'We Build The Wall' trial ends in mistrial; jury deadlocked
Source: 9News/AP
NEW YORK The trial of a Colorado businessman on charges that he ripped off thousands of donors who contributed $25 million to a campaign to build a wall along the southern U.S. border ended Tuesday in a mistrial after jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict.
The mistrial in the prosecution of Timothy Shea was granted by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres after the jury reported for a third time that it could not reach a verdict on any count, saying the deadlock was abundantly clear. They said extended deliberations had left them further entrenched in our opposing views.
After previous notes, the judge urged them to try again.
Shea was left to stand trial alone after Steve Bannon, a onetime adviser to then-President Donald Trump, was pardoned. And two other defendants pleaded guilty. The case was prosecuted in New York after it was determined that donors to the fund were from everywhere in the country, including New York....
Read more: https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/we-build-the-wall-fundraiser-mistrial/73-980968a9-f662-46b8-bdca-733845d8fa32
Bad jury selection.
Warpy
(111,339 posts)since most of that organization was out of state.
While there could have been right wing nutbars on the jury, that doesn't seem to be the only reason they deadlocked.
Shea might have collected donations in his area, but they'd have to prove he also trousered the cash.
groundloop
(11,523 posts)mountain grammy
(26,648 posts)Here is a link to an earlier DU thread about this trial:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2925747
machoneman
(4,010 posts)...born every minute. LOL
Escurumbele
(3,402 posts)What a sham our judicial system is, it almost feels like the laws have been written to help crooks and not the innocent.
OldBaldy1701E
(5,157 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)It's really surprising how many people, including on a site like this one, fail to understand that, yes, the legal system is intentionally biased against state power.
Several Constitutional amendments ONLY apply to people who have been accused, or even convicted, of a crime.
The Eighth Amendment, for example, is focused almost entirely on the rights of guilty people.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Does that sound like it was written to help innocent people? Of course not. That's the point.
Welcome to the United States.
You need a unanimous jury for a conviction. That's the rule of law at work.
NJCher
(35,730 posts)the judges always favor the prosecutors.
It's a club--these people who see each other regularly, if not every day.
In my experience, the fastest way to get another judge is to hang out at the place where all the legal people go for lunch. Sooner or later, you'll see your judge and you snap a photo with someone who plays a role in your case, maybe the prosecutor. Then ask the judge to recuse himself.
former9thward
(32,079 posts)They will find themselves in more trouble than the original crime they are charged with.
It's totally legal. Judges are not supposed to be socializing with lawyers for your adversary, or prosecutor either.
I've done it and had judges recuse themselves.
former9thward
(32,079 posts)NJCher
(35,730 posts)I'm not going to do your work for you, nor will I even suggest a search term for you. You obviously think you're smart enough, so go right ahead and have the guts to find out that you don't know what you're talking about.🐔
Escurumbele
(3,402 posts)In my view, it is a clear case of fraud, how can there be confusion between the jurors? Too many people get away in this type of cases, and too many people, who are innocent pay, so don't tell me that the "rule of law" works well, because it doesn't, its not applied equally.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Sorry but that is a poor example, that clause I do agree with, it does protect even the guilty, we are talking about a guy who obviously defrauded a bunch of people, and he is getting away because a juror doesn't think he should be punished? Where does that leave the victims of the fraud?
The "rule of law" doesn't work when Meadows doesn't get subpoenaed by the DOJ, the rule of law doesn't exist when politicians not only that they do not go to jail, but they are able to come back and run for office.
When police are clearly guilty of murder, NY City many years ago when a policeman choked a black man because he was selling cigarettes on the street.
The kid Kyle who was acquitted for killing two people, carrying a gun underage, etc. etc. etc.
No, that is not the rule of law at work, that is corruption and favouritism at work.
sinkingfeeling
(51,473 posts)bluestarone
(17,030 posts)THIS is our problem with all future trials, i'm afraid! Gotta really dig into jurors background. Wish there was a way to punish jurors if they LIE, but i guess not.
DENVERPOPS
(8,844 posts)That's why they are going for plea bargains, rather than trials. They know the odds of seating a jury that doesn't have at least one MAGA on the jury is NIL.........
groundloop
(11,523 posts)He claimed all 11 of the other "liberals" on the jury had reached a verdict before hearing evidence. Clearly this one juror had an agenda and shouldn't have been on the jury.
Escurumbele
(3,402 posts)and should be dismissed. How can someone like that provide an impartial judgement?
Ford_Prefect
(7,919 posts)jurors will say post trial that if you could excuse the big fish you could not blame it all on the small fry. That he acted under their command and so could not be as responsible to the degree the charges warrant, or legalistic words to that effect.
I am sure this interpretation is the kind of thing at the root of it. I am sure that he IS responsible enough. He was recruited by Bannon who is as dirty as they come and knew what kind of cohorts would work on this with him. The project was a classic scam from the first day and everyone in on the ground floor knew it was built that way.
groundloop
(11,523 posts)One holdout had a political bias and shouldn't have been on the jury.
Ford_Prefect
(7,919 posts)There were no alternate jurors available? Does a trial of this magnitude not warrant that option?
underpants
(182,879 posts)like Rittenhouse. They got one person on the jury and thats all it took.
Ford_Prefect
(7,919 posts)former9thward
(32,079 posts)There would not be a trial in the country if that were the sole factor.
former9thward
(32,079 posts)And political opinions. The judge and the lawyers attempt to seat a jury that is willing to look at things fairly. How "fairly" is defined is very subjective.
paleotn
(17,959 posts)Is it a lucrative gig? Or do magats come cheap? Probably the later.
onenote
(42,759 posts)ShazzieB
(16,513 posts)This is disappointing, but it's not the worst thing that could happen, by a long shot. The worst thing would be an acquittal, because then they couldn't touch him again. A hung jury/mistrial leaves the door open to re-try him. Hopefully with much better attention to jury selection next time!
SoCalDavidS
(9,998 posts)They're probably a bunch of racists and Cult Members who wanted to fund TFG's Fucking Wall.
Fuck 'Em!
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)This is a criminal trial.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)We are falling into fascism and our judicial system is failing.
keithbvadu2
(36,906 posts)malthaussen
(17,216 posts)This is not a capital crime (though one that might result in considerable capital changing hands). That the jury's verdict needs to be unanimous virtually guarantees that in any politically-charged case, there will be a hung jury.
-- Mal