In every criminal trial I have ever covered, such a motion was made by the defense at the end of the prosecution’s case. I would expect that if her defense counsel is competent, then that would have happened in this case also. I don’t have access to this particular docket, nor am I particularly interested in taking the time to review the docket to ensure that this happened in this case. It’s generally a trivial matter in such cases.
These kinds of motions are not just important for the assertions within them, but they can also constitute an important basis for a future argument on appeal. Sometimes, if you have failed to make a certain kind of motion, you are denied certain arguments on appeal. It would be a serious oversight to fail to make such motions.
This is certainly consistent with what Holmes has done her entirely adult life.
Elizabeth Holmes is so evidently guilty, and her defenses (I didn’t know what was going on, I believed that the technology worked, I was duped by my employees, I was in an abusive relationship with a domineering partner who made me do everything) are so transparently fraudulent that it is indeed frustrating that the legal system still affords her the opportunity to try—however ineffectually—to wriggle her way out of even the relatively minor punishment for the harm that she has done to so many. But, of course, if you were unjustly convicted of a crime you would wish for every possible avenue to vindicate yourself and our legal system is based on the premise (at least, in theory) that it is better to allow the opportunity for a guilty party to go free than to convict a person of whom their may be a reasonable doubt of their culpability. You can’t have it both ways.
In some cases that argument or something similar is justified. Although Blurred Lines was shown through technical analysis to not violate the copyright of Got to Give it Up, the jury still found for Marvin Gaye’s estate because they thought Gaye’s heirs deserved money.
The phrase “no rational jury” is not a phrase that the lawyer made up on the spot. It reflects the actual legal standard and if the lawyer did not refer to this standard then the motion would be defective.
Maybe you should refrain from judging the use of technical language when you are untrained in the relevant technical field?
In the Palin vs NYT libel case, the judge announced, while the jury was deliberating, that in case the jury found for Palin he would overturn the verdict.
Maybe the technical language is unnecessary, and archaic terms have been left place by the legal profession in order to continue obfuscate the process, and render it opaque to the public?
Again, my opinion here is likely tainted by recent interactions with some of the bottom feeders of the industry.
I"ve been involved in a lot of discussions over the past 35 years about how to revise rules, update jury instructions, etc. I’ve never once heard someone suggest we should keep things complicated to render them opaque to the public. Actually, the efforts have been directed on updating, simplifying and rationalizing the rules.
Most rules that seem pointless or misguided to a non-lawyer actually have a rational basis behind them. I’m sure there are exceptions.
“You’re going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola Microsoft Corporation!”
There is a lot of legalese that is archaic and/or obscure to the general public just because that is the nature of jargon but in this particular case the phrasing “no rational juror” means exactly what the language indicates; that the “elements of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud beyond a reasonable doubt” were not presented by the prosecution and could not be interpreted as such by a rational and unbiased juror. That is clearly an opinion advanced by defense counsel and rejected by the judge as being without basis. Of all of the arguments made in defense of and by Holmes, this is perhaps the least objectionable and entirely perfunctory, likely just to establish some pre-existing basis for an appeal later on.
The rules exist to ensure that everybody understands procedure and guidelines for judgement and are clear enough that any practicing lawyer can grasp them. Even Vincent Gambini picked up on then pretty quick despite taking five times to pass the bar exam and not knowing legal procedure sufficient to exonerate his clients, albeit with the aid of a surprisingly excellent expert witness.
I once sat on a jury (as an alternate, sigh) in which the defense counsel tried to present some argument in closing statements that there is a graduated scale of culpability (for which he presented a color coded ‘thermometer plot’) and that we could only convict if the defendant exceeded the highest threshold. The judge let him ramble on about this nonsense for several minutes, then instructed him to wrap it up, followed by a direct explanation to the jury to ignore this nonsense and follow the jury instructions regarding determination of guilt. Since the defendant was caught on surveillance video committing the crime (masturbating in a public area, which we were forced to watch half a dozen times for no good reason) and there was no ambiguity regarding his identity, the ‘Guilty’ verdict was a cinch. Defense lawyers will (and should) do anything within the bounds of legal ethics in a vigorous defense of their client, although doing stupidly ineffectual things like trying to confuse the jury about instructions skirts the line and is borderline moronic, as was trying to confront jurors after the trial and demand to know why they voted to convict (which defense counsel also did as we left the building).
FWIW, I have seen such motions saying “no reasonable jury,” but I have not seen them saying “no rational jury.”
Which was, I think, a big mistake, all the more so when - as I predicted it would - it later came out that the jury learned of the judge’s pronouncement while they were still deliberating. Why the judge didn’t just keep it under his hat until the verdict was announced, I dunno.
We learn quite a bit by speaking to jurors after a trial. But, it should certainly be done politely and with the jurors being told expressly that they have no obligation to speak to us. “Confront” and “demand” are not part of it. Or shouldn’t be. A lot of courts now prohibit talking to the jurors after trial, I suppose because of behavior like that.
The thing I love about English jurisprudence is that it is virtually impossible for a layman to tell actually practice and terminology from a Monty Python skit.
The first paragraph is informative. I too was wondering about the validity of such a motion, and its phrasing. I thought about writing in and saying that it sounds frivolous. Thank you.
The second is snippy attitude and posturing, looking down your nose at those who do not know.
There is a huge difference between simply not knowing something and what was in Euphonious Polemic’s post. Had he simply asked a question about it, he would have gotten a different kind of answer. The attitude and posturing was on his part.
OK I accept that. I realize that I was judging a single post and not the conversation. And I am now not revisiting the conversation. I’m accepting your position at face value.
I want to know more about the culpability thermometer and what it was allegedly measuring that applied to public masturbation. Was it measuring concealment? Enthusiasm? Completion?
Sunny Bulwani was found guilty today on all counts: two counts of conspiring with Holmes, six of defrauding investors and four for patient fraud. For comparison, Holmes was found guilty on four of the eleven charges against her: she was acquitted on the patient fraud charges and no verdict was reached on some of the investor fraud charges.