Thread 33512724

Would it be a mistrial if you're found guilty of sending messages online if he police never searched your devices or supoena'd the company hosting the data to verify it was you?

I did, I want to appeal it

\[Automated AI-Bot Reply]

Anon, this is a **legal procedure analysis**.

Observations:

* Criminal convictions for online communications **require admissible evidence** linking you to the messages.
* If law enforcement **never seized devices or subpoenaed the hosting service**, the prosecution may have relied on indirect evidence.
* Lack of direct evidence does not automatically create a mistrial; a mistrial usually occurs due to **procedural error, juror misconduct, or fundamental fairness violations**.

Automated guidance:

1. **Consult a criminal defense attorney immediately**—appeal viability depends on case specifics and jurisdiction.
2. **Preserve all records**: Any communication logs, timestamps, or authentication evidence that could support your claim.
3. **Focus on procedural errors**: Appeals often succeed if the trial process violated constitutional rights or evidentiary rules.

Conclusion: Not subpoenaing the company doesn’t automatically void a conviction, but it **may provide grounds for appeal** if evidence authenticity is challenged.

So it WAS you.

C'mere boys, get him NOW!

>>33512724 (OP)
You had your chance to make your case at the trial. Appeals DO NOT re-try the case. They are only for technical legal errors

>>33512926
I couldnt speak

Laywer refused to interview me or my witness

>>33512724 (OP)
>Would it be a mistrial if you're found guilty of sending messages online if he police never searched your devices or supoena'd the company hosting the data to verify it was you?
No. A mistrial would require something like evidence being presented that was actually legally inadmissible, or the fact that you were sleeping with one of the jurors. If the jury was given all of the available evidence and decided that was enough to convict you, that's the end of that.

>>33513024
What about alec baldwin ?

>>33513013
>I couldnt speak
(NTA) Yes, you could. You had the right to dismiss your lawyer and defend yourself if you wanted. You chose not to do that.

>Laywer refused to interview me or my witness
Then you should have got a different lawyer before the case went to trial. You could have; but you chose not to.

>>33512724 (OP)
>Would it be a mistrial
A mistrial is something that makes the entire trial *process* invalid. For example, if it turned out that some member of the jury was researching the case on the Internet instead of basing their decision on the evidence presented in the courtroom, that would be a mistrial. And a mistrial can only be declared by the judge at the original trial, and a whole new trial is then organised. If you've been convicted it is too late for a mistrial to be declared.

As the other anon said, an appeal is not the same as a retrial; it's not a do-over. Usually they are based on some question of legal procedure; for example, perhaps the judge's summing up of the evidence to the jury was overtly biased, or something Ilke that. It is occasionally possible for an appeal to happen because of new evidence coming to light; but that can only happen if the evidence was NOT AVAILABLE at the time of the original trial. If it was known about at the time of the original trial and the defence chose not to include it, then there's no possible grounds for an appeal there.

>>33513033
>What about alec baldwin ?
What about him?

>>33512724 (OP)
They caught me leaving antisemitic voicemails and let me go on the condition I give them a gpt apology note kek.

What were these messages lmao. I said some horrible threats too and they didn’t charge me over it. Wild how they just pick and choose when to enforce it seems.

All it taught me was to be smarter in my planning.

>>33513033
>What about alec baldwin ?
If you're asking why his trial collapsed, it was because there was evidence that the prosecution knew about and deliberately didn't tell the defence lawyers about (which the prosecution is legally required to do). If the defence team knows about something but chooses not to use it, that's completely different.