VOTE IN THE POLL TO THE RIGHT
UPDATE THREADDAY 7: 12/17/09
The jury in the trial for Bill White has been sent home to allow the attorney's the rest of the day for working on closing arguments and legal instructions that will be read to the jury when they return at 9:00 tomorrow morning.
In what has become the norm in trials against high-profile neo-Nazi's, the defense filed a motion to dismiss the charges after the prosecution presented its case. Judge James Turk had refused before the trial, reserving the right to do so after hearing the prosecutions evidence. He, once again, refused to dismiss, and is sending the case to the jury.
In what has also become the questionable and curious norm of courtroom proceedings in trials of this nature, the defense rested presenting no evidence, testimony, or witnesses. One must wonder at the wisdom of such a move.
When the jury returns tomorrow they will be given their instructions and sent to deliberate with only the testimony against William White to consider.
Nikki - I think that you should have a poll on here, if Bill will be convicted or found not guilty.
ReplyDeletemy money says GUILTY
Good idea - just put it up.
ReplyDeleteQUESTION: Do you think the defense was wise to present no evidence or testimony?
ReplyDeleteThe defense not putting anyone on the stand sounds a little risky to me.
ReplyDeleteI guess they are trying to say to the jury that this is case closed a freedom of speech issue and there is clearly no need. If they are all Republicans they are right, case closed.
According to DLJ:
ReplyDelete"During his cross examination, Defense Attorney David Damico, recalling White's remark to a reporter that he "wouldn't shed a tear," if someone killed Pitts, asked Special Agent Paul Messing, "If Osama bin Laden was killed, would you shed a tear?" That elicited gasps throughout the courtroom, and an immediate and angry objection from Prosecuting Attorney Cindy Chung.
"Damico prompted another gasp of outrage when he said to Warman, while noting how White could have possibly been looking at Warman as a threat to Canada the same way many generally looked to Sadaam Hussein as a threat to Iraq, "Maybe he's using a little Maximum Disruption of his own!"
It is a risky move (something we saw with the Turner trial), but perhaps the so strongly feel that this is protected speech that no defense need be given.
ReplyDeleteI don't hold a lot of faith in juries to do the right thing.
Like I said, it was a mistake for the defense not to have some non-whites on this jury. I believe that is going to prove detrimental in this case.
According to DLJ:
ReplyDelete"During his cross examination, Defense Attorney David Damico, recalling White's remark to a reporter that he "wouldn't shed a tear," if someone killed Pitts, asked Special Agent Paul Messing, "If Osama bin Laden was killed, would you shed a tear?" That elicited gasps throughout the courtroom, and an immediate and angry objection from Prosecuting Attorney Cindy Chung.
"Damico prompted another gasp of outrage when he said to Warman, while noting how White could have possibly been looking at Warman as a threat to Canada the same way many generally looked to Sadaam Hussein as a threat to Iraq, "Maybe he's using a little Maximum Disruption of his own!"--Nikki
December 17, 2009 11:48 AM
It really is a shame we didn't have a complete picture of this trial since not much of anything was reported on the cross-examination.
"In what has also become the questionable and curious norm of courtroom proceedings in trials of this nature, the defense rested presenting no evidence, testimony, or witnesses."
ReplyDeleteSeriously, the case is such an obvious Goddamn farce; do they really have to present a "defense"?
Ya know, I have to wonder about that especially after the Matt Hale trial. A lot of people thought that the case against Hale was so weak they didn't need to present a defense and he's serving 40 years.
ReplyDeleteAnd I totally agree that we heard very little about the defense and the cross-examination. That makes it hard to predict what the jury will do. That's not reporting - and that is a real shame.
ReplyDeleteNikki said...
ReplyDeleteAnd I totally agree that we heard very little about the defense and the cross-examination. That makes it hard to predict what the jury will do. That's not reporting - and that is a real shame.--Nikki
Nope, you CAN'T predict what is going to happen at all, and how can you when the local media there only reports on what was said and done by the prosecution, and they probably did a poor job of that.
"It isn't a hard call if the defense feels that they are ahead at this point. From what I've read about the process, the defense is winning. They even have some journalists on their side. Let the prosecution's case defeat itself through its own lack of substance. No need to distract attention from that."
ReplyDeleteI can't say I totally agree with the above opinion. It was probably a good idean NOT to have BW testify considering the numerous perjury traps set for him.
Believe me, Bill is his own worst enemy and would have done himself in on the stand.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not look for an acquital. I look for either a guilty verdict or a hung jury. I could be way off the mark, since we have been limited on reports coming out of the trial...but, this will be interesting.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a guilty verdict, what do you think will happen at sentencing?
Nikki, yes it was wise for the defense to put up none, is there ANYTHING they could say that would benefit White?
ReplyDeleteI think he's going to get nailed on the one charge where he sent US mail, and acquitted on the rest.
We'll see though.
The reason the defense didn't put up any witnesses or anything else is because the defense attorney wants White convicted. If White gets set free that defense attorney will be blacklisted and recieve no clients hardly ever again. He's not stupid!
ReplyDeleteI think both Nikki and Mr. Schwartz may have their fingers on the pulse of this case. A hung jury is quite likely, the alternative is to be convicted on the "mail" charge only.
ReplyDeleteIf he's convicted, don't be surprised if he's offered a deal to where he's sentenced to time already served, three or so years of probation, and mandatory psychological counseling.
I would prefer that he be exonerated entirely, but I have to be realistic. Furthermore, an all-white jury is no guarantor of an acquittal; don't forget, an all-white jury convicted the Shaun Walker Trio on much more flimsy charges in Salt Lake in April 2007.
Well...my prediction in the Hale trial was that he would get 5-10 years with time served. Shows you how much I know.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to see, should Bill be found guilty is a sentence of time served, 5 years probation, mandatory counselling, and a lot of community service hours.
But...that is what I would like - doesn't mean that it will happen.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the jury deadlock, though.
"""What I would like to see, should Bill be found guilty is a sentence of time served, 5 years probation, mandatory counselling, and a lot of community service hours."""
ReplyDeleteNot Cool Nikki. Stop crapping on our Constitution. Freedom of Speech is exactly what the words say. FREEDOM OF SPEECH is UNCONDITIONAL. Physically harming someone is a whole different story.
Bill should NOT be convicted as "Time Served" and if he is it will be yet another blow to the United States Constitution.
May God Bless the USA and DOWN with all tyranny!!!
BTW, what is with all of the radicals toning it down now. About a year ago it was, they are going to throw away the key and lock him up for life, etc.
ReplyDeleteHave you guys just started to figure out that there is a difference between saying something and doing it?
"""I think he's going to get nailed on the one charge where he sent US mail, and acquitted on the rest."""
And Schwartz, why are you so hung up on the mail? Because he mailed his freedom of speech too?
Hooch,
ReplyDeleteBecause going by case history, threats via US mail are always taken more seriously and it was massed mailed. And it also takes a lot more effort and money to send stuff via the US mail then to send off emails.
Take a look at the people who are currently serving life sentences in prison who have been nailed sending threats via the postal service while in prison. Quite a few.
That's why Hooch, and I'll admit, it's a total guess on my part, they will nail him on the charge where he used postal mail. The other charges
"""Because going by case history, threats via US mail are always taken more seriously and it was massed mailed. And it also takes a lot more effort and money to send stuff via the US mail then to send off emails."""
ReplyDeleteYou may be right on the postal threats but technicnically Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech any way you look at it. No matter if you say it, write it, type it, put it on a blog, put it on a letter, mail the letter, etc.
And the amount of time it takes to convey your message or it's method of being conveyed is irrelevant as far as the clear guidelines of the constitution are concerned.
The general public is aware that there is an outright attack on our Constitution and I think you will start to see a backlash in all things unconstitutional that we have been subjected to.
I wouldn't underestimate the people's desire to get the government out of our lives and to destroy what once was though of by fringe left as being "acceptable" attacks on the Constitution.
Hooch,
ReplyDeleteThe judge has made it very clear to the jury this is not a 1st amendment case. The only thing they have to consider is were these threats "real" or not.
The threats sent to Pitts, that mayor, college president were sent to public figures. The threats he sent in the mail were to those who are not public figures.
Emotions of the jury will also play into this.
I wish Nikki would have put up a partial verdict as a poll choice.
One thing, you can imagine the laughter coming from Little Harold C Turner if White is convicted on these charges.
Anyhow, good wishes, and we'll see where this goes.
Bullshit, right wingers only believe in free speech when there "freedom of bitching" is being impinged upon. Left winged organizations on the other hand like the Civil Liberties Union have always stood up for it. Bill should be allowed to go free.
ReplyDeleteThe conviction of Bill White would be a Chistmas present come true. The pro-White movement has had enough of this as*hole.
ReplyDeleteFucktard, your brother isn't quite as liberal as you think he is. Don't mix up liberal and libertarian. Sounds like he stands for freedom.
ReplyDelete"""Schwartz says...I wish Nikki would have put up a partial verdict as a poll choice."""
Where is this poll anyway?