I think it depends by municipality. They can take breaks and stuff. And who knows how loud they are talking which could be overheard outside the door or whatever. Plus the judge sometimes speaks with the jury foreman for updates, it's possible a US Marshall overheard that or overheard the judge say it. You wouldn't want a LEO in the jury room as that could be considered intimidation.
on Tim Poole right now- Joe Rogan Michael Malice Drew Hernandez Blair White Alex Jones oh my...I've come.
It's a damn shame that any citizen of the United States of America should be in fear of performing their civic duties. It's been around a long time with organized crime and high profile cases, no doubt about it. Jury tampering has always existed, and likely always will. That said, mob(not mafia) justice has never been at the forefront like it is today. No doubt in my mind jurors are being intimidated by the masses in some, if not all, of these trials. It's a damned shame and makes me fear being judged by a jury of my peers, it used to be the equalizing factor, but not anymore. I'd like to see some new criteria in high profile cases, if not all. All jurors will remain sequestered during the entirety of the trial. All of it, no Holiday or personal exemptions. Sure it would suck for the juror who has tragedy strike outside of the courtroom, in that event they are immediately released and sworn not to speak on the trial or go public, ever. No more making money for being a juror on a high profile case, or even any case. No book deals, no personal appearances, if you go public you commit perjury. Allow media, but not cameras in the courtroom. Media will be isolated from the jury, they can see the judge, the defense and the plaintiffs, but the jury will forever remain anonymous. Somethings got to change in the justice system that instills and preserves the term justice. Not talking that bullchit chant "no justice, no peace", true justice by a jury of your peers. Rittenhouse selected his jurors by lottery, drawing numbers from a bucket or napsack, is that common for juror selection? I have to admit, it is the first time I have heard of it. I'm getting long winded now, but I'll be damned if I want some of the 18+ out there on my trial for whatever it is, almost better going with a bench trial than trial by jury these days, and even that is a political/woke decision that is hard to make.
I would rather have cameras (that do not show the jury) vs reporters. All the reporters have to be biased because media is now all about clicks and views, you don't get either with by simply reporting the facts.
I can agree with that, just a feed of the trial. When the judge starts the day the feed goes live, when he ends the day the feed goes blank. No lead in shows telling what to expect, no summary shows telling what happened and how to interpret it.
the guy from Rekieta Law is getting hammered on YouTube and pontificating.... basically it's me on a live stream after 10pm.. It's hilarious.
