The Grand Old Nonce of York: Andy's trial is GO

[jamiefairlie]

What's this from?

Deadhead?

[Mr Farenheit]

I can't find the piece now, but apparently if you disagree with him you get told to "fuck off out my office"

I hope he says this to the judge

[Bigfella]

Lessons to be learned: if you get into trouble, don't get burdened with the phrase 'he denies any wrongdoing.'  When you hear it on the news you can't help thinking the worst, can you?  It's turned out to be a lie in every case bar Cliff Richard.

[Butchers Blind]

It's turned out to be a lie in every case bar Cliff Richard.

We'll wait on that one. I'm sure there's dirt there.

[SpiderChrist]

Lessons to be learned: if you get into trouble, don't get burdened with the phrase 'he denies any wrongdoing.'  When you hear it on the news you can't help thinking the worst, can you?  It's turned out to be a lie in every case bar Cliff Richard.

Ah there's some nasty shit there, I'm sure if it.

[Bigfella]

Maybe a bit cynical? Cliff seems such a nice guy.  Just like Rolf Harri-  ...Oh.

[touchingcloth]

Lessons to be learned: if you get into trouble, don't get burdened with the phrase 'he denies any wrongdoing.'  When you hear it on the news you can't help thinking the worst, can you?  It's turned out to be a lie in every case bar Cliff Richard.

There's another phrase that always makes you think bad things are going to happen to the person it refers to that I hope we hear about Andy: "...acted as his own defence".

[Bigfella]

There's another phrase that always makes you think bad things are going to happen to the person it refers to that I hope we hear about Andy: "...acted as his own defence".

Along with justice for Virginia Giuffre, I really want Andrew to be mercilessly quizzed by a hotshot lawyer.  Don't know how it works, maybe he has to undergo it even if he has his own lawyer.

[Alberon]

It differs from state to state, but is there a chance this would be televised?

[touchingcloth]

Along with justice for Virginia Giuffre, I really want Andrew to be mercilessly quizzed by a hotshot lawyer.  Don't know how it works, maybe he has to undergo it even if he has his own lawyer.

I'm not sure people can ever be forced to undergo questioning. OJ was never cross-examined in his criminal trial because his lawyers didn't call him to give testimony in his own defence. This contrasts with the piece of shit cop Furman who was called to testify for the prosecution, which meant he was required to at least sit in the box and be questioned by the defence attorneys, though this resulted in him repeatedly asserting his right to remain silent. In the extremely unlikely event that Andy actually ends up in the courtroom, I can't see him being actually called to testify by his defence team because even staying silent in the ensuing cross-examination would be terrible PR.

I'm not sure if criminal trials in California are run anything like how civil cases in New York are heard, mind.

It differs from state to state, but is there a chance this would be televised?

Sadly I can't see the court appearance even happening. All of the options available to Andy are terrible, but probably the ones involving not going to court are the least bad.

[Paul Calf]

It wouldn't have been okay if she was 18. (Edit: Even if the ability to pursue her case in this manner at this time is predicated on allegations of crimes relating to her age.)

Yeah, this. But  I do wish British people would stop calling Randy a paedo who 'had sex with children' unless they're prepared to accept the same of any other British person who has ever at any point in their life had (consensual) sex with a 17-year-old.

[Dr Rock]

Remember when 39 year old Jerry Seinfeld was dating a 17 year old? (in real life, not on an episode of the show). Fucking peodo.

[dissolute ocelot]

I'm not sure people can ever be forced to undergo questioning. OJ was never cross-examined in his criminal trial because his lawyers didn't call him to give testimony in his own defence. This contrasts with the piece of shit cop Furman who was called to testify for the prosecution, which meant he was required to at least sit in the box and be questioned by the defence attorneys, though this resulted in him repeatedly asserting his right to remain silent. In the extremely unlikely event that Andy actually ends up in the courtroom, I can't see him being actually called to testify by his defence team because even staying silent in the ensuing cross-examination would be terrible PR.

I'm not sure if criminal trials in California are run anything like how civil cases in New York are heard, mind.

Sadly I can't see the court appearance even happening. All of the options available to Andy are terrible, but probably the ones involving not going to court are the least bad.

I think rules for civil trials are different. In the US, you can't incriminate yourself in a criminal matter that you might be put on trial for, but you can be forced to testify in some situations: if there's no prosecutable crime, the case can't be brought to trial, or there's a deal not to prosecute, or possibly in other situations, someone may be forced to testify. But I think it's quite complicated and will vary from state to state.

But if he's not in the US, he can't be forced to testify, so he could try not turning up and rely on his lawyers to get him off.

[oy vey]

No way the defence lawyers will allow it to be televised but if it does go to court it will likely be video recorded, and if he is found guilty the footage will end up online. Pretty much all of OJs civil trial is on YouTube. If you want to see a cunt being a cunt for several days of testimony you'll do no better.

[jobotic]

No way they'll let him speak in court, he's so weird and unpleasant.

[touchingcloth]

But if he's not in the US, he can't be forced to testify, so he could try not turning up and rely on his lawyers to get him off.

He could be compelled to appear and then found guilty in absentia of failing to appear, perhaps? So a criminal charge relating to actions in a civil case, or at least it being made impossible for him to travel to or hold assets in the US for fear of being detained and nobbled for the payment.

[Dr Rock]

As I understand it, it's not far off Judge Judy, in that (if you attend, and I say he will, in the hope that his silver tongue will win him his innocence - by far the best outcome for him, however unrealistic it may seem to everyone else that the judgment will go that way) you have to answer any questions put to you.

[Ferris]

I know fuck all about civil trials (and only next to fuck all about criminal trials), but I think he can decline to answer? But because there's "only" money on the line, people typically take the stand if only to seem remorseful and (hopefully) get their fine reduced at the end.

I don't think this can devolve into criminal proceedings can it? Contempt of (civil) court escalates it maybe? Must do more reading.

[Dr Rock]

If he doesn't answer, Judge Judy (or whoever) can say 'I direct you to answer the question' in which case 'I don't remember' is the next best thing to not answering. Not answering will mean you lose.

[Thursday]

Christ imagine if he does actually go to prison though. Could really bring the country together. Maybe a special bank holiday to celebrate?

[oy vey]

He can decline to take part or answer specific questions, pleading the fifth. There are many routes to the nonce graveyard here.

[Ferris]

He can decline to take part or answer specific questions, pleading the fifth. There are many routes to the nonce graveyard here.

He's not American or a US resident - does the constitution (especially the 5th amendment against self-incrimination) apply to him? Genuinely no idea. Google reckons no, though.

If he turns up and the court finds against him, as long as he does what he's supposed to (turns up, answers questions, doesn't try and bribe anyone etc) then I don't think jail time is possible because it isn't a criminal court but we've gone way beyond what I know about the law (which is fuck all).

[earl_sleek]

He's not American or a US resident - does the constitution (especially the 5th amendment against self-incrimination) apply to him? Genuinely no idea. Google reckons no, though.

The Bill of Rights (which includes the 5th) applies to everybody.

...[T]he Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

But:

While defendants are entitled to assert the right against compelled self-incrimination in a civil court case, there are consequences to the assertion of the right in such an action.

The Supreme Court has held that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, "[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, 'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" "'Failure to contest an assertion ... is considered evidence of acquiescence ... if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.'"

So it might not help him anyway.

[Ferris]

So it might not help him anyway.

Appreciate the pointer!

Yeah sounds like the opposite in fact - in criminal courts you have to be dead neutral about someone not testifying, but the fact you can take that as evidence in civil trials is bad news for Andy. Fantastic.

[touchingcloth]

The 5th amendment is a bit odd. I find it weird that it can't be used as evidence of wrongdoing in criminal proceedings when its purpose is to allow for people to not incriminate themselves, so the fact that someone invoking it surely means that they are hiding something they reasonably believe to be evidence of a crime?

[Ferris]

The 5th amendment is a bit odd. I find it weird that it can't be used as evidence of wrongdoing in criminal proceedings when its purpose is to allow for people to not incriminate themselves, so the fact that someone invoking it surely means that they are hiding something they reasonably believe to be evidence of a crime?

Or may just be misconstrued as evidence of a crime.

If I'm on trial, maybe I can't tell you where I was the night of the murder because I was rustling cattle two towns over. I don't want to get in the shit for that, but I'm innocent (of this murder charge anyway) so I'm keeping shtum about what I was up to that night - I plead the fifth.

Or maybe it's something like having an affair or just pissed out your brains and you don't remember. Not necessarily indicative of committing a crime, but if you tell a jury what you were up to they may assume the worst regardless of how fair that is. In that case, you're better off staying quiet.

I'm interested that juries can assume the worst about you if you plead the fifth in a civil trial though. I suppose it's due to the lower level of proof required.

[oy vey]

Yeah weird one alright. The whole civil differences to criminal court thing further confuses but one thing's for sure, you only need 50.1% of the jury to find you guilty. I also imagine a guilty "liability" verdict will open the doors for a criminal case.

On the flip side, Mr. Andy could appeal the civil result and/or slow down whatever cash he has to dole out. Winning x millions doesn't mean you see much or any of it.

[Alberon]

Has he the funds for a protracted rearguard action like that? Mummy might have cut him off as well as taking back all his titles.

[Blue Jam]

Has he the funds for a protracted rearguard action like that? Mummy might have cut him off as well as taking back all his titles.

Mummy is no longer funding his legal team, which is why he's had to sell his Swiss chalet:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/inside-17m-swiss-chalet-prince-25909052

Yep, he's fucked.

[Ferris]

Not seeing the money after winning the case is usually because the other party is bankrupt. Even if he doesn't have the cash, you can go after his assets etc in civil court (example: the plaintiffs only won the rights to OJ's book because his only income was his NFL pension, and retirement stuff is specifically untouchable in civil suits).

How many houses, hunting estates and Swiss chalets does No Sweat own? Doubt he can cry poor to a court.

Mummy is no longer funding his legal team, which is why he's had to sell his Swiss chalet:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/inside-17m-swiss-chalet-prince-25909052

Yep, he's fucked.

I think that's a PR thing but push comes to shove she'll fund him the whole way because The Firm are being implicated in all this. It's like Avon funding D'Angelo's defence in season one of The Wire - it's family, and they could all look bad if one of them is found guilty.