She will appeal. I have a hard time understanding how they arrived at that when the Ice agent rode down the elevator with the man, and was apprehended outside. So what if they didn’t arrest him in the hallway.
I have a nagging intuition that the court, the defense, and the prosecution might all have misunderstood the thrust of the question the jury sent out from deliberations. The jury had asked about whether Dugan “needed to know” the identity of the person named in the ICE administrative warrant. I’d really like to see both the exact language of the jury’s question and the exact language of the answer the presiding judge sent back to the jury.
Non-litigators might be surprised to learn how often a jury’s question is misunderstood, because lawyers think like lawyers and jurors think like normal humans, and consequently they often misunderstand each other. I suspect there was some miscommunication and misunderstanding either of the jury’s question, the presiding judge’s answer, or both.
UPDATE: I’ve been trying understand how the presiding judge’s answer to questions the jury sent out during deliberations might have influenced the outcome. It’s a fuzzy subject because media reports paraphrase both the questions and the answers, but it’s beginning to appear that both the “not guilty” verdict on the misdemeanor and the “guilty” verdict on the felony might have turned on two similar questions the jury sent out during deliberations—one question about the misdemeanor count and then a separate but similar question about the felony count.
Both questions were as to whether Dugan “needed to know” the identity of the subject of the warrant. Although the jury sent out two similar questions, the two answers to the two similar questions were quite different—favorable to Dugan as to the misdemeanor, but neutral or or slightly unfavorable to Dugan as to the felony. I think the different answers to two similar questions might explain this oddly split verdict.
As to the misdemeanor, presiding judge Adelman's note back to the jury said, “The defendant needed to know the identity of the subject of the warrant.”
But in response to a very similar-sounding question the jury sent out about the felony count, Adelman answered with what sounds like a bit of a non sequitur: “To know of a pending proceeding the defendant needed to have sufficient knowledge about the nature of the proceeding."
The judge’s different answers reflect that the elements of the misdemeanor offense are different than the elements of the felony offense. Because of the way the indictment described the elements of the misdemeanor, conviction on the misdemeanor required knowledge of the identity of the subject of the warrant, while the felony charge—obstruction of a legal proceeding—required “sufficient knowledge” of the existence of the proceeding, but did not require Dugan to possess specific knowledge of the identity of the subject of that proceeding.
At least that’s how this seems to me to have shaken out.
Questions a jury sends out during deliberations terrify litigators—for good reason.
Herman Jacobs … I’m a lay person interested in Justice. Assuming there was a misunderstanding as you describe one to have been (potentially) is this then something that can be introduced in an appeal?
It’s almost certain that the defense will try to make the answers to the jury questions a subject of appeal.
It turns out there were two similar but separate questions about what Dugan “needed to know” about the identity of the person named in the warrant. Different answers were given as to the felony and the misdemeanor, and I’m beginning to conclude that the different answers to the similar questions are the reason for this oddly split verdict.
The answer the judge gave on the misdemeanor was favorable to Dugan, but the answer the judge gave on the felony was not favorable to Dugan. So I think there’s a good chance the defense will make that answer a subject of its appeal.
Thank you Adam. I am heartbroken for Judge Duggan and this country.
Where do we go from here??? I hope she and her lawyers file an appeal!!!
I'm stunned.
American democracy is just hanging on by a thread. What an awful message this case sends.
She will appeal. I have a hard time understanding how they arrived at that when the Ice agent rode down the elevator with the man, and was apprehended outside. So what if they didn’t arrest him in the hallway.
Meanness for meanness sake.
This is a part of the effort to distract from the corruption and criminality of Mr Trump.
I’m too depressed for Judge Duggan. Thanks
I have a nagging intuition that the court, the defense, and the prosecution might all have misunderstood the thrust of the question the jury sent out from deliberations. The jury had asked about whether Dugan “needed to know” the identity of the person named in the ICE administrative warrant. I’d really like to see both the exact language of the jury’s question and the exact language of the answer the presiding judge sent back to the jury.
Non-litigators might be surprised to learn how often a jury’s question is misunderstood, because lawyers think like lawyers and jurors think like normal humans, and consequently they often misunderstand each other. I suspect there was some miscommunication and misunderstanding either of the jury’s question, the presiding judge’s answer, or both.
UPDATE: I’ve been trying understand how the presiding judge’s answer to questions the jury sent out during deliberations might have influenced the outcome. It’s a fuzzy subject because media reports paraphrase both the questions and the answers, but it’s beginning to appear that both the “not guilty” verdict on the misdemeanor and the “guilty” verdict on the felony might have turned on two similar questions the jury sent out during deliberations—one question about the misdemeanor count and then a separate but similar question about the felony count.
Both questions were as to whether Dugan “needed to know” the identity of the subject of the warrant. Although the jury sent out two similar questions, the two answers to the two similar questions were quite different—favorable to Dugan as to the misdemeanor, but neutral or or slightly unfavorable to Dugan as to the felony. I think the different answers to two similar questions might explain this oddly split verdict.
As to the misdemeanor, presiding judge Adelman's note back to the jury said, “The defendant needed to know the identity of the subject of the warrant.”
But in response to a very similar-sounding question the jury sent out about the felony count, Adelman answered with what sounds like a bit of a non sequitur: “To know of a pending proceeding the defendant needed to have sufficient knowledge about the nature of the proceeding."
The judge’s different answers reflect that the elements of the misdemeanor offense are different than the elements of the felony offense. Because of the way the indictment described the elements of the misdemeanor, conviction on the misdemeanor required knowledge of the identity of the subject of the warrant, while the felony charge—obstruction of a legal proceeding—required “sufficient knowledge” of the existence of the proceeding, but did not require Dugan to possess specific knowledge of the identity of the subject of that proceeding.
At least that’s how this seems to me to have shaken out.
Questions a jury sends out during deliberations terrify litigators—for good reason.
Believable/unbelievable. This case seemed flimsy at best. I also hope they appeal the felony.
I would like to see the instructions to the jury
What was the door/ 10 feet away from main exit? The DOJ is full of partisan hacks.
Herman Jacobs … I’m a lay person interested in Justice. Assuming there was a misunderstanding as you describe one to have been (potentially) is this then something that can be introduced in an appeal?
HEARTBROKEN‼️‼️
It’s almost certain that the defense will try to make the answers to the jury questions a subject of appeal.
It turns out there were two similar but separate questions about what Dugan “needed to know” about the identity of the person named in the warrant. Different answers were given as to the felony and the misdemeanor, and I’m beginning to conclude that the different answers to the similar questions are the reason for this oddly split verdict.
The answer the judge gave on the misdemeanor was favorable to Dugan, but the answer the judge gave on the felony was not favorable to Dugan. So I think there’s a good chance the defense will make that answer a subject of its appeal.
Will her attorneys now regret not having objected to the other judge’s suggestion that Dugin was guilty?