Snipes is in the hands of the jury

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:15 pm

Interesting.

Trying to defy a Judge's instructions to the jury in these parts isn't well tolerated.

Any sense of what that district has done in similar circumstances?

Post by **Demosthenes** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:18 pm

No indication that they're going to defy the instruction. Some indication that they are parsing the words in the instruction in search of a more favorable definition.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:45 pm

Demosthenes wrote:Just between us cats, there may be a tax denier and/or jury nullifier type on the jury. More soon.

Damn, they're everywhere.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:59 pm

It may just be the fact that this is a high school educated jury and there's some confusion over key words. I'll find out bright and early tomorrow though. There's going to be a hearing.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:46 am

From http://www.ocala.com

Around 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, Senior U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges announced that jurors had a question. He displayed a copy of jury instructions marked with yellow highlighter and red marks, and told the lawyers present that the jury had a question about the meaning of the term "conspiracy."

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:34 am

It's an agreement between two (or more) people to break the law sometime in the future.

What's so hard to understand about that? Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, especially in Rosiles and Kahn's case, that fits.

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:36 am

We all need to keep in mind a key fact I'm often prodded into remembering: The average reading and comprehension level of people in the United States is roughly at the fifth-grade level. If a jury consultant has been retained by the defense, they may have been strategically accurate in thinking the panel will be unable to convict because of the apparent complexity.

Any wonder why the producers of the hit TV show picked that particular window of educational time to package their game?

Post by **Demosthenes** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:38 am

What I find interesting is how hard Snipes pushed to move the trial to New York. I think his odds of acquittal are quite a higher here. It's an older, conservative, high school educated jury in a low tax state.

Investor · Post by **Investor** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:40 am

It's an agreement between two (or more) people to break the law sometime in the future.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Because people take into the jury room their pre-conceived ideas of what legal terms mean. Most people, if asked, would probably tell you that conspiracy involves secrecy. It would not surprise me if the problem is with this misconception.

Post by **webhick** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:41 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:Any wonder why the producers of the hit TV show picked that particular window of educational time to package their game?

I'm not sure if you've seen the show, but IIRC, it looks like American adults with college educations are registering lower than a fifth grade level...on pretty much everything. They were getting first grade questions wrong.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:42 am

That was a rhetorical question but thanks for pointing out the wrinkle in it, Investor.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:46 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:We all need to keep in mind a key fact I'm often prodded into remembering: The average reading and comprehension level of people in the United States is roughly at the fifth-grade level.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my mother who read to me every night and encouraged me to read. Without her I'd never have scored a reading comprehension level of 12th grade on my first day of school (back in 1975).

Thanks, mom!

Post by **webhick** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:49 am

Jury time should involve 5 hours of L&O (pre-Elizabeth Rohm). Then they'd know what a freaking conspiracy is. And some other stuff too. They could throw in that episode about the militia group and the gold fringe on the flag, if they want the jurors to get an idea of what the freak show they might be seeing.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:52 am

webhick wrote:Jury time should involve 5 hours of L&O (pre-Elizabeth Rohm). Then they'd know what a freaking conspiracy is. And some other stuff too. They could throw in that episode about the militia group and the gold fringe on the flag, if they want the jurors to get an idea of what the freak show they might be seeing.

My wife and I saw that episode about three years ago and she suggested that the judge "just throw their asses into Gitmo and be done with it."

Bill E. Branscum · Post by **Bill E. Branscum** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:14 am

Doktor Avalanche wrote:It's an agreement between two (or more) people to break the law sometime in the future.

What's so hard to understand about that? Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, especially in Rosiles and Kahn's case, that fits.

If that's all their was to it, it wouldn't be hard to understand, but that is hardly a definition of conspiracy.

That's not even close.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:20 am

Bill E. Branscum wrote: If that's all their was to it, it wouldn't be hard to understand, but that is hardly a definition of conspiracy.

That's not even close.

That, Mr. Branscum, is the legal definition of conspiracy.

Just how much is Mr. Snipes paying you?

Investor · Post by **Investor** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:24 am

That, Mr. Branscum, is the legal definition of conspiracy.

With all due respect, there is no one THE legal definition of conspiracy. Each jurisdiction will define it its own way, and the definition may be different depending on what the underlying crime is.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:29 am

18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and

Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

I believe that's the definition the government is working from in its indictment against Snipes. What other definition are we supposed to use here?

Bill E. Branscum · Post by **Bill E. Branscum** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:34 am

Demosthenes wrote:What I find interesting is how hard Snipes pushed to move the trial to New York. I think his odds of acquittal are quite a higher here. It's an older, conservative, high school educated jury in a low tax state.

Being the only Southerner on the defense team, I opined that folks generally forget that there never was a "War of Racism," the Civil War is otherwise generally known as the War of Secession. There are those who would like to re-write history, but we didn't incur 600,000 American casualties over the issue of slavery.

Being the only person on the defense team who spends a lot of time in Ocala (4-wheeling in the national park), I observed that Ocala is not composed of die hard Southerners so much as it is a largely white community of people who chose to live here - most of the venire in this case were retirees from someplace else.

I do believe that the government brought a half-assed case to Ocala with the expectation that a bunch of racists would lynch their negra, but I predicted that when these independent, honest folks here see how Snipes was treated by the IRS, they might just get a history lesson.

Stand by - I think it's coming.

I am not sure whether or not we convinced the jury, but I know for a fact that Snipes never lived in Windermere - and that should be death to Counts 3-8.

Count 1 was the most pitiful excuse for a conspiracy case I have ever seen (with respect to Snipes) and I don't think they met their burden on Count 2.

We'll see.

Bill E. Branscum · Post by **Bill E. Branscum** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:42 am

Doktor Avalanche wrote:
Bill E. Branscum wrote: If that's all their was to it, it wouldn't be hard to understand, but that is hardly a definition of conspiracy.

That's not even close.
That, Mr. Branscum, is the legal definition of conspiracy.

Just how much is Mr. Snipes paying you?

Sorry, no cigar. A conspiracy requires that:

A) Two or more people agree to either 1) Violate the law or 2) defraud the United States. The latter is generally called Klein Conspiracy and that is the charge here.

B) That the alleged conspirators know that the object of the conspiracy is against the law at the time they reach agreement. This is the scienter requirement.

C) An affirmative act, be any one of the conspirators, in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy.

Mr. Snipes is paying me quite enough; thank you for the concern.