• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

Russell Brand.

I literally just searched for “Well-known' man asks court to stop publication of sexual offence allegation” from the twitter post.

Edit: too slow.
 
Last edited:
Maple Leaf said:
Well, it didn't make any difference to his career trajectory. After that he got a presenter job at Radio X and was later fired from that for more misbehaviour, then he got another TV presenting job. Courting controversy works for these entertainers. No publicity is bad publicity etc.
Click to expand...
Russell can now dream of a future like jeffrey archer
Brand recent career seems in the same mold as tate , rogan .. social media influencers for people who have hours to burn on their phones and are mesmerized by these guys.
 
There’s plenty of churches he could drag his carcass along to on a Sunday morning rather than arsing about on YouTube… mind you, I wouldn’t want to make work for some poor safeguarding officer, so maybe it’s best he stays at home. He probably couldn’t monetise that either.

What a scrote.
 
But if he did it at Church then how could he use it as a proxy for evidence of his benign nature and spiritual leanings while also forgoing the bank he's likely making from his online advertising of said spiritual leanings?!
 
I’m afraid he hasn’t aged well either, looks like a grey skeleton and quite scruffy looking with his greasy hair. You could tell back in his day a tone of time and money was spent on dolling him up in the hair and makeup room.

That bible stuff though…
 
@Colonel_Klinck that's not actually true, the prosectution needs 10 out 12 jury members to get a conviction.

I didn't think historical crimes would convict but the amount of witnesses, the strength of their testimony and witnesses that back up that they claimed it happened at the time is pretty damning. He's lucky the women in the documentary didn't come forward too.

Apparently if he's convicted on multiple charges it will be consecutive and not concurrent sentences. So he could be looking at 15+ years.
 
Last edited:
ANDREW GREEN said:
@Colonel_Klinck that's not actually true, the prosectution needs 10 out 12 jury members to get a conviction.

I didn't think historical crimes would convict but the amount of witnesses, the strength of their testimony and witnesses that back up that they claimed it happened at the time is pretty damning. He's lucky the women in the documentary didn't come forward too.

Apparently if he's convicted on multiple charges it will be consecutive and not concurrent sentences. So he could be looking at 15+ years.
Click to expand...

I thought we had only all 12 jurors in agreement. That might change things then.

edit: seems I was mixing up UK and US. They don't allow non unanimous verdicts
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
I thought we had only all 12 jurors in agreement. That might change things then.

edit: seems I was mixing up UK and US. They don't allow non unanimous verdicts
Click to expand...
IIRC US depends on which state, what the crime was, and if it was federal or not.
IIRC some are unanimous, some require it to be unanimous for certain crimes/penalties (death penalty) but otherwise might allow a majority verdict.
 
One charge amended to 'attempted indecent assault' rather than 'indecent assault' by the judge because it seems Brand wasn't succesful in dragging the victim into a toilet...
 
Last edited:
The other case featuring a well-known celebrity is becoming contested based on fairly high stakes.

Important note: Mr Justice Nicklin, the judge overseeing the case, opened the trial with a warning about online speculation over PPT’s identity.

"Individual seeks permanent injunction against Guardian and ITN to block claims, citing high risk of suicide".

"In written submissions to the court in London, the news outlets said the allegations involved more than 30 sources with first-hand accounts, as part of a “wide-ranging and rigorous investigation”.

However, at the opening of a two-day trial, PPT’s legal team argued it was a “highly exceptional” case in which publishing was likely to lead to the death of the claimant.

In a written submission to the court, the claimant’s legal team said that he suffered from “very severe mental health problems”.

“It is important to understand that this drastic effect on the claimant is not from guilt of the wrongdoing alleged (which is denied) but because of shame arising from deep-rooted childhood trauma and the fear of ‘trial by media’,” it stated."
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC US depends on which state, what the crime was, and if it was federal or not.
IIRC some are unanimous, some require it to be unanimous for certain crimes/penalties (death penalty) but otherwise might allow a majority verdict.
Click to expand...

Yeah there was a law change in 2020 with a SC case.


ChatGBT
does US allow non unanimous verdicts in criminal trials?

No. In the United States, a criminal jury must generally reach a unanimous verdict to convict. This applies in both federal and state courts for serious criminal offences.

The key legal decision is the US Supreme Court case Ramos v. Louisiana (2020), which established that the Sixth Amendment's unanimity requirement applies to state as well as federal criminal trials.



How
  • Federal criminal trials: Guilty verdicts must be unanimous.
  • State criminal trials: Unanimity is also required to convict of serious offences.
  • A split jury: If jurors cannot agree unanimously, the result is generally a hung jury. The judge may declare a mistrial, and prosecutors may be able to retry the defendant.
  • Civil trials: Different rules apply; some states permit non-unanimous civil verdicts.
The federal rule is explicit: Rule 31(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a jury's verdict must be unanimous.

favicons

U.S. Code+1

Historical note: Before the 2020 Ramos ruling, Louisiana and Oregon permitted non-unanimous guilty verdicts in certain criminal cases. That is no longer constitutionally permitted for serious offences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom