Updyke Trial

AUChizad · « **Reply #80 on:** June 21, 2012, 04:42:11 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on June 21, 2012, 02:59:37 PM

A googling of them lead me to scout.com and someone saying Woodbammer said those. So, apparently Chad is saying I was wrong about Harvey getting a change of venue, and was belligerent about it. I'd like him to dig up a quote of me saying Harvey wouldn't get a change of venue.

Quote from: JR4AU on June 13, 2012, 04:50:50 PM

National coverage isn't even an issue to consider.

Two things: Can the defendant show ACTUAL prejudice against him on the part o of the jurors, or a showing where there is already presumed prejudice resulting from a saturation of PREJUDICIAL pretrial publicity that no impartial jury can be selected. Can't prove #1 until it's time for trial. I don't think this case has had any more than normal prejudicial news coverage.

Neither of those prongs can be proved at this point, and I doubt that they can at all. Extensive pretrial publicity alone isn't enough to constitute grounds for a change of venue. Jurors are not required to have no knowledge of the case, nor are they required to not have an opinion of the case.

The publicity itself, has been, for the large part, simply factual in nature, and not prejudicial to the defendant here. In Updyke's case, it has been BUT largely by his own doing! You can't create the prejudice yourself then expect a change of venue.

AWK · « **Reply #81 on:** June 21, 2012, 04:48:40 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 04:42:11 PM

Owned by the quote function...in a good way!

GH2001 · « **Reply #82 on:** June 21, 2012, 05:02:53 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 04:42:11 PM

JR sucks it hard

Your witness JR?

djsimp · « **Reply #83 on:** June 21, 2012, 05:06:13 PM »

Quote from: Buzz Killington on June 21, 2012, 04:35:44 PM

Birthday boy gets it. +100

I forgot. You're a genius. That's why you have a bigger whistle than I do.

I love it when you post. I've been waiting to see if that chick can get into her pants for a while now.

JR4AU · « **Reply #84 on:** June 21, 2012, 05:59:14 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 04:42:11 PM

Wow, I was belligerent there! I see what you mean!

AUChizad · « **Reply #85 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:09:25 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on June 21, 2012, 05:59:14 PM

Wow, I was belligerent there! I see what you mean!

Well, that was more from your posts leading up to that one.

Quote from: JR4AU on June 13, 2012, 10:44:24 AM

Big fucking deal legal genius. She can ask for anything, there's no cause to have this venue changed.

Quote from: JR4AU on June 13, 2012, 10:54:55 AM

You watch too much TV, and listen to too many people like yourself grouse about lawyers and law out of sheer ignorance.

Quote from: JR4AU on June 13, 2012, 11:36:47 AM

Fact is, contrary to what CCT believes, changes of venue are rare, and being overturned on appeal for failure to grant one is even more rare. One problem is, CCT believes that everybody thinks like him, or they're a crack head, and so, since he can't put aside his preconceived notions, he thinks nobody else can either. There's lots of rational, thinking, intelligent people out there willing to hear the facts, and law, and make a decision based on that.

Quote from: JR4AU on June 13, 2012, 11:55:29 AM

So, do you run your entire life making decisions based on one anecdotal incident that is contrary to the overwhelming majority of cases? One case? From SC? That's what you got? Srsly? What you post is more clear evidence that your hatred and contempt for lawyers, law, and the system is grounded in the anomalies, and not the realities.

I'm sitting here browsing through dozens of ALABAMA cases where a Motion for CoV was denied, a conviction had, and upheld by the appellate courts.

Quote from: JR4AU on June 13, 2012, 12:11:09 PM

LOL, u r funny. As Wes stated...possible, but unfucking likely. I stated a legal opinion. Your response there is weak. Very weak. And you're starting to head off to childish land.

Oh, and as I pointed out last week, you were wrong about Leondard's attorney seeking a change of venue too.

JR4AU · « **Reply #86 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:12:37 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 06:09:25 PM

Well, that was more from your posts leading up to that one.

Oh, and as I pointed out last week, you were wrong about Leondard's attorney seeking a change of venue too.

No, I wasn't you stupid fuck. I said she'd move to change venue, or agreed with someone who said she would!

Gawddamn how many times have you whacked off today at the prospect that you might find that I was wrong about something?

JR4AU · « **Reply #87 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:18:25 PM »

Also from that same thread:

Quote from: JR4AU on June 13, 2012, 04:02:17 PM

I can. Updyke is far more likely to get a change of venue than Leonard.

You see Chad, things are fluid. I wouldnt have been surprised if the first motion to change venue had been granted in Updyke's case! But he, allegedly, popped off his mouth to a report THIS week while they struck a jury. I didn't the judge would reward that, but he may.

AUChizad · « **Reply #88 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:25:24 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on June 21, 2012, 06:12:37 PM

No, I wasn't you stupid fuck. I said she'd move to change venue, or agreed with someone who said she would!

Gawddamn how many times have you whacked off today at the prospect that you might find that I was wrong about something?

Belligerently wrong.

JR4AU · « **Reply #89 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:26:49 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 06:25:24 PM

Belligerently wrong.

Belligerently stupid, and a liar to boot. ^^^

AUChizad · « **Reply #90 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:52:08 PM »

Quote from: JR4AU on June 21, 2012, 06:26:49 PM

Belligerently stupid, and a liar to boot. ^^^

ssgaufan · « **Reply #91 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:56:05 PM »

You two need to meet up and fuck the anger out of each other.

djsimp · « **Reply #92 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:07:45 PM »

Quote from: ssgaufan on June 21, 2012, 06:56:05 PM

You two need to meet up and fuck the anger out of each other.

I would like to fuck the anger out of the slut in your avatar.

Pell City Tiger · « **Reply #93 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:46:49 PM »

Quote from: ssgaufan on June 21, 2012, 06:56:05 PM

You two need to meet up and fuck the anger out of each other.

I'm joining late. What's the score?

wesfau2 · « **Reply #94 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:47:23 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 06:52:08 PM

Saniflush · « **Reply #95 on:** June 22, 2012, 07:13:40 AM »

Stop it!

Here is something for both of you.

GH2001 · « **Reply #96 on:** June 22, 2012, 10:45:10 AM »

Quote from: djsimp on June 21, 2012, 07:07:45 PM

I would like to fuck the anger out of the slut in your avatar.

Hey hey hey! She's not a slut. She's a whore. Just want to keep you honest.

GH2001 · « **Reply #97 on:** June 22, 2012, 10:45:56 AM »

Quote from: AUChizad on June 21, 2012, 06:52:08 PM

In his defense, he said COV was unlikely before the Plainsman gaffe. Nobody saw that coming.

The Prowler · « **Reply #98 on:** June 23, 2012, 03:38:47 AM »

Quote from: GH2001 on June 22, 2012, 10:45:10 AM

Hey hey hey! She's not a slut. She's a whore. Just want to keep you honest.

RWS · « **Reply #99 on:** June 24, 2012, 12:20:38 AM »

I think the judge did the right thing here. This dumb bastard is going to get convicted. I think we all know that. He's just not going to have a leg to stand on when it happens if he tries to claim the jury or judge was biased, etc. This whole supposed admission thing to the newspaper would have probably been the crown jewel of the defense's argument. Before that though, the judge really had no reason to grant a change in venue. Really, I'm not so sure he really had to even now. But I think he knows fucktard is done either way, and didn't want to give any wiggle room. Just my uneducated opinion.