Turn your food waste into dirt with the press of a button with Lomi. Use the code LAWNERD to save $50 at lomi.com/LAWNERD Go to shopify.com/lawnerd to take your business to the next level today.
Here's an alternate idea....compost out in your yard. If you are doing it right (enough "green/live" content to "brown/dry" content) it doesn't smell that much at all, and it is KEWL! The steam coming out of a pile on a cold morning because it is so hot (which kills germs, seeds, and most everything) is just so satisfying. And the compost that comes out at the end is marvelous..I have TWO pallet box sized areas where I compost and it's no trouble at all....
@Theemilydbaker Idaho is such a small state, that majority of families in this state have had at least one family member who attended U of I. These proceedings being televised is not going to change jury pool. Everyone knows about this, it’s just going to come down to facts.
That's as good of a solution as there can be. Balancing transparency while limiting media sabotage. If the cameras are fixed, the defense lawyer can even position herself just right to minimize the view of her client. I would also order the cameras be 480p.
I believe ALL trials should have cameras or at minimum a live stream that's posted for a couple years. The Depp/Heard trial made me think that after the media essentially lied about what was happening, but in general it helps people get justice if they can go back and watch their trial and use it to try and get a retrial or something.
@@Aaron-kj8dvYep, we can't just take the media at its word anymore. It's sad and stupid, but it's what it's come to. I've been avoiding MSM like the plague for ages now, since they clearly can't actually report on the news anymore. They're all biased, every last channel. Letting the public see what really happens is a necessary check on both the media and the courts.
I understand why he wants them out. But I still can’t help but think of the Depp/Heard trial and the misrepresentation that would have happened (even worse than what occurred) if we hadn’t seen it with our own eyes. To me, the more we see, the more the media is held accountable for their lies and bias. Which, in my opinion, could only benefit him if he’s adamant about being innocent.
Exactly. I doubt this case is real: gag order agreed by both :parties," motions under seal by defense, defense asking for removal of cameras. In addition to the flimsy evidence, refusal by prosecution to provide discovery with zero sanctions, judge judge, etc.Hoax
Yep, as we watched it the media was reporting a different spin than what was really happening. We live in a connected world. there should be cameras in ALL court rooms with a live stream going.
I think banning cameras and keeping everything private pretrial is totally fine amd warranted if you're worried about poisoning the Jury pool. But the trial itself should 100% be broadcast, even if its delayed
I think you have a great and reasonable compromise. I have learned so much about our judicial system just watching trials and listening to EDB. I would hate to lose the opportunity with this kind of evidence.
Its good for us, but at the same time it does lead to skewing a judge's rulings, or a person's testimony when they know they're on camera. But not always in the negative or positive.
In a town in Kansas, we had at least two hundred prospective jurors for a high profile case. It was a madhouse waiting to see who was picked jury duty in that case.
Good Morning Emily&Lawnerds and Good Afternoon from North Yorkshire, England. Hope everyone is well, I really hope they take all of the parents wishes into account when deciding to allow cameras or not, they are going to be going through so much as it is 😞 sending them continued healing love&light💜X
As insensitive as it sounds, I hope not. Criminal trials are the state (on behalf of the public) vs the defendant, the public has a major legitimate interest in criminal cases being publicly broadcast. If they want to sue him, then their wishes about it being broadcast in civil court should be considered
I support gag order before trial. But full camera and audio DURING trial. Saying having camera in court room during actual trials prejudices the defendant is assuming Juries will violate the court order. Don’t assume that if defendant wants to be assumed innocent.
In a republic, it is the DUTY of the people to keep constant and vigilant watch that the politicians, courts and executive branch are obeying the rules. Without constant watch, these instances starts to make rules of them own, which directly against the idea of "we the people". Therefore having the possibility public at large to watch the proceedings is crucial. And therefore TV cameras in the court should and MUST obey the rules of the court so the court couldn't come up with reason to remove this important right.
Morning Emily, I just came across that delightful judge that was on Alex Murdaugh trial and he was salty with the defense attorney and had not even heard opening statements
Ah that’s where I remember the ‘Bring the Jury’ judge from, I remember it being a thing when watching Emily, but couldn’t remember what trial I remembered him from, thank you. Love him 💜x
@@sarahlouisehogan it’s the mother and her bf who purposely placed her disabled daughter in a hot car and left her, claiming to have lost the keys, for 5 hours before they raised the alarm 😞 absolutely horrendous, I’ve been watching on Law&Crime X
If the courts manage to find juries for school shootings or people running over parades, this is not different. A lot of people are not interested in news about this case, wouldn't be following it or watching pretrial proceedings. I get where the defense is coming from, but this is just not that big of an issue IMO.
I already have issues with DA and media releasing details about charges before trial. Supposedly we are innocent until proven guilty, but by releasing information about trial, it contaminates jury pool
I don’t know why PCA is released to the public. It goes against ensuring a fair trial and presumption of innocence. It leads one to be tried by the media and public way before actual trial happens.
Can you please look into Ruby/8 Passengers, and Jody situation? Ruby and Jody ran a cannel called Connections and they were just arrested for the abuse of 4 of Ruby's children. New Law Nerd here thank you so much for explaining everything in a way that is easy to understand!
It makes me so mad that the reason we are going to lose cameras in the courtroom is because of Court TV. They should know better !! They are Court TV. This is what they do. I really hope the Judge doesn’t throw cameras out. I’m so glad you spoke about the 24 reasons. I looked up and researched every single one of them that Anne listed to understand what these rules were. I went down so many rabbit holes. Lol. I learned a lot though.
Personally, I think they should ALL have cameras. Whether it is of interest to the public or not. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court proceedings were private/secret. I really have a problem with that.
I totally think there should be cameras, we are in 2023 and we all see what we see on social media, etc. I do not believe this will affect the jury at all. Their job is solely in the courtroom, nothing else. Thank you Emily for covering this case!
That AND that those broadcasting about the case were mostly being biased in violation of what the judge wanted. Then there is the hoards of people declaring at the tops of their lungs that BK IS, in fact, guilty that those broadcasters are playing to. It's turned it into a circus and a farce.
There are filters that can be placed on the monitor that prevents anyone from seeing it unless you are sitting immediately in front of the monitor. These would make it look as if there is a fog over the screen. We use these in the hospital.
I don’t know if you’re in the path of the hurricane, but please stay safe. I was on the phone with one of my clients who resides in Florida yesterday and she said she was preparing for it. I feel so bad for Florida residents who get hit year after year. I don’t miss the storms when I used to live back East. Now I deal with wildfires. Well, the smoke from the fires. I’m in the city. But my car is currently covered in ash from last week’s fire in Spokane.
Makes Court TV look really bad. Like they are a decently sized media organization that produces many hit shows yet they cant reign in a single camera operator? What an embarrassment.
Judge Judge needs to control his courtroom. Can Judge Judge hand out fines? I watched and the camera was zooming in on BKs face. I had to look away because I felt I was being intrusive.
With regards to cameras in the courtroom; would a possible solution be that courts hire their own camera person to run a single broadcast camera? All media outlets would have to use the output of the single camera. This way no outlet has priority and the camera operator, being a court employee, would have to follow court orders of what can/cannot be filmed.
Something that really confuses me is that he is using public defenders correct? How can they justify giving him unlimited funds to pay these attorneys for him to nit pick and attempt to throw out every single solitary thing in this case! If a middle class person were to be in his position and had to pay for his own lawyers they wouldn’t be able to afford this type of defense.
Cameras keep transparency alive and working in our legal system. Imho, the defense is making a big mistake arguing against cameras in the courtroom. From the mugshot, to the probable cause statement, and information broadcast from the beginning of this case, the public was tainted against the defendant. Every Court should have cameras which prevent prosecutorial misconduct or on he flip side, defense misconduct. In the day and age of social media, it's beyond absurd to think closing the court is going to stop people having online opinions about this or any other case. Same for the media, unless we're now going to close all court proceedings to print and t.v. media too.
Big difference between static camera shots of the attorneys tables, and podium, and the witness box, compared to the editorial discretion to make closeups of the defendant etc. Cameras for transparency should be static, and run by the court. Not an editorial hit
In my country, the media can’t even disclose the identity of the defendant (and victims) unless they have consent from the defendant or the court. Hearings/trials aren’t televised and court documents aren’t publicly available and we don’t even have 12 ignorant randos from the streets, brainwashed by the media, deciding someone’s fate, we have 3-4 professional judges deciding on the verdict. The privacy laws protect the integrity of the case/trial and people involved like defendant’s/vitctim’s family. They also protect the defandant if they’re acquitted.
The American media don't know how lucky they are to have cameras in the court at all. They need to follow the rules or they might end up with a case going to the current Supreme Court (we all know how much they love freedoms) resulting in the situation many countries face whereby only a single Court-approved sketch artist is allowed. Don't poke the bear! 🖤
My real question is are the cameras really unfairly focused on him in the hearing or is this secondary sources taking and editing/selecting what they want from a larger group of photos and the secondary sources are choosing to focus on him.
I swear Emily has the best sponsors. I bought the backbone off her channel for my husband and he loves it and I’ve already been eyeing the lomi for a little while.
I would also like to know if they had manipulated the photos themselves when showing this in court. What I mean is zooming in and cropping pictures intentionally. And if other people on the Internet or cropping and zooming that's not the media's fault
I would love to see the trial but the courtroom is so small and the parking is almost nonexistent. There may be enough spots for the jury but would they would need to be bussed in.
Hey, what do you think about Murdaugh’s lawyers, today having a press conference about wanting a new trial, and some kind of new evidence now, potentially?
I’m so definitely with you on wanting the Sweater Weather to hurry and arrive! I loath “sweaty” weather as I can’t regulate my body temperature (stupid body, stupid autoimmune diseases) and have spent so much of the last couple of months hovering between heat exhaustion and heatstroke it’s been a nightmare.... You my dear Ms Baker have been a wonderful distraction if I synced with your timezone though, so though thank you soo much for helping me keep some sanity ❤
Calling at least 1000 people for jury duty isn’t surprising considering the notoriety of this case, but it’s mind-blowing when you consider there are only 40,000 people in all of Latah County!
CSPAN. Doesn't CSPAN have a practical SOP for A/V - trials are serious, not 'reality TV shows', literally life or death serious. NO ZOOM. All that is necessary for a practical, balanced, for-the-record coverage is a stationary shot from the perspective of an attendee in the front row of the gallery, eg... Where are the fing adults in the room?!!
You'd think so but the Depp-v-Heard case proved that it's all about the PR going on outside the court. Heard's PR openly claimed things happened in court that just didn't happen at all - even though the cameras were there. 🖤
You would think so but if he's guilty (i think he is) and the case is strong against him it will make him look bad to the world and his lawyers cant put a spin on it. Which is exactly why we should have cameras. Like Depp v. Heard, as we all watched Amber blatantly lie, the press was reporting it will a slightly different spin, trying to make her look better than what was really happening. Exactly why we need cameras.
I was shocked too. I'm not from the US and had thought along similar lines as you. Somehow I had imagined a guilty verdict would mean an immediate penalty of death. My country doesn't have any form of jury trial, and we also don't have the death penalty, so this is all quite new to me. I'm not sure if I'd be willing to serve on a jury in a death penalty case, it's a heavy burden to bear. I hope, despite all the media attention for this case, the defendant can have a fair trial.
I didn't know it & I am American but am not well versed in legal issues. I think that's a VERY difficult issue to place on jury members. They surely don't want that in their conscience, but some may want that. I wouldn't.
I would like your (EB) opinion in the Defense's claim of prosecutorial misconduct AND witness tampering using the FBI. If this was YOUR case. Would you want a Defense attorney to be allowed to make the claims against you AND then get all after that closed to the public? What if you were an elected Prosecutor? Are there any BAR rules that apply to conduct like this?
Loamy feels like “Why give your extra food to the hungry when you can turn it into dirt you’ll probably never use?” But I understand that the technical difficulties are very real & dirt that you can store is still better than rotting in the trash
It's not for "extra food", it's for food scrap- you know, banana and potato peels and gross spots cur out of apples. I guarantee you no one is throwing edible, good food into these things. The hungry aren't any worse off because a composting machine exists. It's for food that's gone off.
I dunno, if it's a juror issue you'd think anyone who hasn't watched any news reports on the I4 event certainly wouldn't be interested in these motion hearings.
