Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.4K

Transcript of Kyle's lawyer talking to the judge (who asked the Jury to step out of the court room):

I have two criminal complaints where the defendant [Anthony Huber] held a knife to his brother's throat. He put a knife to his brother's ear.

Mr Huber told his brother that if he didn't start cleaning a room in their house, he was gonna gut him like a pig.

Mr Huber took a knife in his right hand that looked like a butcher knife, 6 inches long with a green handle.

Mr Huber, later on in the same incident, threw a chair and some clothes across the room threatening to kill his brother if he didn't clean.

Mr Huber then sat down and watched them, well, his brother and made his grandmother pick things up as well, and Mr Huber told his brother that if he stopped he would kill him.

Mr Huber's brother then turned around, and Mr Huber put a knife to his brother's stomach, saying he was gonna gut him like a pig.

Mr Huber's brother backed down trying to protect himself.

Mr Huber then grabbed his brother by the neck, dug his nails and choked him for approximately 10 seconds.

He then put a knife to his brother's left ear, his brother felt the blade and believed his ear was cut.

And as he left he told the people in the house "I'm gonna burn the house down with all you fuckers in it".

### Transcript of Kyle's lawyer talking to the judge (who asked the Jury to step out of the court room): > I have two criminal complaints where the defendant [Anthony Huber] held a knife to his brother's throat. He put a knife to his brother's ear. > Mr Huber told his brother that if he didn't start cleaning a room in their house, he was gonna gut him like a pig. > Mr Huber took a knife in his right hand that looked like a butcher knife, 6 inches long with a green handle. > Mr Huber, later on in the same incident, threw a chair and some clothes across the room threatening to kill his brother if he didn't clean. > Mr Huber then sat down and watched them, well, his brother and made his grandmother pick things up as well, and Mr Huber told his brother that if he stopped he would kill him. > Mr Huber's brother then turned around, and Mr Huber put a knife to his brother's stomach, saying he was gonna gut him like a pig. > Mr Huber's brother backed down trying to protect himself. > Mr Huber then grabbed his brother by the neck, dug his nails and choked him for approximately 10 seconds. > He then put a knife to his brother's left ear, his brother felt the blade and believed his ear was cut. > And as he left he told the people in the house **"I'm gonna burn the house down with all you fuckers in it"**.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (90).
[–] • 0 pt

In criminal trials they can, but only to acquit. There's a bunch of different kinds, I don't understand all the differences:

  • Directed verdict (the judge rules a reasonable jury could only acquit, so we all play the imagination game and pretend they did)

  • Judgement as a matter of law (the judge rules an acquittal is the only legal outcome because of some point of law rather than evidence)

  • Motion for acquittal (I think this is the same thing, not sure)

[–] • 0 pt

Yes it would seem that way. However as implausible or rare at it appears the Judge can disregard a Jury acquittal, either as a mistrial (ie, if he believes the verdict was not unanimous, after taking a jury poll) or if the verdict came about other than '.. in a Legal way', and finally if the Judge believes there is '... sufficient evidence leading to a reasonable doubt for acquittal'.

[–] • 0 pt

and finally if the Judge believes there is '... sufficient evidence leading to a reasonable doubt for acquittal'.

Wait what? Isn't the reasonable doubt standard supposed to go the other way? Like if there's any doubt they're guilty the jury is supposed to acquit, not that if there's any reasonable doubt they're innocent the judge can revers the acquittal?

If the latter were how it worked then judges would have to overturn almost every acquittal since very few cases produce a watertight proof of innocence.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Yes i know. It seems very fcking odd doesn't it. I might add the couple of 'Legal sites' i looked at referencing this never linked any actual Legal documents and the quote used was '... clear and sufficient evidence of reasonable doubt' - take that how you will, but i agree it does on the face of it sound problematic regardless if it has never occurred in a US Federal Court before or not. ( over-turning/ over-ruling jury acquittal).

If fact almost everywhere i have looked it's been difficult to get to the bottom of this or to be shown the legal procedure to be followed . so i'm gonna spend some time today trying to chase this down and find a clear and consist explanation on what the Judge can 'lawfully overturn'.

EDIT. SHIT after re-reading i make a mistake , the over turning using 'clear and sufficient evidence of reasonable doubt' is ONLY for guilty verdicts. So yes you're correct in that. It seems mistrial and ' if verdict came about other than a lawful way' ( jury tampering/ bribery/ threats etc) are the options.