While consideration of previous crimes is not allowed, I think actions taken in the course of the currently tried crimes are allowed to be considered. So even though the jury decided that Holmes’ actions did not meet the requirements for the crimes against the patients, the judge can still consider the impact her actions had on the patients when deciding the sentences of the crimes she was convicted on.
Was this in Italy after the war?
Nah. And it wasn’t in black and white either!
To add to what others have already said (jury instructions are very important, are often - and should be - relied upon by jurors in their deliberations, and are not infrequently an issue on appeal), it’s true that there aren’t “any surprises in them” in that counsel know what the judge is going to be saying. By that point they’ve had the chance to provide draft language to the court, and to argue why this instruction ought to be given and why that one shouldn’t be. But once the judge starts reading them to the jury, the lawyers know exactly what she’s going to say.
Holmes’ attorney asks for the conviction to be overturned because jurors are irrational.
Because no rational juror could have found the elements of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud beyond a reasonable doubt on this record, the Court should grant Ms. Holmes’ motion for judgment of acquittal
“This court denies the request to overturn the conviction, and further, this court orders the defendant’s lawyer to wear this sign around his neck for one month.”
<hands lawyer a sign reading “I am an incompetent idiot” >
Exactly.
Or the sign might read, “I irrationally suggested the jurors who worked so hard on my client’s case were irrational.”
I think those Rule 29 motions are a pretty standard tactic in these sort of trials. I was on a Federal jury that convicted someone and they immediately filed a post-trial motion to acquit with a few different arguments. One of them was pretty similar to the above, though worded a tad more diplomatically - that the prosecution had failed to provide enough evidence that any jury could reasonably convict on. Ipso facto the jury were a bunch of suckers that got snowed by prosecutorial smoke and mirrors. The judge does have the power to override the jury and overturn such convictions, but my understanding is that it is a pretty rare occurrence. But hey it is more billable hours for the lawyers and no doubt lays the ground work for the endless appeals.
Sure, lawyers gotta lawyer.
I did find something on the internet about appeals on evidence, specifically in Colorado:
Another way to view this test is as follows: When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the Colorado Court of Appeals must determine whether a rational fact finder (a jury or a judge ) could accept the relevant evidence, taken as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as substantial and sufficient to support a finding of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Again the prosecution is given the benefit of every inference that reasonably can be drawn from the evidence.
The fact that it explicitly leans toward favoring the prosecution - when a conviction exists - seems like a reasonable approach.
That’s the standard you’d have to reach to get the conviction overturned by the trial judge “No rational trier of fact could reach that conclusion.” It’s not meant as an insult to the jurors, but a comment on the weakness of the gov’t case.
This is an absolutely routine post-trial motion. You would be an incompetent trial lawyer if you didn’t file such a motion.
And people wonder why I hold the legal system in such low regard. It’s not a system for finding the truth, or even justice. It seems to me to be a self-perpetuating system to extract the maximum amount of cash from clients and/or the taxpaying public by passing meaningless bits of paper back and forth to each other, and charging exorbitant amounts for doing so while winking and grinning at each other.
And you reach this conclusion based on what exactly? What about this aspect of a trial do you find so contemptible? And why do you think you even have enough information to reach this conclusion?
Law is complex because life is complex. Trials are complex because life is complex.
The defendant’s lawyer is filing this motion to keep es client’s future options open. In other words, acting in the best interests of es client. Would you want your lawyer to have some other standard to meet when representing you?
I believe you’re arguing from ignorance.
Sometimes juries do render verdicts that are unjustifiable from the facts. There’s a process for dealing with that - submitting a motion to overturn. I hope to never need that option, but it’s nice that it’s there. It’s very unlikely that the motion will do Holmes any good, any way.
I’m not sure what you find objectionable here, that the lawyer is filing a post-trial motion or that the standard is somehow flawed? No one is “winking an grinning,” that I know of. The rule is a logical one whereby the verdict of the jury is respected and upheld, unless it’s so far off base (no rational juror could convict) that the judge throws the conviction out. I haven’t read the brief in question, and it may very well be that the motion borders on frivolous, but criminal defense attorneys are always fighting an uphill battle. If your client’s freedom is on the line, you use every weapon available to try to wiggle out of it. That’s a feature, not a bug. It does actually lead in most cases to a relatively just result.
Looks like I poked a stick into a nest of ants.
With each ant hoping to get at least 70 billable hours each week.
However I do admit my opinion might be slightly tainted by having a lying manipulative shell of a sibling (herself a lawyer) who in trying to screw me out of my half of an inheritance, merely succeeded in costing the estate lots of money. I strongly suspect she split some of the proceeds her scum lawyer charged.
But could you answer the question posed? Why do you think it’s not appropriate for a person who has been convicted of a serious criminal offence to be able to challenge the conviction?
Did Holmes’ defense file a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal before the jury got the case, on the grounds that the prosecution’s case was horribly weak? And if not, why not?
Seems like the defense should do everything possible to wiggle out of a guilty verdict, no matter what their client did, right?