Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (93661)	11/29/2005 3:45:02 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 122087

I see lots of folks here who want to BELIEVE, but they aren't putting themselves in the chair of a federal appeals court judge who hears hundreds of criminal appeals without merit. It's like an NFL official replay challenge; you have to have clear overwhelming evidence that the decision made before should be overturned. Venue and "maybe-9/11-tainted-someone" are weak at best in that light. It's a reach, not a solid platform to shoot from. I would love to hear a discussion of actual precedents where venue overturned a conviction, or suspicion of bias due to outside events. I imagine successful appeals on those grounds are pretty rare for federal trials. Let's face it, if you break federal law, who cares where you were versus where you were tried? The same federal law applies in all 50 states. Trying to say that a New York jury was tainted by 9/11 and thus bought into a mountain of prosecution evidence that the defense never undermined at cross and in their case is going to get laughed out of Appeals Court, IMHO. It's such an obvious evasion of the actual event as established at trial. Which was always the problem with Tony's defense. They never shot down the evidence against him point by point. They just keep making extraneous cases about extraneous reasons that might have played some role. Don't hold your breath.