What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Status
Not open for further replies.
SJHovey said:
In a high profile case, I don't think it's that unusual. Think about all the times you've heard about the defense trying to exclude a confession supposedly made by the defendant. Our system requires us to depend upon the jury pool conveniently not hearing about it, or willing to ignore it when instructed by the judge.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between motions to suppress during the pretrial/discovery phase months ahead of time (which is where confessions are typically fought over), and motions in limine which are always argued on the eve of trial after jury summons have been sent out. The former is more dispositive because suppressed evidence can lead to dismissal of charges, while motions in limine tend to be more technical (can you discuss prior convictions, can you make certain arguments, etc.). A suppressed confession is simply inadmissible. An argument barred by a ruling on a motion in limine can become admissible if the other side opens the door, for instance.

The reporter was reporting on an open hearing and open records, so there's nothing he did that was technically wrong, but it's still one of those things that I hope he at least feels a little pink-faced for doing - though I doubt it. Especially since there were also other reasons contributing to why a jury couldn't get picked.
 
unofan said:
There's a difference between motions to suppress during the pretrial/discovery phase months ahead of time (which is where confessions are typically fought over), and motions in limine which are always argued on the eve of trial after jury summons have been sent out. The former is more dispositive because suppressed evidence can lead to dismissal of charges, while motions in limine tend to be more technical (can you discuss prior convictions, can you make certain arguments, etc.). A suppressed confession is simply inadmissible. An argument barred by a ruling on a motion in limine can become admissible if the other side opens the door, for instance.

The reporter was reporting on an open hearing and open records, so there's nothing he did that was technically wrong, but it's still one of those things that I hope he at least feels a little pink-faced for doing - though I doubt it. Especially since there were also other reasons contributing to why a jury couldn't get picked.
Click to expand...

So, a couple of things.

First, I don't know how they do it in Iowa, but here in Minnesota you don't know what case you might be sitting on when the jury summons is sent out. The handful of times I've been summoned it wasn't until I reached the courtroom and heard the judge describe the case did I know what it was about.

Second, if either the prosecution or the defense wish to argue a motion they don't want the jurors (or summoned jurors) to hear, can't they ask that it be heard privately, or confidentially? I assume that isn't done, for the most part, because these things are supposed to be public, by definition.

The question that I have about your story is why did the judge put off the trial? Bad crap that can influence the jury is constantly running in the paper, hence the instruction to most juries to not watch the news, read the papers, etc..., pertaining to the matter.
 
Don't insult the mentally ill like that...mentally ill people can't control it. These people are willfully ignorant.
 
MinnesotaNorthStar said:
This officer had an opportunity to shoot a teenager that tried to run him over with a car but decided not to. Restraint is possible. The comments (on FB) are still disgusting though. A lot of people are actually mad he chose not to shoot the teen and think he shouldn't be a cop anymore.

GA police officer recovering after being hit by a car.
Click to expand...
Fared better than this guy:

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/05/19/englewood-police-dragged-shooting-hospital/

He was white, too, so those cops are probably in trouble.

The man who was killed was the son of my high school girlfriend. She was crazy smart (1560 SAT, finished Cornell in 3 years), but ended up super religious and homeschooled her 7 kids. You just wonder…..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top