the standard 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one and Mr Chesnoff's closing arguement has given the prosecution's case a few knocks that's for sure. It's either a mistrial or not guilty I think
@@lyndahalcrow8550 Do u mean a hung jury or not guilty? Bc unless something miraculous occurs, the judge isn’t going to declare a mistrial. A hung jury is always a possibility. It only takes 1 juror to be unwilling to convict. As far as a not guilty verdict, there’s not a chance. Literally not a chance. That would take all 12 jurors voting not guilty. Which isn’t going to happen. I think they’ll convict. But a hung jury wouldn’t surprise me.
People next to him disappear or are killed. His wife his best friend his neighbor That in itself seems like there’s “meat to the bone” it’s hard to get passed that.
The best closing argument was when Deguirin brought up the prosecutions framing of questions. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” No matter what, you cannot answer that question because both answers, yes or no, make you guilty of beating your wife. The other tactic was to use hypotheticals that no matter what imply guilt. When the defendant objects to the question, this judge made the defendant answer. This is why innocent people go to prison. Im not saying Durst is innocent, but the questioning was unethical. Its not about getting to the truth, its about framing someones guilt without evidence in many cases. Juan Martinez did this constantly in his trials and people thought he was great? Trials are about getting to the truth, and in some cases, it doesn’t appear to be the prosecutions motive.
He paid to have her killed & then he had to go check to make sure she was dead. Why? Because he doesn’t trust anyone! If my wife disappeared & I didn’t know if she was alive or dead, I wouldn’t throw any of her belongings away days after she’s gone missing. He didn’t want to give her money in the divorce & he made sure she didn’t.
Plus Kathie was revealing who is truly is by standing up to him. Narcissists do not like that. Since he doesn't trust anyone, there's no way he ordered a hit. If he had (which he wouldn't, unless incarcerated) he would want that sweet alibi of being back east. He may not have wanted to kill Susan, but I think when he "has no choice" (his words), he does get something out of the act. He LOVES getting away with sh&t.
Chesniff was doing a great job and even had me leaning his way UNTIL he started making these absurd statements saying if there were 2 arguments they had to find him “not guilty”. He screwed himself - and lost everyone right there
But those are the jury instructions from the judge when the closing arguments started! 😆 It's in the California evidence code. The only problem is that instead of saying "you must vote not guilty" (which is how the judge instructed), Chesnoff stated "you must vote innocent". So yes, he changed a word that he should not have, but the "two arguments" instruction is not something he (or the defense) made up. (Obviously finding someone "Not guilty" is not the same as finding them "innocent". ) But aside from that, he's accurate in the fact that if there are TWO reasonable arguments that can be made, the jury MUST vote for the "not guilty" one. You can look it up in California code... it's called "Calcrim 224". The law states: "If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence." (I can't post a link because this channel removes all comments with outside links). I believe there may be other numbers that apply to this code/rule as well but that is one of the basics.
@@maryb6672 Except that "reasonable" is a subjective word. Just because you or I may not find something reasonable, doesn't mean there isn't a juror or two that won't. It all comes down to personal bias and life experiences. It's going to be up to each individual there to decide what they think is "reasonable". Which means the point still stands: If someone thinks a reasonable argument has been made for "guilty", as well as one made for "not guilty", they must choose "not guilty".
@@pixielou3000 Oh I agree completely. Reasonable is definitely subjective. One thing I feel safe saying though is that there won’t be 12 jurors who will find 2 reasonable explanations. But there could be 1-2 & that’s all it takes for a hung jury. I still think they’ll convict him. But a hung jury is always a possibility.
@@jennifermariejoyce It’s unbelievable how many people fail to grasp that circumstantial evidence is evidence & weighs the same as direct evidence! I’ve grown weary trying to explain.
Some person or persons may “hang” the jury.... then Gascon and/or Lewin must decide if they will try him again....in the case of a hung jury, maybe Lewin will be ready to re-arrest Bob on the spot.
They don’t have to re-arrest him. If there’s a hung jury, the state will absolutely try him again. The def will file a motion asking for Bob’s release pending the new trial. The judge will deny it & the def will appeal that to the CA Court of Appeals. Whoever loses there (def or state) will appeal that to CA Supreme Court, who can choose whether or not to even consider the appeal. That’s the defenses best case scenario, which means Ole Bob isn’t going anywhere-regardless of this trials outcome. (Bc he won’t be acquitted. Only possible outcomes r conviction or hung jury).
@@owll7571 Yes. The judge is trying to protect the appellate record. Everything said on the record, goes to the court of appeals.Whether he’s convicted or there’s a hung jury, it will go to the CA Court of Appeals.
@@maryb6672 oh yes indeed. I am going to follow that if possible; I am from NY and I never practiced crim law but I believe some of what came in in CA would not have here and conversely some of what was kept out ( Eddie Lopez etc) would have been allowed.
@@owll7571 oh yea, there’s definitely appellate issues. Plenty of fodder. But considering how long the process takes, chances are slim he’ll get much relief. Definitely will be interesting to watch!
Chesnoff saying at the end- "I don't get another chance to speak'--music to my ears.
Dr Loftus was the "dismembered, not murdered" card in this trial. Just wasn't enough this time around...
Chesnoff did a great job… He had me listening and hanging on every word this whole closing argument
Mr. Chesnoff was brilliant. Not guilty .
the standard 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a high one and Mr Chesnoff's closing arguement has given the prosecution's case a few knocks that's for sure. It's either a mistrial or not guilty I think
@@lyndahalcrow8550 Do u mean a hung jury or not guilty? Bc unless something miraculous occurs, the judge isn’t going to declare a mistrial. A hung jury is always a possibility. It only takes 1 juror to be unwilling to convict. As far as a not guilty verdict, there’s not a chance. Literally not a chance. That would take all 12 jurors voting not guilty. Which isn’t going to happen. I think they’ll convict. But a hung jury wouldn’t surprise me.
@@maryb6672 yes I meant hung Jury. Although there is scope for a mistrial to be re tried too
People next to him disappear or are killed. His wife his best friend his neighbor
That in itself seems like there’s “meat to the bone”
it’s hard to get passed that.
The best closing argument was when Deguirin brought up the prosecutions framing of questions. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” No matter what, you cannot answer that question because both answers, yes or no, make you guilty of beating your wife. The other tactic was to use hypotheticals that no matter what imply guilt. When the defendant objects to the question, this judge made the defendant answer. This is why innocent people go to prison. Im not saying Durst is innocent, but the questioning was unethical. Its not about getting to the truth, its about framing someones guilt without evidence in many cases. Juan Martinez did this constantly in his trials and people thought he was great? Trials are about getting to the truth, and in some cases, it doesn’t appear to be the prosecutions motive.
"pretend you have a sick relative in the hospital." OMG Desperation at it's best
Lewin is correct to question Loftus’ testimony
He paid to have her killed & then he had to go check to make sure she was dead.
Why? Because he doesn’t trust anyone!
If my wife disappeared & I didn’t know if she was alive or dead, I wouldn’t throw any of her belongings away days after she’s gone missing.
He didn’t want to give her money in the divorce & he made sure she didn’t.
Plus Kathie was revealing who is truly is by standing up to him. Narcissists do not like that. Since he doesn't trust anyone, there's no way he ordered a hit. If he had (which he wouldn't, unless incarcerated) he would want that sweet alibi of being back east. He may not have wanted to kill Susan, but I think when he "has no choice" (his words), he does get something out of the act. He LOVES getting away with sh&t.
Well done Chesnoff.
This was rough.
I missed it!!! Is Lewin going tomorrow?
@@Courtney-R Yeah, he barely started. Only 40 min in.
@@jennifermariejoyce Where'e Lewin going?? I missed it.
@@lyndahalcrow8550 He was doing is rebuttal. Already did it. Mixed reviews, but I loved it.
@@jennifermariejoyce oh, thanks for clarifying. I thought Lewin was going somewhere 😂
Mr Chesnoff, just take your millions of Durst Dollars and retire
Chesniff was doing a great job and even had me leaning his way UNTIL he started making these absurd statements saying if there were 2 arguments they had to find him “not guilty”. He screwed himself - and lost everyone right there
But those are the jury instructions from the judge when the closing arguments started! 😆 It's in the California evidence code.
The only problem is that instead of saying "you must vote not guilty" (which is how the judge instructed), Chesnoff stated "you must vote innocent". So yes, he changed a word that he should not have, but the "two arguments" instruction is not something he (or the defense) made up. (Obviously finding someone "Not guilty" is not the same as finding them "innocent". )
But aside from that, he's accurate in the fact that if there are TWO reasonable arguments that can be made, the jury MUST vote for the "not guilty" one. You can look it up in California code... it's called "Calcrim 224".
The law states: "If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence."
(I can't post a link because this channel removes all comments with outside links).
I believe there may be other numbers that apply to this code/rule as well but that is one of the basics.
@@pixielou3000 The key there is reasonable. Bob’s problem is there are not 2 reasonable explanations.
@@maryb6672 Except that "reasonable" is a subjective word. Just because you or I may not find something reasonable, doesn't mean there isn't a juror or two that won't. It all comes down to personal bias and life experiences. It's going to be up to each individual there to decide what they think is "reasonable".
Which means the point still stands: If someone thinks a reasonable argument has been made for "guilty", as well as one made for "not guilty", they must choose "not guilty".
@@pixielou3000 Oh I agree completely. Reasonable is definitely subjective. One thing I feel safe saying though is that there won’t be 12 jurors who will find 2 reasonable explanations. But there could be 1-2 & that’s all it takes for a hung jury. I still think they’ll convict him. But a hung jury is always a possibility.
@@maryb6672 Agreed!
That memory doc is a quack. Smdh
No prove..not guilty. Circumstances don't work but hard evidence
That’s not how the law works. Do some googling of “circumstantial evidence cases” and you’ll see what I mean.
🙄🙄🙄🤦🏾♀️
@@jennifermariejoyce It’s unbelievable how many people fail to grasp that circumstantial evidence is evidence & weighs the same as direct evidence! I’ve grown weary trying to explain.
Free Robert Durst the closing by his lawyer was spot on. No evidence botched bumbled
Free Ted Bundy while your at it :p
Yep & Scott Peterson’s innocent too.
At 23:00... I thought he was a goner
Happy Birthday @LCL 🎂😂
😂😂😂😂
He’s gonna croak before the guilty verdict comes back
Your honor, I appeal to you! No you don't
HOPEFULLY Addi @ Trials & Stuff will NOT be able to bully people in these comments!!!!!
Bob paid her off for many years give me a break, it makes me think his Mother might of been his first victim.
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt don't tell me about your feelings..or what and why
Some person or persons may “hang” the jury.... then Gascon and/or Lewin must decide if they will try him again....in the case of a hung jury, maybe Lewin will be ready to re-arrest Bob on the spot.
They don’t have to re-arrest him. If there’s a hung jury, the state will absolutely try him again. The def will file a motion asking for Bob’s release pending the new trial. The judge will deny it & the def will appeal that to the CA Court of Appeals. Whoever loses there (def or state) will appeal that to CA Supreme Court, who can choose whether or not to even consider the appeal. That’s the defenses best case scenario, which means Ole Bob isn’t going anywhere-regardless of this trials outcome. (Bc he won’t be acquitted. Only possible outcomes r conviction or hung jury).
@@maryb6672 thank you! I heard Lewin very briefly broach the issue in a motion hearing but the judge cut him off quickly....
@@owll7571 Yes. The judge is trying to protect the appellate record. Everything said on the record, goes to the court of appeals.Whether he’s convicted or there’s a hung jury, it will go to the CA Court of Appeals.
@@maryb6672 oh yes indeed. I am going to follow that if possible; I am from NY and I never practiced crim law but I believe some of what came in in CA would not have here and conversely some of what was kept out ( Eddie Lopez etc) would have been allowed.
@@owll7571 oh yea, there’s definitely appellate issues. Plenty of fodder. But considering how long the process takes, chances are slim he’ll get much relief. Definitely will be interesting to watch!
I wonder if Dan Abrams knows what this moderator ADDI promotes in the Law & Crime chat?? Hmmmmmmmmm
MILLION DOLLAR LAWYER
Very weak closing defence
I can't believe the defense got millions for this performance.