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

©2024 Poal.co

780

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

the judge can overrule the jury?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Ok so i had a quick look. Short answer - A judge can almost NEVER overturn a Jury acquittal if it came about in a legal way in Criminal Court. However a Judge can declared a mistrial if he believes the vote was not-unanimous. It would seem, at least in Federal Court, a Judge has never ever overturned a jury acquittal in the US - but here we are in an age full of 'things that could never happen'. Civil cases are slightly different and the judge can overrule jury decisions on 'procedures of law'.

From some smuck claiming to be a lawyer - 'Furthermore in a criminal case, a judge cannot overturn a verdict of not guilty as that would violate a defendant’s 5th amendment right. To overturn a guilty verdict there must be clear evidence that offers reasonable doubt'. Idiot just used 'cannot' as in never. Then gave a reason why it could be overturned. '''Reasonable Doubt''' that Kyle shot in self defense.... Exactly the retarded Prosecutions angle.

[–] • 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.