• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
haway said:
Don't think so.

For all you're laying into me I was at a couple of trials where jurors had to be excused and they dropped down to 11 jurors instead of 12 because of circumstances where jurors had to leave. IIRC they can drop all the way down to 10, the only issue is they can only accept a majority verdict 10-0 (it's not like they can accept 8-2).

I was also at trials where it would go Monday, Tues, then nothing til Thurs because a juror had an engagement on the Weds they couldn't get out of (it's common because trials often overrun - they tell the jury to budget for a week and it ends up a fortnight etc). So even if someone was busy the next day I think they would just adjourn for a day, and even if they had to leave the trial that would be fine, they would just have used 11 jurors...
Click to expand...

What do you mean by that ...... I've asked you questions just as you've asked me.

Where, in that post, am I 'laying into you'?
 

haway said:
You're the only person in this thread who has repeatedly blabbered on about your extensive experience of courts. I only brought this up after you asked me.

As I said to you earlier, I'm sure you know the law you have been involved in much better than me, but all I said was you shouldn't speak so f***ing authoritatively when you have never been involved in criminal law or a single criminal court case in your life. You would never hear me say 'my experience in courts mean' and go on to talk about civil courts. I was very clear my knowledge was limited in my earlier post but what the one thing I claimed some authority on from it is how barristers behave and interact with clients in meetings in criminal law. The only reason I claimed some authority on that is because I have spent months sat listening to it. You haven't seen me once in this thread using that experience to justify anything more than that experience of court process.
Click to expand...
I've spent the evening drinking wine, crying and eating chocolates, it doesn't mean I've been dumped.
 
cornish cat said:
Newspapers are a business, just like a shop selling furniture. They often resort to 'making' the news rather than 'reporting' the news. It's what they do. People who read these sort of newspapers are welcome to it. It's not worth getting het up about.
Click to expand...
Thing is the Echo rely heavily on the football club. It's probably the main reason people buy it, piss the club off and they could be biting the hand that feeds them.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
:lol: dear Mr libel lawyer, I'd like to sue the nasty media for allegations against me that I don't actually deny happened. What are my chances?
Click to expand...

You don't have to have denied something for it to be untrue and the way they have reported the so called breaking news about the police statement is a disgrace.
 
johnson said:
You are on the right lines, they came in and delivered the not guilty verdict for the first offence, but said they didn't have that for the second offence, so the judge said there is no rush, go back and deliberate, then 30 mins later they came back in and he accepted a 10-2, which he said he wouldn't. They probably had less than that before they went back out to deliberate for that 30 mins.

I am not defending him, just stating that this is going to come up with Johnson's defence, and it probably should, the fact that they didn't have a big enough majority one mind, the judge said he wouldn't accept it, and a juror had a interview, will cause questions to be asked, when they suddenly had an acceptable decision just 30 mins later.

Orlando QC will feel there is enough there for doubts to be raised I reckon
Click to expand...
I'm not defending him either, never will, but the legal system doesn't seem quite right for me here, and it's not always about guilty or innocent, with appeals it's sometimes about a technicality. If I was a well paid barrister, I'd be rubbing me hands with this opportunity to appeal.
 
The Master said:
If her family try to get money from Johnson why does that concern you?
Click to expand...

Why ?

Because there daughter was out meeting a married man , and at the same time congratulating his wife on the birth of there child.

It concerns me if her family ask for money
 
Rober33 said:
You don't have to have denied something for it to be untrue and the way they have reported the so called breaking news about the police statement is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

:lol: a legal action by the club in this case on the basis that something is untrue would require, and I know I'm just a layman here, the club to say it was untrue. I would like to see them make legal history by trying it though
 
Reiver said:
While you're here, I notice you failed to respond to @theinediblebulk 's question.

You remember, it was this,

"See, I don't get how Sunderland would need legal privilege to receive information but then could do what the fuck they wanted with it."
Click to expand...


Sorry, I missed that. The answer is that legal privilege only exists between you and your lawyers. So say I give my lawyer permission to breach it to tell you information about my case. You then aren't under that privilege, you can post in on here, tell your mates etc. It's not like anyone who here's information under legal privilege is bound by it, it's only between you and your lawyers.
 
Utter shithouse

You must be logged on to see external links


Oblivious to the irony, he used the judge’s absences from the courtroom to fiddle constantly with his mobile phone, the instrument of his demise. He was reprimanded for “discourteous behaviour”. Then, as the jury retired for their deliberations, he let a door swing in the face of a junior barrister.

Johnson was overheard telling a friend that he hoped it would all end by the third Friday, as “it was getting a bit boring”. He cited the same excuse, boredom, in drawing the context for why he had set about grooming a 15-year-old girl.
 
haway said:
Sorry, I missed that. The answer is that legal privilege only exists between you and your lawyers. So say I give my lawyer permission to breach it to tell you information about my case. You then aren't under that privilege, you can post in on here, tell your mates etc. It's not like anyone who here's information under legal privilege is bound by it, it's only between you and your lawyers.
Click to expand...

This wasn't the club's lawyers though was it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top