Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Videos

  • 488651154.mp4

Downloads

Content

Read the comments on this one... they're hilarious!...

Files

Comments

Bryanna Johnson

this is a great birthday present guys😁

Ashely Diaz

Rizzo Benji is right on this one! Brown and dark Hair and Brown Eyes are dominant gene in the majority of the worlds general population! (At least that's what my public school taught me via Punnet Squares) You're more likely to find a larger native population of Blonde people in snowier colder places.

Ashely Diaz

Abby the "Clown in a corn field" character is also Jewish lol

Ashely Diaz

I like watching people eat in movies and shows: specially I love catching food inconsistencies between shots. For example once I was watching a show where someone was "eating a sandwich" and it when from being a bite taken out back to being a full unbitten sandwich in the next shot, and then half a sandwich in the very next shot and then back to a full sandwich. 🤣

Bryanna Johnson

the show was renewed for both seasons 3 & 4. just to help with the guesses 🙃

Jupiter

I laughed so much during this reaction, thanks dudes. (Also Yes, I imagine it varies per country/municipality but City Councils tend to stream meetings and public hearings, Many also upload videos, time stamp them, include documents the council is viewing online, and provide options of ways to weigh in (in person, email, etc) on things up for public hearings!)

mae rose

Lawyer pop star here, jury selection is one of my favorite things ever (personally) soooooo— basically a jury is picked from a jury pool which is comprised of “a fair cross section” of the community. Basically the pool of people summoned (normally from the voting or drivers license database) should reflect the communities demographics & no specific group is systemically excluded (example: by like not pooling people from a certain neighborhood that is historically lived in by poc) The first round in many states is just a questionnaire that you fill out before or when you get there (the questions vary every case based on the facts and what the attorneys want to ask or know) that basically answers the big questions like job, marital/familial status, whether or not you can be excused for undue hardship (like caretaking), and whether or not you have a conflict of interest (which can excuse you from the case) In this case I’m sure that even if you could say the townspeople had a conflict of interest bc they all knew Georgia/had a personal bias for or against her but during the actual voir dire part (the part where you are asking the jurors questions one by one and then possibly striking in real time) the attorney may ask a question regarding whether they know the defendant and if they say something like “I know of her because she’s the mayor’s wife” the attorney has the ability to rehabilitate the witness and ask very specifically “do you think you would be able to set aside this (belief or opinion or knowledge) to make a decision based on the evidence presented to you and the law?” 3 preemptory strikes per side (which you don’t have to give a reason for striking the juror unless the opposing party suspects it’s for a discriminatory purpose such as race or gender) and unlimited strikes for cause such as unable to be rehabilitated or straight up says they could never impose the death penalty under any circumstances or a personal relationship to the defendant or plaintiff or their attorneys You only need 6 jurors at the end of jury selection and the verdict must be unanimous

mae rose

She can only have a guilty plea if she admits it and maybe ask for a lesser charge and move it from 1st degree murder which is premeditated, deliberate, with intent to kill to 2nd degree with is murder with malice aforethought. So instead of the life without parole sentence she could only get a lesser sentence but not get off by pleading guilty

mae rose

last episode I typed wayyy more about prior criminal convictions and past bad acts but Benji is kinda right! So Rules of Evidence state that if you are going to bring something up to show that this crime is in accordance with pattern or practice is allowed. For example if you are known to never fully stop at stop signs, then if you’re in a car accident they can prove you most likely didn’t stop because you acted in accordance with your usual practice. But that doesn’t really apply here because it’s not a pattern or practice to say that she killed all her past husbands and therefore she killed him too bc this is still subject to whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. Which here it definitely would not be allowed because 1. Never convicted or charged 2. It just confuses the jurors with the fact that if they find that she did it in the past means she must have done it again. Because that’s not the law. Every case is individual and they need to know if she did it in this specific case beyond a reasonable doubt.

mae rose

Omg I know you’re probably just joking but I would be so down! Just give me a time & place hahaha

Frela

The only naturally blonde actresses I can think of actually dye their hair a different colour! I remember reading somewhere that Emma Stone is a natural blonde but dyes it red, same for Amybeth McNulty who plays Anne in Anne with an E. Katie McGrath, who plays Morgana in Merlin is also a natural blonde but dyes her hair black/very dark brown. The grass is always greener on the other side, I guess 🤷🏻‍♀️