what is it about you? Do you think Manafort is innocent and shouldn't go to prison? Why? Your constant defending of these criminals is astonishing. Prove that an expert witness can't be present in the courtroom during a trial.
...since you have a problem understanding the terminology between the two terms, I simply outline them for you with hopes that you'd finally wrap your brain around a simple concept that really shouldn't even need explaining. ...as far as the "law" part the judge has already taken care of that part and ruled on it...are you saying you know more about the law than the judge does?
...lol...a hearing is not a trial...there are no witnesses or a jury at a hearing...but you knew that, right? ...but just in case, here you go, ...again. Educating you is kinda getting boring; Definition of Hearing In law, hearing implies the general assessment of a case by the judge, wherein preliminary decision is taken by the judge, regarding whether the case is to be pursued or not. These are oral arguments, in support of the case, to settle it or make a judgement or to decide relevant aspects of the case, to ascertain the way in which trial will proceed. It can be held for any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. In a court hearing, the lawyers of both the parties, i.e. prosecution and defendant, present material, facts, information and evidence before the judge, concerning the case. After that, the judge decides whether to hold the accused or not for trial, on the basis of the evidence provided. Definition of Trial The trial can be understood as the legal proceeding in which the evidence and witnesses are legally taken on oath, and the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined. It tends to find out the cause of the incidence/offence and ends in conviction or acquittal of the inmate. The trial is an official hearing of a lawsuit, before a court, to verify facts and evidence and ascertain legal claims that result in the judgement, through adversary system. The adversary system relies on accusatorial method, wherein the public prosecutor accuses the other party, i.e. defendant, for committing the crime. The accused is believed as innocent unless the charges filed on him are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I was a witness to a friend of mine to testify about his dog that bit a cop and sat through the whole court proceeding. I wasn;t testifying to anything I saw of the incident as I wasn't there. I was merely there to testify about the demeanor of his dog.
Maybe because he is a multi-millionaire, who like all multi-millionaires is set for life despite taking a loss here and there, and he just wanted to serve his country and bask in the limelight of his successful candidate? That's the rational/logical conclusion.
Having nothing to support your implication that the judge's words somehow carry less weight (they don't), you rely on nitpicking my choice of words. Will it make you happy if I use the term Case instead of Trial? Either way it is in the court record as are all pre-trial motions, which then become a permanent part of the record.
They can, if the judge determines they will be testifying on their opinion of other testimony. It simply destroys any credibility they might have retained before doing so.
...wow...I didn't "nitpick" anything...you asked for proof and I provided it. ...but now that you're in a corner you now want to change the terminology?....we've been using the term "trial" since the beginning...and now you want to change it to suit your narrative?...seriously? ..."part of the record" of a hearing is NOT part of "the trial"....do you even know what your arguing about at this point?...it doesn't appear that you do.
as usual, nothing to support your baseless opinions. I already posted I sat in on a trial I was a witness for. Judge rules in the Manafort case that the expert witness was allowed to be in the courtroom but here we have marisa making shit up and talking about kangaroos.
Wrong. You are the one who used the term Trial, as if it somehow discounted other court hearings the trial depended on. My post: Total immunity for 22 counts = liar Any jury can see that. Judge Ellis has repeatedly said Meuller is abusing the justice system to smear the President, and doesn’t care about Gates or Manafort. Your post: ...Ellis has not said that during the trial...but you already knew that, right? If not nitpicking, what was your post meant to accomplish? The judge said it, the judge meant it, and Real Americans already knew it. This case is circling the drain.
...still can't grasp the simple difference between a trial and a hearing, eh? ...one for time, what is said in a HEARING has NOTHING to do with the actual TRIAL. ...I have presented facts, while you have presented nothing but false bravado...like I said earlier, at this point you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
Former Federal State Prosecutor Worries About Jury Nullification In Manafort Trial 4:00 Download Transcript August 1, 20185:40 PM ET Heard on All Things Considered NPR's Ailsa Chang speaks with former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig, about why he sees Paul Manafort's trial as a referendum on the Mueller investigation, and why he's concerned about jury nullification. AILSA CHANG, HOST: This week in The Daily Beast, a pair of former prosecutors wrote this about the Manafort case - the trial inevitably will be seen as a referendum on the Mueller investigation as a whole. Elie Honig is one of the authors of that piece. He's special counsel to the law firm Lowenstein Sandler and a scholar at Rutgers. Thank you for being with us. ELIE HONIG: My pleasure. CHANG: So why do you say the stakes in this case could not be higher? HONIG: Yeah, so I look at that on two levels. First of all - for all the developments that we see every day, let's not lose sight of the fact that we have the former campaign manager for the president of the United States being tried in federal court for tens of millions of dollars' worth of tax fraud and bank fraud. That is a huge deal, and Paul Manafort's liberty and future are at stake. If he's convicted - he's 69 years old - there's a very good chance he dies behind bars. Bigger picture, this is really the first thumbs-up or thumbs-down test for the Mueller team. This is the first time they're putting their case in front of an impartial trier of fact, the judge and the jury. And we're going to get a yes or no verdict. And so I think if they get a conviction, that's going to be an important step further, cementing the legitimacy of the Mueller team. If they don't get a conviction, and that could be an acquittal or a hung jury, then I think you're going to see the president and anyone who believes this is a, quote, "rigged witch hunt" rejoicing and celebrating. CHANG: A lot of observers say that this is going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution because there's so much evidence. But you bring up in your piece something that could derail the government's case, and that's this idea of jury nullification. Can you just briefly explain what is jury nullification? HONIG: Jury nullification happens when the jurors disregard the evidence that's been introduced at trial and the judge's legal instructions and instead decide the case based on some personal belief - some external belief that they may have, whether that's a political belief, a religious belief or just sort of a personal feeling about the case. CHANG: OK. But jury nullification is extremely rare. Do you think there could be a greater chance of jury nullification in this case because it's been so highly anticipated and so politically charged? We have the president today calling, in tweets, for an end to the Russia investigation. HONIG: Yes. Jury nullification is extremely rare. I want to make sure that point's clear. And I think jury nullification is at a higher likelihood in a high-profile case and especially here. This is about as high-profile as it gets. CHANG: Well, how about you? Do you have personal experience with this? I mean, have you had a case where you were pretty sure one juror nullified? HONIG: I have. About 10 years ago, I was tasked with doing the fourth trial of John Gotti Jr. here in New York City. He had been tried three times previously, and each time the jury hung. A few years later, he was charged again, and I tried that case against John Gotti Jr. And the jury hung 6-6. And at the end, we got to talk to the jurors. And the jurors who were for acquittal essentially said, yeah, we don't doubt that he was guilty. We just think it's unfair to try someone four times. So essentially... CHANG: Oh, yeah. HONIG: ...What that jury did was say, OK, the evidence may make out this guy's guilt, but we have a belief - a personal belief - about, basically, the overall fairness of the system. CHANG: You've already mentioned that there's a possibility of a hung jury. If there were a hung jury in this case, what are the broader implications for the Mueller investigation? Would that be really damaging? HONIG: I think a hung jury would be seen as pretty much an - akin to an acquittal. Technically, a hung jury is a tie, and almost always those cases are retried. But a hung jury is - make no mistake - is a loss for the prosecutor. I've had a hung jury. It hurts. If you ask a defense lawyer, will you take a hung jury? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, they'll say absolutely. And a hung jury here would be - I would predict that the president and others would gloat about a jury refused to convict. They didn't acquit. OK, but they refused to convict based on Mueller's evidence. CHANG: Elie Honig is a former federal and state prosecutor. Thank you very much. HONIG: You're welcome. Anytime. Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Hearing DETERMINES if a trial even takes place, and is attached to trial record. Motions decided in pre-trial hearings shape the rules of the trial, and often strongly influence the outcome. Own up. You're a nitpicker. Try this:
lol...a "hearing determines if a trial even takes place"?...well no shit, thanx for the update...like I've already pointed out, neither witnesses nor the jury are present during the HEARING. ...how many times must this be pointed out to you ? ...n/m, I think I've wasted quite enough time on you for one night.
What part of EXTREMELY RARE in your link did you fail to grasp? and it also says nothing about whether an expert witness can sit in on the trial either.
