Mongols Jury Was Confused

February 11, 2019

All Posts, News

Mongols Jury Was Confused

One of the jurors who found the turn of phrase “Mongol Nation” guilty of racketeering last December, admitted today that the jury made a mistake.

In a batch of four motions filed late Thursday afternoon by Mongols attorney Joseph A. Yanny, Juror Number Two, a citizen named Eric Garcia told the court:

“I am submitting this declaration because I feel ethically compelled to do so as I do not want to see an injustice and I therefore feel an obligation to speak up. It is my belief and, I am informed, the belief of others jurors as well who served with me in the Mongols Nation trial that we reached the wrong decision in our verdict in the guilt phase. For these reasons. I felt the need to write a letter to the Court and hand deliver it approximately Friday a week ago. I also sent a copy to both the prosecution and the defense lawyers.”

“Once jury deliberations began for the guilt phase of the trial, the jury never re-read any of the jury instructions. The jury instructions were held exclusively ny the foreperson and not distributed to the group at all during the initial guilt phase deliberations.”

“During the closing arguments on the forfeiture phase, when defense counsel place some of the guilt phase jury instructions on the overhead projector, it was then that I and several other jurors realized that a mistake had already been made.”

The declaration was attached to motions filed in reply to the government’s opposition to previous motions for a directed verdict of not guilty an, failing that, a new trial.


12 Responses to “Mongols Jury Was Confused”

  1. freebird Says:

    One of very few times in my life i respect the judge in this case for the life he has lived

    I have to believe this Judge knows what needs to be done with this crippled horse

    Standard issue Colt M1911 45ACP

    One is all you need…… but what the hell, just empty the clip……

  2. Brownie Says:

    (What ever Says:
    February 13, 2019 at 12:27 pm
    Maybe grounds for a mistrial. I was always under the impression that the jury instructions were read to the jury prior to deliberations. That way if there were questions the judge could answer them. At least that has been my experience.)

    The one time I sat on a criminal trial jury this was the case. The first thing done was to read the jury instructions. When a question arose of the exact meaning of one of the items the jury foreman notified the bailiff so the judge could come and clarify. For the jury foreman to hold the instructions like some sort of super secret document seems suspicious at the very least.

  3. jrino Says:

    “Mongol Nation” was never adjudicated by a jury of it’s peers! Find 12 unbiased “Nations” within the United States to sit on the jury!!!! LOL!

  4. Old & Jaded Says:

    Speaking of confused…saw this update re the Waco cases and thought others might like to read it.

  5. What ever Says:

    Maybe grounds for a mistrial. I was always under the impression that the jury instructions were read to the jury prior to deliberations. That way if there were questions the judge could answer them. At least that has been my experience.

  6. david Says:

    Maybe, persecutors Welk and Brunwin owned the jury foreperson.

  7. freebird Says:

    This would make a great newspaper cartoon…..

    Pin the tail on the donkey

  8. Stevo Says:

    Was the Jury Forewoman called Hoe Chi Ciccone?

  9. Trebor Says:

    Personally dont care for the way this club carries itself but what affects one affects all.Hope this latest news brings justice for them.

  10. Paladin Says:

    This comes as no surprise. This case has been abstruse from the beginning.

    Let’s review: Peer = 1) One that is of equal standing with another. 2) One belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status.

    The only way a jury could render a just verdict in this case would be if the jury was not a jury of the Mongols or the Mongol Nation’s peers. But instead, a jury of the prosecution and defense attorneys peers. In other words; In order to render a fair and just verdict, the jury would have to be made up of trademark and Constitutional law attorneys.

    This case is confusing enough for those knowledgeable in the law. Never mind the average butcher, baker or candlestick maker.


  11. Dasein Says:

    It was either intentional (criminal), or accidental (negligence). Additionally, it was negligence on all the other jurors’ parts not to have at least realized from the beginning that they had zero idea how to figure all this complex shit out, and that there should be some written instructions. Doesn’t the judge usually/always give the instructions verbally anyway, so that the jury at least realized there was such a thing as “instructions”? If so, did the jurors just think that was it, nothing in hand to look over and consult during the deliberations? Or worse, why does the foreperson keep them to him/herself exclusively? Did they realize that was happening??? They’re just supposed to plod on through the fog on memory alone? Nobody spoke up and asked where the fuck are the written instructions? Were they all half asleep? Perhaps the foreperson was equally retarded, and his little detail just slipped his mind, and nobody else noticed either? What a joke of a trial, and at least a real laugher for the Mongols, at least for now.

  12. david Says:

    The question is: Did the jury foreperson intentionally , or accidentally, withhold the jury instructions from the rest of the jurors?

Leave a Reply