Snipes is in the hands of the jury

[Prof]

Bill: You were there. I'll stick with eye-witnesses until the verdict, but we have not heard from the other eye-witness, Demo.

As to the War of Northern Agression:

1. Slavery, not economics, or lifestyle, or whatever, was the sole cause of the war.

2. Secession (this is for the Evil Squirrel) not Succession.

3. The cause of the war -- slavery -- does not explain why non-slaveholding Southerners fought and died for the "Lost Cause." Those folks fought for their individual States, identifying more closely with South Carolina or Virginia than with the more abstract US. (Three of my greatgrandfathers fought for the South. All were too poor to own much more than a mule, much less a slave, and two had probably only seen blacks in Asheville on trips to town once or twice a year.)

[Imalawman]

Please post further civil war posts on a different thread.

I am concerned about the gov't winning this case simply because of the Cryer verdict. Like was stated earlier...how could a lawyer not known what he was doing was illegal? In this case, you have a naive movie star - not a villain. Now, this stuff shouldn't matter, rather the evidence presented, but we all know that emotions and perceptions play a big role. All I'm saying is that I'm not very confident, but I surely hope the gov't didn't blow this one, because it will have very real negative repercussions.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

2. Secession (this is for the Evil Squirrel) not Succession.

I always do that. I am pretty bad at spellun... walnut-sized cranium... ya know.

3. The cause of the war -- slavery -- does not explain why non-slaveholding Southerners fought and died for the "Lost Cause."

Exactly. This is true for most wars including the Civil War. My ancestors did go to war over slavery (fanatical religious beliefs?) But before you think they were all noble for doing so, remember they had no issues with calling out the militia everytime a sun-tanned looking human with long black hair came riding out of the west unless of course they were looking for that wonderful addictive substance so necessary to life here in the Northern Plains: coffee! Oh how Sitting Bull would proclaim it's wonders of the morning pick-me-up! Come to think of it, I need some....

I digress.

[Truthstalker]

Hmmm...not only have CK and Webhick never been seen together, but ESO has never been seen with either one of them.

[iplawyer]

I hope it hasn't been lost on anyone that the jury wanted a better definition of conspiracy. They would not need to go there if they had found Mr. Snipes not guilty on all counts.

[Dezcad]

I hope it hasn't been lost on anyone that the jury wanted a better definition of conspiracy. They would not need to go there if they had found Mr. Snipes not guilty on all counts.

I considered that but it could also be that the jury agreed not to decide on any single count until they deliberate on all counts.

But I do think your observation is a very likely one.

[Imalawman]

I hope it hasn't been lost on anyone that the jury wanted a better definition of conspiracy. They would not need to go there if they had found Mr. Snipes not guilty on all counts.

I considered that but it could also be that the jury agreed not to decide on any single count until they deliberate on all counts.

But I do think your observation is a very likely one.

That is a optimistic way to look at it, and I agree a likely scenario. But they could have found Snipes not guilty and then proceeded to the counts against Kahn and Rosile. They won't return until they have decided each person's fate.

[Bill E. Branscum]

Finally, we are talking about a federal criminal case, and every federal criminal case that charges a violation of Title 18 USC 371 must deal with the definition of conspiracy by statute - the version originally offered was completely deficient in the context of this thread.

What statute defines "conspiracy"? I know 18 USC 371 doesn't.

Actually, and bear with me on this, that depends upon your source.

If you pull up 18 USC 371 on the Internet, you may find something like this as posted on the Cornell University web site:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

On the other hand, if you use Lexis to access the United States Code, you get a volume that must be split into two sections in order to download it, including the elements of the offense with the notes and case citations.

As in any criminal case, the "true" definition of the alleged offense is the jury instruction.

As I said before, this thread deals with a particular conspiracy allegation in a particular criminal case. To suggest that the verdict depends upon a very limited definition of the term is not correct - and it is misleading to those trying to formulate their own opinions.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Gosh, I feel like a little kid...

Where is that jury?

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

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.

Are they going to squabble over the definition of "income" like on-line tps?

[Dezcad]

Finally, we are talking about a federal criminal case, and every federal criminal case that charges a violation of Title 18 USC 371 must deal with the definition of conspiracy by statute - the version originally offered was completely deficient in the context of this thread.

What statute defines "conspiracy"? I know 18 USC 371 doesn't.

Actually, and bear with me on this, that depends upon your source.

The language of 18 USC 371 does not change depending on the source. An explanation of the statute (by Lexis or otherwise) is not part of the statute and perhaps could vary by source along with any case citations for that statute.

My point is that "conspiracy" is not defined by statute, despite your statement above that I highlighted in red.

If you are going to be particular about other people's posts, you should be subject to the same scrutiny.

[Bill E. Branscum]

I hope it hasn't been lost on anyone that the jury wanted a better definition of conspiracy. They would not need to go there if they had found Mr. Snipes not guilty on all counts.

Now there's a leap.

Just by any chance, have you heard the names Rosile and Kahn?

[Bud Dickman]

Stephen Hudak | Sentinel Staff Writer
12:06 PM EST, January 31, 2008

A
OCALA - Jurors continued deliberating this morning in the federal tax evasion case of Orlando-born actor Wesley Snipes.

Shortly before noon, jurors took a lunch break. The jury has been out since late Tuesday considering the alleged tax fraud and seven other related charges filed against Snipes by federal authorities..............

[wserra]

I hope it hasn't been lost on anyone that the jury wanted a better definition of conspiracy. They would not need to go there if they had found Mr. Snipes not guilty on all counts.

Trying to read the tea leaves of jury notes is a litigator's favorite pastime, largely because there is little else to do while waiting around for a verdict. However, it's impossible to make predictions like this. You just can't know what they're doing. A note will not infrequently indicate the exact opposite of the thinking of a majority of the jury, because they will ask for a certain readback or recharge to convince the minority.

You just gotta wait. It's by far (at least for me) the most difficult part of a trial.

[LPC]

When I see the media talking about bogus "checks" that Snipes is reported to have sent the IRS, I see history repeating itself. That allegation is pure BS, and anyone familiar with the facts and documents in evidence knows it. There were no "checks."

Once again, you seem to be taking refuge in semantics.

The documents in question have been described as "bills of exchange" and had dollar amounts on them.

What was being exchanged?

And what did Snipes expect the IRS to do with them?

If he expected to have his taxes reduced by tendering worthless documents will dollar amounts on them, then it doesn't really make much difference whether you call them "checks," "counterfeit currency," or "kumquats," the fraud is still the same.

[Disilloosianed]

wserra is right. I had the rare experience of serving on a jury after being licensed and believe me, what the jury asks could be contingent on anything.

[webhick]

The jury is just looking for more of those homemade meatballs. It's a common Illuminati tactic for free food.

[grixit]

When I see the media talking about bogus "checks" that Snipes is reported to have sent the IRS, I see history repeating itself. That allegation is pure BS, and anyone familiar with the facts and documents in evidence knows it. There were no "checks."

Once again, you seem to be taking refuge in semantics.

The documents in question have been described as "bills of exchange" and had dollar amounts on them.

What was being exchanged?

And what did Snipes expect the IRS to do with them?

If he expected to have his taxes reduced by tendering worthless documents will dollar amounts on them, then it doesn't really make much difference whether you call them "checks," "counterfeit currency," or "kumquats," the fraud is still the same.

Agreed. I really would like to see Bill's explanation of just what those pepers were supposed to be and what Snipe's intent in using them was.