Posted on 11/14/2019 9:22:56 AM PST by Morgana
A California judge with ties to Planned Parenthood told a jury this week that David Daleiden is guilty of trespassing.
The statement from Judge William Orrick came at the conclusion of a month-long trial against Daleiden, Sandra Merritt and others with the Center for Medical Progress who helped to release undercover videos of Planned Parenthood allegedly selling aborted baby body parts for profit.
Planned Parenthood filed the lawsuit accusing them of more than a dozen crimes, including trespassing, breach of confidentiality, wiretapping and conspiracy. The trial is separate from a criminal case against Daleiden and Merritt launched by former California Attorney General Kamala Harris.
The jury currently is deliberating, but before they began, Orrick gave them instructions about how to make their decision, including his decision that Daleiden is guilty, the Daily Wire reports.
I have already determined that these defendants trespassed at each of these locations. Because I determined that these defendants trespassed, the law assumes that Planned Parenthood has been harmed and is entitled to an award of nominal damages such as one dollar for each trespass, he told the jury.
Orrick said the Center for Medical Progress investigators trespassed at the 2014 Forum in Miami, Florida; at the 2015 MeDC meeting in Orlando, Florida; and the 2015 National Conference in Washington, D.C. as well as at the Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain Center in Colorado and a Planned Parenthood Center in Texas.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
Heres more from the report:
The judge said the jury must accept his rulings and only decide if Planned Parenthood suffered damage from the trespass and what damages they should be awarded.
Planned Parenthood originally sought $20 million in damages for trespassing, fraud, and RICO conspiracy against Daleiden and his colleagues. However, Judge Orrick reduced potential damages to $600,000.
The investigative teams lawyers repeatedly have criticized how Orrick handled the case, including refusing to allow key experts to testify and to allow the jury to watch some of the undercover footage obtained by Daleiden and Merritt.
Orrick has close ties to the Planned Parenthood abortion chain, but he refused to recuse himself from the case. Prior to becoming a judge, Orrick served on the board of a San Francisco-area family resource center that shares space and helps run a Planned Parenthood facility that refers for abortions.
The undercover investigation exposed numerous atrocities inside Planned Parenthood abortion facilities across the U.S. Its findings prompted investigations by the U.S. House and Senate, as well as a number of states.
Not only did the Center for Medical Progress investigation raise concerns about potentially illegal sales of human body parts, but it also uncovered evidence of abortionists allegedly putting womens lives at greater risk by altering abortion procedures to better harvest aborted baby parts. The investigators also found evidence of possible patient privacy violations.
Daleiden and his fellow investigators contend that they did not do anything wrong; they are undercover journalists who worked to expose the unethical and potentially illegal harvesting and sales of aborted baby body parts by Planned Parenthood, the nations largest abortion provider.
Peter Breen, Daleidens lawyer, said their goal was to inform the public of potential wrong-doing within the abortion industry. Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar nonprofit that does more abortions than any other group in America and has massive political power, dumping tens of millions of dollars into elections each year.
This case is about the steps it took for private citizen investigators to cut through a curtain of silence and concealment, Breen said in his closing statement. They didnt do it for profit or for personal gain. They did it for the paramount public purpose of letting Americans know and law enforcers investigate whether and to what extent our laws may have been violated.
Earlier in the trial, Orrick allowed the jury to see an ABC News 20/20 investigation from 2000 that sparked Daleidens own investigation. The mainstream news outlet found similar evidence of abortionists selling aborted baby body parts for a profit, in violation of the law.
At another point during the trial, a Planned Parenthood witness admitted that some of the security threats that they blame on Daleidens exposé were not actual threats. Instead, they were letters from people saying they were praying for abortion clinic staff. Still other security incidents were completely unrelated to the undercover investigation.
His refusal to recuse himself will lead to a mistrial.
The judge said the jury must accept his rulings
I would think that the state judicial board, or whoever has oversight over judges, would be taking issue with that. Aside from that, I think this would be a fantastic time for jury nullification.
The $5.5 million award to Food Lion was reduced to 1$ per trespass.
-PJ
Every online source I've seen says that a judge cannot issue a directed verdict of guilt to a jury as that would deprive the defendant of their Constitutional rights to a jury trial.
From: Directed Verdict:
n. a verdict by a jury based on the specific direction by a trial judge that they must bring in that verdict because one of the parties has not proved his/her/its case as a matter of law (failed to present credible testimony on some key element of the claim or of the defense). A judge in a criminal case may direct a verdict of acquittal on the basis the prosecution has not proved its case, but the judge may not direct a verdict of guilty, since that would deprive the accused of the constitutional right to a jury trial.
From: What is a Directed Verdict?:
Though this type of verdict may find a suspected criminal not guilty, it cannot find a defendant guilty. Federal law in the United States gives suspected criminals the right to face a jury of their peers.
I think he may have just opened it up for a retrial to be granted with those instructions.
The Judge ORDERS the Jury to find someone guilty?
I’m no lawyer, but I didn’t think the system worked that way.
I thought the Judge was supposed to remain impartial till the very end. Maybe that’s just on television.
“It is getting increasingly harder to be friends with any Democrat. They will still vote for Democrats even if babies are born alive and put on the side to die. How do you be friends with someone like that?”
Most Democrats I know are immune to facts and truth and reality, but open to fantasy. And they typically care ZERO about the US Constitution. It is a bit different for blue collar folks whose focus is frequently on kitchen table issues and not identity politics. But the identity politics, baby killing and desire to render us defenseless now dominate the D party everywhere it seems. How many honest, moderate federal Democrats are there? Maybe one or two in Congress? Trump drove many to reveal themselves, by effectively calling bluffs, just as Dubya gave cover to the libs.
He’s not issuing a directed verdict.
He has convicted them and is asking the jury to decide the punishment/liability amount. That’s what this amounts to.
that is by definition a kangaroo court
The judge has made it ridiculously easy for an appeals court to vacate any conviction.
This is why, whenever I am called for Jury duty, I tell the judge that I will not promise to follow the jury instructions or any directive from the bench. I then point to some cases such as this where following jury instructions will result in injustice or that will violate my conscience.
So far Ive never been put on a jury.
....and the (R)N(C) will hit on their thumbs instead of impeaching, removing & pushing to disbar this POS ‘judge’
“What the hell does the judge need a jury if he decides guilt or innocence by fiat.”
It’s called a “directed verdict,” and it’s actually a thing.
Can you explain the difference for us non-lawyer types?
There really are conscience issues. Definitely in this case, but what I don’t understand is the judge having the authority to order a jury to find someone guilty.
Is that even legal?
And what happens if the jury or a juror says No? Does he throw them in jail?
If a judge ordered me to find somebody guilty, I would absolutely vote not guilty. I don’t care if the defendant is John Gotti. I’d hang that jury and they go have another trial with a different judge. I’d also complain about that judge through every channel I could including the 6 o’clock news. He clearly shouldn’t be a judge anymore. If he’s elected, I’d be out actively campaigning against him. What a cement-head.
No problem. I’d dare him to do it. I’d have no problem taking a few hundred grand out of that local government and getting him thrown out of his judgeship. Contempt of court for not putting forward the verdict that he wants? Yeah, good luck with that! That judge needs a medical exam and drug test.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.