Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner
81 - 89 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #81 ·
  1. veterans day applause for a witness
  2. Getting shouted at by the judge generally.
  3. The ringtone on the phone. That 1984 song is played in malls, supermarkets, radios on a regular basis for more than 30 years.
1. Unnecessary and prejudicial.
2. If you really think that getting shouted at by a judge is normal you must hang out in some strange courtrooms. I've spent many an hour photographing and reporting on trials over the past 40-or-so years and I have never heard a judge raise his/her voice to a prosecutor or defense attorney.
3. That ringtone ("God Bless The USA" by Lee Greenwood) has become a right wing trope since 1984 and has been particularly used to gin up support for American military intervention in the Gulf War and its invasion of Iraq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Sorry but I doubt very much that you have been present at length at murder and other trials and at pre trial and in limine hearings where things can get testy out of earshot of juries. I doubt you and your camera had any access at all to hearings in Judges' Chambers. What state or federal district court have you attended and at what trial? The war stories of criminal trial lawyers are legion as to the attitude of judges. I think like most snappers you stood outside.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
51,971 Posts
If you have access to the NY Times, you really should both read this article: Opinion | What the Arbery and Rittenhouse Verdicts Couldn’t Tell Us
Very interesting analysis of exactly what was on trial in each case and especially the comments about the judge in the Rittenhouse trial:
The judge, Bruce Schroeder, also made headlines for his erratic, seemingly uninformed bluster and his general quirkiness. Some of his decisions seemed biased in favor of Mr. Rittenhouse, such as when he barred prosecutors from calling the people Mr. Rittenhouse shot “victims,” saying that the term was “loaded,” but allowed defense lawyers to call them “arsonists” and “looters” if the evidence supported such labels. But Judge Schroeder is no anomaly. He is 75 years old and the longest-serving circuit judge in Wisconsin. Anyone who has practiced criminal law or even attended a trial knows that plenty of judges are not the objective and omniscient arbiters of popular imagination: They are idiosyncratic and sometimes biased. I’d like to live in a world where judges, whatever their personal quirks, are similarly respectful of indigent clients, but a conviction here would not have made it so.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
51,971 Posts
And another excellent piece in today's NYT.

There is also a reference to the local prosecutor, who had a "conflict of interest" which is why they had to bring in someone from outside the area for the case. I've seen another article (but not sure where) saying that the "conflicted" original prosecutor has just turned herself in as she is under indictment for using her influence to keep the local law enforcement authorities from hauling in the three guys who were just convicted of the murder.

Sometimes things go right in the justice system over there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #86 ·
Sorry but I doubt very much that you have been present at length at murder and other trials and at pre trial and in limine hearings where things can get testy out of earshot of juries. I doubt you and your camera had any access at all to hearings in Judges' Chambers. What state or federal district court have you attended and at what trial? The war stories of criminal trial lawyers are legion as to the attitude of judges. I think like most snappers you stood outside.
Doubt all you like. Your dismissal of another's experience is in no way surprising. It seems to show just how little respect many lawyers, have for other people's opinions because they are not "lawyers".
Kind of sad, but Shakespeare may have been right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Doubt all you like. Your dismissal of another's experience is in no way surprising. It seems to show just how little respect many lawyers, have for other people's opinions because they are not "lawyers".
Kind of sad, but Shakespeare may have been right.
You write that you have photographed many trials over 40 years. I call you out on that. No federal court permits photographic equipment in federal criminal trials. In the 50 states and their trial courts the majority forbid this except by special application. And any such access is relatively recent in the life of the law. See the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for all the details. Good luck with your photography.
 
81 - 89 of 89 Posts
Top