spirit of Aloha" or Judge Darkeh (AKA Judge Durka Durka) in NYC telling a defense attorney not to raise a second amendment defense because "The second amendment doesn't exist here. This is New York." Regardless of how you feel about firearms, there's simply no denying that both of these rulings are INCREDIBLY problematic and signs of a deeper issue in our justice system.
The 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to all states, and territories, since it was ratified in 1868. There's no exception for Hawaii, or New York. Any judge that pretends not to know that is unfit to serve, and has violated their oath.
Suburban Cook County (Chicago) courts regularly tell defendants and even lawyers the US Constitution does not apply in their courtrooms and has done so for over 50 years. One of the issues brought up in Greylords I and II as I recall.
The real sad fact was the police, the prosecutors, and the court were all against this rancher. You know who weren't against him, the people. The case did end in a mistrial, but that happened because all but one were for an acquittal. Goes to show how out of touch that community's government really is.
The state is not "against" people, they have a duty to prosecute people who break the law. And in any case, shooting at people who pose no threat who are 100 yards away is pretty damned reckless at best. The only reason most of the jurors aquitted is because of political opinions, not the evidence.
If you believe you have 11 people voting to acquit, you shouldn't be bringing the case. It just wastes time. We are convicted by a jury of our peers, who represent the 'offended' community. If the community doesn't care then the law is pointless, just like enforcing laws against lemonade stands. Cops arresting and DAs prosecuting wastes time here
@@Tugela60 How many people? Were they on his land? They posed a threat. How old is the person and what is his past experience. I would love to see your reaction to 20 people walking towards your door with ill intent. GFY
@jimbonater They were a hundred yards away and not threatening anyone. Gun culture in the US has gone too far, some people seem to think they can shoot anyone just because. That is why we see so many of these cases where people get shot just for knocking on the wrong door. If gun owners are incapable of being responsible then their guns need to be removed. You just have to read all the comments on this case to know why gun regulation is a necessity. There are clearly a LOT of irresponsible gun owners out there. They like to claim they are responsible and obviously they are not. There are endless examples of bad behaviour followed by excuses. It is time to put a stop to it.
For over three years of following law tube, one can conclude that lawyers and the courts must be forced to acknowledge the bill of rights. It creates so many extra billing hours. Imagine that.
Why is there no mechanism, that I know of at least, where an attorney for the prosecution or defense, can make a complaint to some governing body about a judge's egregious inappropriate behavior or decision that will lead to a mistrial before the case ends? Having a judge thrown off a case mid trial seems like a way to save a lot of time and money on future appeals. There really needs to be more consequences for judges who act like this.
There is a mechanism in general to cure errors on orders before the final decision is made, an interlocutory appeal, but even though it's handled faster than regular appeals, it wouldn't be sorted out during the trial. So when the mistake is made at the trial itself, you usually just appeal after the decision. You might as well get the final result you are happy with at the trial, and appeal is another cost.
Craziness. They think they can just trample the Constitution whenever they want. Also in Hawaii, one said that the 2A doesnt apply in Hawaii because "the spirit of aloha" supercedes it. Not looking to go into a 2A debate, just noting some judges deliberately and knowingly saying the Constitution simply doesnt apply (regardless of your interpretation of it). Absolutely disgusting.
Depends on the context. If it was someone (other than a bailiff or marshal) looking to come armed into the courtroom, I'd say she was well within her discretion, even if she phrased it in an inflammatory manner.
@@Nameless-lk8ld Fink was initially appointed to the Arizona Superior Court in Santa Cruz County in 2014 by the governor, so I don't know if he can be voted out or not. Ballotpedia lists him as a Democrat.
Hung jury … 7 jurors deemed not guilty, 1 deemed defendant guilty. Prosecution will not pursue case any further. Defendant allegedly shot and killed an illegal immigrant that was in a group of other illegals, that were crossing his ranch, carrying large duffle/backpacks, and firearms. Rancher and wife stated they were inside the home, heard a gunshot and the husband went to investigate. At some point, he shot the illegal immigrant in response to fearing for their safety. The main witness for the prosecution was a KNOWN drug/human trafficker, had been caught crossing the border illegally multiple times, etc…
@@blueyedevil3479 gotcha. At least it's over then. Still, if it was a guilty verdict and a judge had done something like this even a barely competent defense lawyer would appeal and it would have a pretty decent chance of success. EDIT: Missed the part where you said the prosecution dropped the case. My bad.
Being corrupt and hubris are two different things. What the judge did doesn't fit ANY definition of corrupt however it could be huris, arrogant or it could just be him being an A hole but it's not corrupt.
Is there any evidence that the judge was receiving some tangible benefit from the prosecution? Or, is he just a guy with a huge ego that he inflates at the expense of others? Of course, either way it was a terrible decision.
The fact it’s the state taking too long, so the judge punishes the defense, makes it pretty clear this judge is biased and should not be on the bench. Prosecution can apparently direct and redirect as long as they want, but defense can only cross for 5… scratch that, 4 minutes? Absurd.
Cross-examination by the defense should almost always take more time than direct examination, then a re-direct is possible, and a re-cross. If I called that judge an idiot, I would be insulting idiots.
Re-cross is possible only to remedy improper redirect, or a witness volunteering information beyond the question on redirect. You don't get to go back and forth endlessly, you only get to rebut new material. I sat as a juror in one case with runaway witnesses, where the judge allowed sur-redirect after some pretty questionable things a witness volunteered only on re-cross. (To make a long story short, the jury had already found for the defense by the time plaintiff rested - plaintiff's case raised the question in every juror's mind: "Why are we even here?" Defense put on its bunch of witnesses, but could have just rested without changing the outcome in the slightest.)
In a local trial the judge told the jury that they could assume the defendant was guilty because he declined to testify. Appeals court said "Uh, no." Threw out the guilty verdict. DA declined to retry the case.
This ended in a mistrial with an 8 to 1 for acquittal. Prosecution decided to not retry. Should have never been charged to begin with. They couldn’t determine whose weapon shot the guy. Most suspect the cartel ☠️ one of their own.
How is contempt of court is still in existence? Violation of the first amendment? And why do arrest records exist when the arrested is found innocent? Why arent police penalized for arrests without convictions?
Why is the Judge punishing the Defense Attorney, if the Case is scheduled for 4 Weeks, it's been 3 weeks so far, and the STATE hasn't rested yet......shouldn't the Judge have directed the Prosecutor/DA to pick up the pace?? Sounds like the Judge is running cover for the Prosecutor/DA, and trying to squash any type of Defense, that the Defense Attorney is putting on. Almost like the One Lady Judge who stated "The Second Amendment has no place in my Courtroom", when the case she was presiding over centered around the Person's Right to Keep and Bear Firearms!!
It wasn't just that she said constitutionally-protected rights don't exist in her courtroom, she instructed the jury to produce a guilty verdict and threatened them.
In the Air Force, our version of that during intelligence briefings is the highest ranking member of the audience is allowed to call out "faster or funnier" to move the briefing along.
I was on a court martial case one time. After the closing arguments were made, the head jury asked how many thought he was guilty. Everyone was in agreement. He then asked how many felt the prosecution proved their case. Again everyone agreed he failed. The guy was found not guilty. The prosecution made the charges so specific, but couldn’t prove any of the specifics.
@@johnpublic6582 What does my first sentence say? Also, when talking about the type of crime in general, there's no need to mention anything about "alleged."
I saw the clip of this and it was wild. After the judge terminated her cross at 4 minutes the defense objected. The judge overruled. She then stated she wanted to make an offer of proof. The judge said the court reporter would remain and then the judge walked out of the court room mid sentence of the defense talking.
She made a record of it saying you're not limiting the prosecutions redirect? Find it outrageous that the Judge should be held responsible for the cost of the defendant on a new trial.
If I sit on the jury and the judge interferes with the defense's ability to offer any defense he wants in my hearing, that's going to be an automatic not guilty. Better to let the defense attourney make a fool of himself before the jury than to prohibit it.
@joshuahudson2170 You should not sit on a jury then, you are only supposed to consider the evidence, not make decisions based on your personal feelings for the people involved in the trial.
@@Tugela60 The point of juries is to be a check on the government's power; specifically against the appointed judges. The judge's behavior in the trial is at least as much evidence as the behavior of the witness on the stand.
As far as everything I've seen, they just aren't going for a retrial. Depending on how other things shake out, that may not mean they can't change their mind.
Your story about the 3 day deposition in a civil case was interesting. My guess is that the Chicago attorney for the defendant was trying to drag out the deposition to pad the bill they would eventually hand to their client.
Steve, you misspoke. The Bill of Rights does NOT "afford [us] rights" but, rather, it enumerates rights that we ALL have that are protected from governmental interference. It is a very important distinction.
Was this the case where the rancher (ended) an illegal alien who was threatening him and his family? No wonder they want this guy in jail! Just had a judge in New York State declare in open court "The second amendment does not exist in my courtroom." And the case was about some alleged violation by an amateur gunsmith, not a sh00ting.
Mr.Lehto thanks for going into court proceedure it really helps in understanding what goes on in court all over the country really appreciate your efforts and channel
Some people are obviously in their position for far too long. When you see something like this, you can just about be guaranteed that that judge been on the bench for so long that they actually believe that every word out of their suck hole is canon, not to be objected to or challenged in any way. At what point, or how long does it have to go on that a judge like this is allowed to coninue before they have REAL problems, not just having their verdicts overturned, but someone waaayyy higher up there says, "Ya know, someone really ought to take a closer look at this guy. There seems to be an awful lot of appeals that shouldn't get to that point, so... maybejust quietly sit in on some of their trials at the back of the room, and just take notes, just so we know if that head is getting a little too large for the neck to support."? How long does it take for something like that to happen?
As soon as that judge uttered that statement he created a mistrial. He should be kicked off the bench permanently since all he accomplished was opening his mouth and removing all doubt.
There is a video on YT about this case. I can't manage to find it at the moment. The defense did a motion of proof, and the judge walked out as she was starting.
Imagine if you were told to give documents to the prosecution you didn't have, because they were on your locked out social media, so you were convicted on summary judgement.
In Jersey County, IL, you do not get to defend yourself at all. The judge simply tells you what the fine is. No plea, no trial, no questions, no DA, no witnesses, no defense. 100% corrupt.
What? How would that even be? Yea Ive been in court for a traffic ticket that was like that. When I pled not guilty the judge replied, literally verbatim: "you calling my officer a liar?!" So corrupt.
Just like the Judge putting a gag order on Trump, the defendant and not any witnesses or the prosecution! That’s 100% backwards the usual way it works!
On the face of it... the judge should be held in contempt... That one instruction is grounds to throw the whole trial out and render any and all judgments the judge and or jury makes Null And Void. That judge should be censured at the very least... and potentially disbarred.
If the trial is running long so far because of the pace of the state's case, that isn't the defense's responsibility! The judge doesn't get to take out his frustrations on counsel. Sounds like grounds for either mistrial or removal or both. Certainly grounds for appeal.
Is there a mechanism in which the judge does something so “obviously” appealable that you can stop right then and there and get a decision before wasting everyone time with a pointless trial that will 99.99% win on appeal?
The prosecutor should be joining the defense in objecting to this miscarriage of justice, if not, then they aren’t following their oath to preserve and defend the constitution.
FYI, this was in the trial of George Kelly, an Arizona rancher. The trial ended in deadlocked jury. The prosecutor has decided not to pursue another trial.
Here, in the US, the judge could face discipline which would include being removed from his position and disbarment. Also, this creates a mistrial scenario.
That judge should be disbarred and impeached!!!! The judge should also be presumed to have violated the constitutional rights of every defendant convicted in his court resulting in retrial under another judge!!!
If the judge has the inclination that the trial is taking to long he could just dismiss the charges and save everyone the time and the state the expense of imprisoning someone.
Jury voted 11 to acquit, 1 to convict. Hung jury, mistrial resulted. Prosecurtor decided not to take it further. A hearing is scheduled to decide if the case will be dismissed with prejudice (can't be tried again) or without prejudice (can be refiled and tried again).
@@everythingpony Ain't nobody got murdered... armed illegal immigrants started wandering around, outside his house, and a good, law abiding citizen stopped their crime, before they could kill him and his wife.
@@everythingpony It was a second deg murder charge and there were “issues” with the case - the jury was actually leaning towards acquittal but 1-2 held out, thus the jury deadlocked and it became a mistrial
Also, there's an update on this case in the past 2 days, the Judge declared a mistrial after the jury failed to come back with a unanimous verdict, and the prosecutors office has decided not to refile charges against the man.
@@everythingpony It was 7-1 in favor of acquittal. There was not enough proof to prove the man's guilty, and it's a waste of state resources to keep trying to push the case.
@@everythingpony It should have never gone to trial in the first place. The poor guy's ranch was invaded by illegal aliens, armed with rifles. Where is THEIR TRIAL? THEY are the criminals.
Steve, I love how you have found a space where you can talk about this stuff and not actually get intertwined with it.. It’s brilliant and I’m sure you’ve put a lot of thought into it…. only on rare occasions do you get emotional and show your side, but typically it’s like this video where you totally sides the actual trial and what it means, and then just dive into the heart of the problem of that particular portion of the trial without ever giving any inkling to anyone what you’re on… brilliant… you should be a judge🤣
Carl Sagan wrote that he was once called as a witness in a civil trial. One of the attorneys went off on a long tangent, asking Sagan about stars and planets and cosmology, which had nothing to do with the facts of the case. Eventually the other attorney objected. The judge asked how that line of questioning was relevant. The attorney said “It’s not. I just like space stuff and Mr. Sagan is a famous astronomer so I decided to ask him about stuff I was interested in.”
The attorney knew the judge had a 2pm tee-time and was heard to say to one of his team members "I'm going to make him miss his tee-time just to piss him off!" It worked!!!😎
I watched the trial... And the particular police officer she was trying to cross examine was being uncooperative. The defense attorney had to ask four questions to get a fucking answer.
Judges mad that it's taking too long then proceeds to do something that will guarantee a retrial that will waste the court systems time even more. Go figure.
He probably hopes it won't be his job to do the retrial?
Only if he recuses himself@@christopherg2347
A good judge can use his/her control of the proceedings to insure that little time is wasted. Unfortunately many judges are not good and this judge was obviously in that category.
More money for the state the longer the trial goes? Or some other ulterior motive we aren’t privy to?
It’s definitely reversible error.
The judge should be removed from the bench for violating the defendants Constitutional Rights
And then he can work all the award shows to ensure the winners' thank-you speeches are less than whatever the time limit is.
says the clowns struggling with capitalization.
@@Look_What_You_Didreally.. But how many times you VOTED?? 😂😂😂
Do you know the entire story. Maybe the defense has stalled the movement of the trial. Time is no one's right. Time isn't a right.
THIS judge is just another example of what's becoming an "epidemic" of judges dismissing the Constitution in favor of their own beliefs....I've seen at least 7-8 videos in 2024 already with judges pulling similar stunts of demanding things that go completely against Constitutional rights.
The case went to the jury. The jury couldn't come up with a verdict and the case ending in a mistrial. Prosecutors have dropped any attempt to retry the case.
Oh so, then absolutely nothing will happen to this judge. This is just a funny story with no further court attention with a not guilty. Sad fact, judges can violate the rights of innocent people WAYY more than they can for guilty people.
@@Dingokiller420it wasn’t a NOT GUILTY. It was a mistrial with prosecution deciding to not re-try. There’s still a hearing pending on whether the dismissal with will be with or without prejudice. So depending on how the judge rules with that, it’s completely possible the prosecution could refile sometime down the road.
@@Dingokiller420Judges can get away with anything they want because of judicial immunity. This is pure misconduct and this judge is playing with people’s freedoms. He should be removed and disbarred.
It was 11-1 not guilty i believe. @KM-zu9we
Supposedly the vote was 11-1 in favor of acquittal.
The most objectionable part, to me, is the judge saying, essentially, 'the _prosecution_ has dragged this case out so long that I'm now going to limit time for the _defense_ ', which, if allowed to set the standard going forward, would lead to prosecutors intentionally dragging out cases to induce judges to effectively sabotage the defense on their behalf.
Protecting their friends.
@@tomnisen3358 yup.. Judges, cops, lawyers, politicians, etc.. are birds of the same feather that flock together.. 💯💯😂😂
Yes
Not so. The problem is that the defense, through its pleadings, which the judge has read and YOU have NOT has made allegations that have clearly been proven erronious and not recognized in the law as defenses to the crime Trump is being charged with, Basically it is more of his bluster and whining as opposed to a denfense that the law recognzes so the defense is being told to stick to the defensive issues that are material to the case and not the nonsense.
@@billgrandone3552 Bill, I think you're confused. Not every trial is about the former president.
It's not a "crazy case" it's judicial misconduct.
Judges must be impeached for this $hit.
If you VOTED, you can't cry about your GODS.. 😂😂😂
Bullshit, The only misconduct is coming from Trump.
But how long for a traffic stop?
The lack of decency and common sense in the US justice system is appalling.
No longer than it takes to write the ticket unless the officer see something that needs to be researched further the average is about 20 minutes and after that it becomes a prolonged stop what's the officer hands your license back and he says you can go even if he comes back to the car and says hey wait a minute you do not have to answer questions asked him for longing the traffic stopped and it's already been proven in court it's unconstitutional
The judge thinks he's above everybody else because he's sitting in that black robe
People want to win. We see it in the Law & Order series where the laws and Constitution are just obstacles for the cops and DA to circumvent to put the people they "know" are guilty in jail.
in case you havent been paying attention, the US justice system is completely broken for 99% of the population. It is close to being broken for the remaining 1% as well.
the injustice system*
The Judge Basically Just Gave The Defendant An AUTOMATIC Mistrial...
Well, grounds for appeal, in any case.
You would be surprised at what judges can get by with.
A trial judge never grants a mistrial based on his/her own rulings. The only relief is on appeal.
The judge isn't going to say his own actions caused a mistrial.
The same judge has to say it is a mistrial. You mean an appeal.
When the Constitution granted a right to a speedy trial, I don't think this is what it meant.
👍🏻😆😂😂😂😂
"Did you do it?"
- "No."
"Liar! Guilty, ten years in prison! Next case."
@@MonkeyJedi99 actually it's like this:
- judge: did you VOTE??
- dependant: yes, a lot..
- judge: congrats, you played the STUPID game, so you now won the STUPID prizes.. 😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 Back at your stupid "did you vote" shenanigans again, eh, newman?
-
Have you maybe thought of asking your supervisory agent if you can have an alteration of your script so there would be a slight chance people would actually agree with your group's tactics?
@@MonkeyJedi99 don't you know those who wanted masters don't like CHANGE since it hurts their little brains?? 💯💯
Of course you don't.. 😂😂😂
And this is just one example of why the trust in law enforcement and the judicial system is in decline.
When I clerked for a federal judge, I was sitting in a trial presided over by another district judge, one notorious for interfering with defense counsel cross-examinations, and watched him take over cross-examination and proceed to prejudice the defense counsel's strategy of impeachment of the witness. Defense counsel objected without avail. That judge never interfered with prosecution examinations in any way. The courts are not functioning any longer as neutral bodies and are part of the prosecution.
This is not a constitutional republic anymore!
Take America Back!
We desperately need more oversight in our judicial system
I would settle for a single judicial system. We have 3 right now.
That assumes the oversight would improve the situation. I fear it would do the opposite.
@@kinjunranger140 ONE - The way it should be....
@@MrNorker77 maybe, but somethings gotta be done. We have judges suppressing evidence, suppressing witnesses, restricting testimony, just declaring people guilty, and upgrading charges based on "crimes" outside of their jurisdiction that were never even filed, better yet ever tried. It's ridiculous.
There is oversight by the high court. Problem is... they are corrupt as well.
That judge needs to be permanently removed.
Depends what they are doing
His name is Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink.
From the earth
He needs to be tried and convicted under USC Title 18 §201, §202
We have to start impeaching judges.
This is someone's LIFE. I don't care how long it takes, the defendant deserves as much time as they need to question or present!
If this is the case I think it is, charges never should have been brought in the first place, as it was obviously self defense.
@@ostlandr That's what I was thinking.
It was a hung jury based on one juror who said guilty and all the other said not guilty. The DA has announced they will not retry the case.
How is that hung jury?
If 9 out of 10 jury's says " not guilty"
That's not a hung jury
@@everythingpony Has to be unanimous one way or the other.
@@everythingpony It was an 8-person panel. Seven said not guilty. One said guilty. The guy shot a man trespassing on his ranch. The ranch borders Mexico.
@@everythingpony-- A _hung jury_ is when the jury gets stuck with no unanimous decision and indicate that the situation cannot be resolved. It can be 50-50 or all but one in agreement; either way, that's a _hung jury._
All it takes is 1 for it to be a hung jury @@everythingpony
If the case had been a misdemeanor, it would have been excessive, but for a murder case, oh hell no, if you need an hour on cross, you get it.
even in a misdemeanor case you don't cut the defense short.
The risk of a retrial is too high.
If the DA thinks a misdemeanor case is stalling for no reasons for minor technicalities, just drop the side charges and offer a deal for the core packet.
This is an other form of corruption - why does the punishment depend on negotiation instead of offense? - but at least there is the illusion of... due process?
We need to end judicial and prosecutorial immunity. Corruption rots the court to the core!
There’s not really any sign of corruption here. Hubris in abundance? Absolutely.
@@timdowney6721 are you joking?
@@timdowney6721 You can't be serious.
Florida is a giant kangaroo court
I don't mind the immunity to the individuals, I mind that the government is immune from bad actions committed by those who operate it.
The judge changed the rules after the prosecution presented their case. Has he been found guilty it would have surely been overturned on appeal. Hung Jury and they’re not going to retry
Perhaps that’s why it was a hung jury: some of the jurors might have felt the defendant wasn’t being given a fair shake.
@@JBM425 It was also just a bad case to begin with. The 7 to 1 vote for in favor of not guilty proves that.
It’s ridiculous. I also just watched a video of a defense attorney who told clients to plead guilty to probation violations that they had reasonable defenses to. She literally acted more like a prosecutor.
A woman who drug tested on the 5th and 7th. She was supposed to go on the 6th but got a text from the drug testing company that she didn’t need to go. The judge was like “wait, you have that text? You’re not guilty!” and then the defense attorney says “WeLL sHe NeEdS tO caLL tOO!!!”. The judge dismissed it.
Next case: woman “tampering” with alcohol monitoring device. Same “defense attorney” says she tampered for 3 days. Judge asked defendant “so you tampered to drink?”. Defendant explained that her work boots causes device to not register with skin. So judge gets angry at defense attorney like “so it wasn’t off for 3 days… she doesn’t sleep in the boots, right?!” No. “Ma’am you aren’t guilty!”
It was shocking to see a defense attorney telling people to plead guilty to violations they had legit defenses to. They are lucky they had a judge paying attention.
Not one day!! Do you wish your client to spend longer than the law will allow??
@@marquisdelafayette1929yes you get it!! I've seen the video. It's so bizarre.
The prosecution has taken 3 weeks with their presentation yet the judge wants to limit the defense. Does that seem reasonable to anyone?
If this is the case I read about this morning, it is an awful situation. The defendant had a gun pointed at him on his own property, fired a shot in the air to scare off the intruders. A dead man was found on his property, and investigators claim that he shot him, and arrested him for murder. They had no probable cause to arrest him, could not match the bullet, but kept him in jail for 22 days and released him on a $1 million bond.
Thankfully, this was declared a mistrial and the prosecutor says they are not going to retry. Unfortunately, this man is out $2 million defending himself.
He is getting the 1m for bond back
Reading up on the case the whole thing stinks, and that includes the victim and the defendant. The behavior of the court itself is just one more problem on top of many numerous problems.
You can tell the DA is corrupt by not objecting as well
Exactly.
You could argue that the DA remedied the injustice by not retrying the case.
@@reginaldsmith6949 if he's guilty then this is no justice at all
@@keres993 It sounds like a lot of the evidence is eye-witness testimony. If so, that's a big IF he is guilty. In any case, justice includes letting a guilty person free if the prosecution can't make their case or if they didn't get a fair trial.
In our adversarial system, that’s very, very unlikely. And that’s a weakness of our system.
The judge and the prosecutor are upset that the defendant didn't just plead guilty and go to prison for defending his wife and his home from criminal invaders.
Yep... armed illegal immigrants were wandering around, outside his house. What's he supposed to do, offer them a cookie? Enough of this crap, already. THEY are the criminals, not him. WHERE'S THEIR TRIAL? The broke into our country, armed with rifles. WHERE'S THEIR TRIAL?
If you really want to hear about some wild judicial impropriety, look up the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling that said "The Second Amendment violates the spirit of Aloha" or Judge Darkeh (AKA Judge Durka Durka) in NYC telling a defense attorney not to raise a second amendment defense because "The second amendment doesn't exist here. This is New York." Regardless of how you feel about firearms, there's simply no denying that both of these rulings are INCREDIBLY problematic and signs of a deeper issue in our justice system.
Grosly over simplifying the events.
The 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to all states, and territories, since it was ratified in 1868.
There's no exception for Hawaii, or New York.
Any judge that pretends not to know that is unfit to serve, and has violated their oath.
Suburban Cook County (Chicago) courts regularly tell defendants and even lawyers the US Constitution does not apply in their courtrooms and has done so for over 50 years. One of the issues brought up in Greylords I and II as I recall.
That judge needs to be disbarred and removed from office!
The judge should be disbarred and prosecuted. The defendant gets a free appeal. Justice is thwarted.
Judicial reciew board to judge: you get 4 years suspension.
Judge: I object.
Board: now you get 5.
The real sad fact was the police, the prosecutors, and the court were all against this rancher. You know who weren't against him, the people. The case did end in a mistrial, but that happened because all but one were for an acquittal. Goes to show how out of touch that community's government really is.
The state is not "against" people, they have a duty to prosecute people who break the law.
And in any case, shooting at people who pose no threat who are 100 yards away is pretty damned reckless at best. The only reason most of the jurors aquitted is because of political opinions, not the evidence.
If you believe you have 11 people voting to acquit, you shouldn't be bringing the case. It just wastes time.
We are convicted by a jury of our peers, who represent the 'offended' community. If the community doesn't care then the law is pointless, just like enforcing laws against lemonade stands.
Cops arresting and DAs prosecuting wastes time here
@@Tugela60 How many people? Were they on his land? They posed a threat. How old is the person and what is his past experience. I would love to see your reaction to 20 people walking towards your door with ill intent. GFY
@jimbonater They were a hundred yards away and not threatening anyone.
Gun culture in the US has gone too far, some people seem to think they can shoot anyone just because. That is why we see so many of these cases where people get shot just for knocking on the wrong door. If gun owners are incapable of being responsible then their guns need to be removed. You just have to read all the comments on this case to know why gun regulation is a necessity. There are clearly a LOT of irresponsible gun owners out there. They like to claim they are responsible and obviously they are not. There are endless examples of bad behaviour followed by excuses. It is time to put a stop to it.
A man's freedom hangs in the balance, and the judge goes on a power trip.
Sounds about right.
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts Absolutely.
For over three years of following law tube, one can conclude that lawyers and the courts must be forced to acknowledge the bill of rights. It creates so many extra billing hours. Imagine that.
Why is there no mechanism, that I know of at least, where an attorney for the prosecution or defense, can make a complaint to some governing body about a judge's egregious inappropriate behavior or decision that will lead to a mistrial before the case ends? Having a judge thrown off a case mid trial seems like a way to save a lot of time and money on future appeals. There really needs to be more consequences for judges who act like this.
There is a mechanism in general to cure errors on orders before the final decision is made, an interlocutory appeal, but even though it's handled faster than regular appeals, it wouldn't be sorted out during the trial. So when the mistake is made at the trial itself, you usually just appeal after the decision. You might as well get the final result you are happy with at the trial, and appeal is another cost.
Hey Steve, did you see the NY judge who declared that "the second amendment does not exist " in her courtroom? Crazy!
Craziness. They think they can just trample the Constitution whenever they want.
Also in Hawaii, one said that the 2A doesnt apply in Hawaii because "the spirit of aloha" supercedes it.
Not looking to go into a 2A debate, just noting some judges deliberately and knowingly saying the Constitution simply doesnt apply (regardless of your interpretation of it).
Absolutely disgusting.
Depends on the context. If it was someone (other than a bailiff or marshal) looking to come armed into the courtroom, I'd say she was well within her discretion, even if she phrased it in an inflammatory manner.
@@ke9tv It was a guy manufacturing guns for his own use.
Impeach her! She took an oath!
@@ke9tv NO IT WAS NOT, it was treason.....
For others who wanted to know who this was, the judge is Santa Cruz County (AZ) Superior Court Judge Thomas Fink.
What an appropriate name. He needs disbarred, sanctioned, and jailed.
Thanks. Maybe I can vote him out of office.
@@Nameless-lk8ld Fink was initially appointed to the Arizona Superior Court in Santa Cruz County in 2014 by the governor, so I don't know if he can be voted out or not. Ballotpedia lists him as a Democrat.
The irony is that the judge's attempt to speed up the trial will in fact slow it down when the defense appeals due to misconduct.
Hung jury … 7 jurors deemed not guilty, 1 deemed defendant guilty. Prosecution will not pursue case any further. Defendant allegedly shot and killed an illegal immigrant that was in a group of other illegals, that were crossing his ranch, carrying large duffle/backpacks, and firearms. Rancher and wife stated they were inside the home, heard a gunshot and the husband went to investigate. At some point, he shot the illegal immigrant in response to fearing for their safety. The main witness for the prosecution was a KNOWN drug/human trafficker, had been caught crossing the border illegally multiple times, etc…
@@blueyedevil3479 gotcha. At least it's over then. Still, if it was a guilty verdict and a judge had done something like this even a barely competent defense lawyer would appeal and it would have a pretty decent chance of success.
EDIT: Missed the part where you said the prosecution dropped the case. My bad.
No appeal
Tell me the judge is corrupt without telling me the judge is corrupt.
Sounds like a small town/county. They have the highest amount of corruption and illegal activities by judiciary and law enforcement.
Being corrupt and hubris are two different things. What the judge did doesn't fit ANY definition of corrupt however it could be huris, arrogant or it could just be him being an A hole but it's not corrupt.
Is there any evidence that the judge was receiving some tangible benefit from the prosecution?
Or, is he just a guy with a huge ego that he inflates at the expense of others?
Of course, either way it was a terrible decision.
@@timdowney6721 Yep.
@@michaeltelson9798 Or even a remote village.
The fact it’s the state taking too long, so the judge punishes the defense, makes it pretty clear this judge is biased and should not be on the bench. Prosecution can apparently direct and redirect as long as they want, but defense can only cross for 5… scratch that, 4 minutes? Absurd.
Cross-examination by the defense should almost always take more time than direct examination, then a re-direct is possible, and a re-cross. If I called that judge an idiot, I would be insulting idiots.
My guess is, it was Friday afternoon and he was planning on being somewhere?
Re-cross is possible only to remedy improper redirect, or a witness volunteering information beyond the question on redirect. You don't get to go back and forth endlessly, you only get to rebut new material. I sat as a juror in one case with runaway witnesses, where the judge allowed sur-redirect after some pretty questionable things a witness volunteered only on re-cross. (To make a long story short, the jury had already found for the defense by the time plaintiff rested - plaintiff's case raised the question in every juror's mind: "Why are we even here?" Defense put on its bunch of witnesses, but could have just rested without changing the outcome in the slightest.)
He had an important tee time with the prosecutor and the DA.
also in this case related to this circumstance the judge left the courtroom while the defense was addressing the court.. it was disgusting to watch
Wtf!?
In a local trial the judge told the jury that they could assume the defendant was guilty because he declined to testify. Appeals court said "Uh, no." Threw out the guilty verdict. DA declined to retry the case.
This is the second time this week I've heard of "an offer of proof."
The first time was from Robert Barnes, who also said it was rare.
Does he still work with David Freiheit?
Is that viva Frei? If so then yes
This ended in a mistrial with an 8 to 1 for acquittal. Prosecution decided to not retry. Should have never been charged to begin with. They couldn’t determine whose weapon shot the guy. Most suspect the cartel ☠️ one of their own.
How is contempt of court is still in existence? Violation of the first amendment? And why do arrest records exist when the arrested is found innocent? Why arent police penalized for arrests without convictions?
Between the judge, the district attorney public pretender and a lot of attorneys out there. It's just such a corrupt system
A good lawyer knows the law.
A great lawyer knows the judge!
True!
Why is the Judge punishing the Defense Attorney, if the Case is scheduled for 4 Weeks, it's been 3 weeks so far, and the STATE hasn't rested yet......shouldn't the Judge have directed the Prosecutor/DA to pick up the pace?? Sounds like the Judge is running cover for the Prosecutor/DA, and trying to squash any type of Defense, that the Defense Attorney is putting on. Almost like the One Lady Judge who stated "The Second Amendment has no place in my Courtroom", when the case she was presiding over centered around the Person's Right to Keep and Bear Firearms!!
It wasn't just that she said constitutionally-protected rights don't exist in her courtroom, she instructed the jury to produce a guilty verdict and threatened them.
In the Air Force, our version of that during intelligence briefings is the highest ranking member of the audience is allowed to call out "faster or funnier" to move the briefing along.
I was on a court martial case one time. After the closing arguments were made, the head jury asked how many thought he was guilty. Everyone was in agreement. He then asked how many felt the prosecution proved their case. Again everyone agreed he failed. The guy was found not guilty. The prosecution made the charges so specific, but couldn’t prove any of the specifics.
It was funny when it happened in Breakfast Club. In a trial where someone's freedom is at stake, not so much.
Especially for how serious the allegation was for. This wasn't some misdemeanor offense, but a felonious crime of the highest order.
@@Eidolon1andOnly Alleged.
@@johnpublic6582 What does my first sentence say?
Also, when talking about the type of crime in general, there's no need to mention anything about "alleged."
I saw the clip of this and it was wild. After the judge terminated her cross at 4 minutes the defense objected. The judge overruled. She then stated she wanted to make an offer of proof. The judge said the court reporter would remain and then the judge walked out of the court room mid sentence of the defense talking.
WTF...
Clip?
Love the shirt! Thank you for making these issues understandable to the general public. Time for another donation to Institute for Justice.
She made a record of it saying you're not limiting the prosecutions redirect? Find it outrageous that the Judge should be held responsible for the cost of the defendant on a new trial.
If I sit on the jury and the judge interferes with the defense's ability to offer any defense he wants in my hearing, that's going to be an automatic not guilty. Better to let the defense attourney make a fool of himself before the jury than to prohibit it.
That's why the judge did it when the jury wasn't present.
@@YourFunkiness There's no way to pull that off without me getting suspicious.
@joshuahudson2170 You should not sit on a jury then, you are only supposed to consider the evidence, not make decisions based on your personal feelings for the people involved in the trial.
@@Tugela60 The point of juries is to be a check on the government's power; specifically against the appointed judges. The judge's behavior in the trial is at least as much evidence as the behavior of the witness on the stand.
Little do alot of people know but juries have more power than the judge.
This case ended in a mistrial and the state dropped all charges.
As far as everything I've seen, they just aren't going for a retrial. Depending on how other things shake out, that may not mean they can't change their mind.
How do you drop all charges on a murder trial?
No refiling on a mistrial? Prosecutor misconduct being hidden by not refiling. Charge the Prosecutor.
So many judges today are the MOST misbehaving citizens in our county. Our legal system is SHTSHOW
Your story about the 3 day deposition in a civil case was interesting. My guess is that the Chicago attorney for the defendant was trying to drag out the deposition to pad the bill they would eventually hand to their client.
Judge just violated due process... Needs to be removed.
Steve, you misspoke. The Bill of Rights does NOT "afford [us] rights" but, rather, it enumerates rights that we ALL have that are protected from governmental interference. It is a very important distinction.
Remember the case, in Texas if I recall, where the prosecutor asked the judge to bar defendant from using a defense, and the judge did?
Was this the case where the rancher (ended) an illegal alien who was threatening him and his family? No wonder they want this guy in jail!
Just had a judge in New York State declare in open court "The second amendment does not exist in my courtroom." And the case was about some alleged violation by an amateur gunsmith, not a sh00ting.
Insanity in NY.
The judge has important things to do like collect a check while playing candy crush.
Mr.Lehto thanks for going into court proceedure it really helps in understanding what goes on in court all over the country really appreciate your efforts and channel
Some people are obviously in their position for far too long. When you see something like this, you can just about be guaranteed that that judge been on the bench for so long that they actually believe that every word out of their suck hole is canon, not to be objected to or challenged in any way. At what point, or how long does it have to go on that a judge like this is allowed to coninue before they have REAL problems, not just having their verdicts overturned, but someone waaayyy higher up there says, "Ya know, someone really ought to take a closer look at this guy. There seems to be an awful lot of appeals that shouldn't get to that point, so... maybejust quietly sit in on some of their trials at the back of the room, and just take notes, just so we know if that head is getting a little too large for the neck to support."? How long does it take for something like that to happen?
As soon as that judge uttered that statement he created a mistrial. He should be kicked off the bench permanently since all he accomplished was opening his mouth and removing all doubt.
Trying to rush a murder trial is wild.
There is a video on YT about this case. I can't manage to find it at the moment. The defense did a motion of proof, and the judge walked out as she was starting.
I would think that limiting the time might be sanctioned, but doing the "okay, now it's 4," should certainly be sanctioned.
How common is it for a Jury to visit fourteen crime-related locations in person?
The more I watch you, the more I laugh.
And that's not an insult
Imagine if you were told to give documents to the prosecution you didn't have, because they were on your locked out social media, so you were convicted on summary judgement.
In Jersey County, IL, you do not get to defend yourself at all.
The judge simply tells you what the fine is.
No plea, no trial, no questions, no DA, no witnesses, no defense.
100% corrupt.
What? How would that even be? Yea Ive been in court for a traffic ticket that was like that. When I pled not guilty the judge replied, literally verbatim: "you calling my officer a liar?!"
So corrupt.
@@MattH-wg7ouI would have said YES, AND???
Illinois is totally corrupt
@@HammerStudioGames Contempt of court charge, if it's a vindictive judge I guess
Just like the Judge putting a gag order on Trump, the defendant and not any witnesses or the prosecution! That’s 100% backwards the usual way it works!
On the face of it... the judge should be held in contempt...
That one instruction is grounds to throw the whole trial out and render any and all judgments the judge and or jury makes Null And Void.
That judge should be censured at the very least... and potentially disbarred.
If the trial is running long so far because of the pace of the state's case, that isn't the defense's responsibility! The judge doesn't get to take out his frustrations on counsel. Sounds like grounds for either mistrial or removal or both. Certainly grounds for appeal.
He must have had a golf date later.
The victim is the property owner not the criminal invader trespassing on private property.
Exactly! Common sense... where is the trial for the armed illegal immigrants who trespassed on his ranch and walked by his house with their rifles?
Doing this in a murder trial shouldn't just be grounds for an appeal. This should be a career ender for the judge. This is a man's life.
It's Pronounced: A A Ron
YES!! 🙌😂
@@folee_edge lol
It's pronounced "shi-theed." :D
Is there a mechanism in which the judge does something so “obviously” appealable that you can stop right then and there and get a decision before wasting everyone time with a pointless trial that will 99.99% win on appeal?
The prosecutor should be joining the defense in objecting to this miscarriage of justice, if not, then they aren’t following their oath to preserve and defend the constitution.
This ended in a mistrial, and the state has decided to not retry this case.
FYI, this was in the trial of George Kelly, an Arizona rancher. The trial ended in deadlocked jury. The prosecutor has decided not to pursue another trial.
Singapore rules. That blatant action would put the judge in prison over there for 6 months to 2 years, plus fines, and if it's a dude, lashes.
SG is so well run, this comes as no surprise!
Here, in the US, the judge could face discipline which would include being removed from his position and disbarment. Also, this creates a mistrial scenario.
That judge should be disbarred and impeached!!!! The judge should also be presumed to have violated the constitutional rights of every defendant convicted in his court resulting in retrial under another judge!!!
Just the pick me up i needed after finding out something
This is exactly why judges should have to come up through the judicial system rather than bypassing it with an election.
If the judge has the inclination that the trial is taking to long he could just dismiss the charges and save everyone the time and the state the expense of imprisoning someone.
Jury voted 11 to acquit, 1 to convict. Hung jury, mistrial resulted. Prosecurtor decided not to take it further. A hearing is scheduled to decide if the case will be dismissed with prejudice (can't be tried again) or without prejudice (can be refiled and tried again).
More proof judges belive themselves to be our owner.
Nothing like a sweeping generalization to begin the day.
@@timdowney6721 yep, and most people are happy with slavery.
My TH-cam University Masters degree could not have been completed without Steve Lehto's professorial lectures.
I recognize the case - I believe the jury deadlocked and they have decided not to re-try the case
For a murder trial?
@@everythingpony Ain't nobody got murdered... armed illegal immigrants started wandering around, outside his house, and a good, law abiding citizen stopped their crime, before they could kill him and his wife.
@@everythingpony It was a second deg murder charge and there were “issues” with the case - the jury was actually leaning towards acquittal but 1-2 held out, thus the jury deadlocked and it became a mistrial
I think you're right, we just did a deep dive on this case on my channel... Glad that he was able to get out of this mess
These types of videos that talk mostly about the court room are very interesting!
I wonder if a censure is coming here for the judge...
Also, there's an update on this case in the past 2 days, the Judge declared a mistrial after the jury failed to come back with a unanimous verdict, and the prosecutors office has decided not to refile charges against the man.
The jury deadlocked to a mistrial. The state says they won't try him again.
How do you not try again for a murder case?
@@everythingpony It was 7-1 in favor of acquittal. There was not enough proof to prove the man's guilty, and it's a waste of state resources to keep trying to push the case.
@@everythingpony It should have never gone to trial in the first place. The poor guy's ranch was invaded by illegal aliens, armed with rifles. Where is THEIR TRIAL? THEY are the criminals.
Steve, I love how you have found a space where you can talk about this stuff and not actually get intertwined with it.. It’s brilliant and I’m sure you’ve put a lot of thought into it…. only on rare occasions do you get emotional and show your side, but typically it’s like this video where you totally sides the actual trial and what it means, and then just dive into the heart of the problem of that particular portion of the trial without ever giving any inkling to anyone what you’re on… brilliant… you should be a judge🤣
I wonder if removing this judge from the bench will take less then four minutes.
Carl Sagan wrote that he was once called as a witness in a civil trial. One of the attorneys went off on a long tangent, asking Sagan about stars and planets and cosmology, which had nothing to do with the facts of the case. Eventually the other attorney objected. The judge asked how that line of questioning was relevant. The attorney said “It’s not. I just like space stuff and Mr. Sagan is a famous astronomer so I decided to ask him about stuff I was interested in.”
I'll take Writing the Defendant's Appeal for Him for $300, Alex.
The attorney knew the judge had a 2pm tee-time and was heard to say to one of his team members "I'm going to make him miss his tee-time just to piss him off!" It worked!!!😎
Best thing to do is go ahead and pay off the judge before the trial
Granddad told me "The Scales of Justice are where each party piles money on the scales, and the heavier pile wins."
That case ended last week with a mistrial and the D.A isn't going to charge him again
The big question is, was it dismissed with or without prejudice?
I watched the trial... And the particular police officer she was trying to cross examine was being uncooperative. The defense attorney had to ask four questions to get a fucking answer.
In other news, Ben is obviosly enjoying the view from the top shelf today.
I know David Aaron! He's an accountant in New York