This morning, Trump tweeted: “NYC terrorist was happy as he asked to hang ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8 people, badly injured 12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!”
It seems to me that this is a huge gift to the guy’s lawyers. The President just said the guy’s guilty and that he should be put to death for it- how is this not a good argument that the guy can’t get a fair trial?
It is a good argument.
That said I have never seen a defendant not go to trial and just set free because he/she claimed an impartial jury could not be empaneled. One way or another the court will find a way for the case to be heard.
If Trump is selected for that guy’s jury, I would certainly support a challenge for cause.
Didn’t Manson try something like this when Nixon said that he (Manson) was guilty? IIRC it didn’t work, and that was during the trial.
Regards,
Shodan
It certainly makes the prosecutor’s life more difficult. I’m sure this is not the first time this has happened, but it would be nice if Trump could keep his yap shut for once.
It’s an interesting idea.
It may be moot as the guy who did it seems to be proud of himself and ready to confess.
Yes, there was certainly something similar with Manson and Nixon.
Did Trump cross the Manson-Nixon line?
nm
It would seem to be trivial to find jurors who will not have been exposed to the President’s tweet.
No cites or stats, but I doubt even Trump’s tweets reach 1 in 5 American adults – even accounting for news accounts of his tweets. Keep in mind that much of the online/social media community, and especially the SDMB, are kind of a self-selected set of information hounds. There are A LOT of people who pride themselves on “not following politics” or even sometimes “not following the news”.
The prosecutor will presumable tell the jury in opening statement the guy is guilty and deserves the death penalty.
I’m not sure a tweet from the president along the same lines would make a fair trial impossible.
A lot of us would be tempted to acquit just to piss off the President. (Tempted. We wouldn’t actually do it)
…and the news reports about the tweet, and the editorials about the tweet and the conversations about the tweet. Still trivial?
Trumps tweets may reach only 1 in 5 Americans but after Trumps tweet comes endless news coverage of Trumps tweet which takes it outside the “online media community”.
IANAL but just how does this affect the case? In just about any murder trial or high-profile trial, isn’t there a large contingent of the US population that is baying for the defendant’s blood? Every juror has to be aware of such outside pressure/opinions no matter how much they are supposed to remain impartial. The fact that there are voices calling for conviction and execution has never stopped a murderer from being tried, and I’m sure many have been convicted indeed.
Since you’re asking for my opinion: yes. But, like I said … no cites or stats. Just something I believe … just the way I see the world around me turning.
If I were to go out right now and ask 100 random strangers what Trumped tweeted about in recent days, I’d be astonished if more than a handful responded with anything meaningful and/or specific.
…
Was this thread moved just now, or was it created in Great Debates?
If Nixon said it during the trial, it’s unlikely the jury would’ve heard, due to the fact that they were sequestered. (IIRC, they were taken to and from court everday in a bus with the windows blacked out)
Besides, you’re comparing him to Nixon. Think about that.
My recollection of this event comes from the book Helter Skelter. The problem wasn’t necessarily that Nixon said that Manson was guilty. The problem was that this was the headline splashed across the LA Times. I don’t recall the details, but I believe Manson held up the paper in court for the jury to see, which created the controversy (since they were under sequestration). He was prone to theatrics intended to disrupt the trial.
But, as noted, it wasn’t enough to “ruin” that case, and I don’t see how Trump’s comments would ruin this one. In fact, Trump’s reputation for bluster could be used to suggest that “This is Trump. He always says crazy stuff. Nobody took this as some sort of ‘insider’ opinion of the facts, and therefore nobody is likely to substitute Trump’s judgment for their own at trial”
IIRC (I read it, I think, in Helter Skelter) the jury was sequestered but Manson got hold of a newspaper with a big bold headline saying “Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares” and held it up. His followers then began chanting “the President has said he is guilty, so why go on with the trial?” Manson’s lawyer then asked for a mistrial. This was denied, although they polled the jurors to see if it had affected their views. Also, I believe a defendant cannot benefit from bad acts like this.
Seems like an apt analogy - a sitting President expresses an opinion about a defendant before said defendant is convicted.
As it turns out, Nixon was correct, as I have little doubt Trump will turn out to be. Manson was really (morally and factually) guilty in the deaths with which he was charged, as this unpronounceable Uzbek way more than likely is. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal fiction, with little application outside a court of law.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s been so long since I read Helter Skelter, and considering all the sleazy bullshit he and his lawyer tried, I’d forgotten about that one. Is this guy as batshit as Manson, though?
[puzzled nitpick]
What’s so unpronounceable about the name “Saipov”? Is there a memejoke about some announcer mispronouncing his name or something that I’m unaware of?
[/pn]
Back when I was a kid, there was a joke going around “Hey, did you hear about the OJ Simpson case?”
“No.”
“OK, then, you’re on the jury.”