This examination of a juror by Steele's now disbarred scum bag lawyer shows his incompetence. He comes across to me as saying:"My client is quilty but the government didn't quite prove it, so you should acquit him.". The least that he could have done is say:"My client was framed and it is all circumstantial evidence against him.". McAllister didn't even attempt to justify the $120,000 that he stole from Steele supporters.
========
http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/wp-...ay-1-FINAL.pdf
JUROR NO. 24: I stole a candy bar once, and they did accuse me of that and I confessed, so --(Laughter.)
MR. McALLISTER: All right. Honesty is always the best policy. When you talk to patients or clients, don't you always ask them for their story, their side of it, their opinion? Don't you always do that?
JUROR NO. 24: I do.
MR. McALLISTER: Well, why is it that a defendant, the accused, doesn't have to say or do anything under our system of law?
JUROR NO. 24: Because we have to try to maintain that presumption of innocence. And it's a different story when I'm trying to work with somebody in a counseling process, for example, than somebody that may be accused of something, and we have no idea whether they did it or not. So we're not asking the same kind of thing when we're trying to look at that. Somebody telling their story helps me a great deal to be able to help them. In a court of law, an individual doesn't -- especially if he is a defendant, didn't volunteer to be there, and so he should not have to, or she should not have to, try to explain their innocence, because our court system, based on justice, as we try to base it, would not work if we didn't have the presumption of innocence.
11 MR. McALLISTER: Now you used the word "innocence" twice. And is that a diffeence, in your mind, than being found not guilty?
JUROR NO. 24: I think we use the terms interchangeably.
MR. McALLISTER: Okay. Judge Winmill explained this, that the government has the burden of proving a defendant guilty, and they have to do it by proving every element of each of the charges. And I take it you agree with that?
JUROR NO. 24: I do agree with that.
MR. McALLISTER: What would you do if you got into -- you got on the jury and you were back in the jury room and you had listened to what the judge had given to you in terms of the legal instructions, heard the witnesses, and you said to yourself, "I kind of feel like the defendant's guilty, but the government didn't prove it"? What would you do at that point?
JUROR NO. 24: Having been in that situation once or twice, I know for myself that -- that I would go with the reality that -- that the facts had not been proved. And if they haven't been proved, then a person can't go with their own -- their feeling that, "Yeah, we ought to do it anyhow," or whatever. A person has to -- in a court of law, the facts have to be demonstrated
and proved to, I think, a good satisfaction that is -- has been demonstrated, or else we can't accept them as facts.
MR. McALLISTER: Okay. What I'm trying to get at is, there is a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty. Would you agree with that?
JUROR NO. 24: I think that was kind of the same question you asked before, but --
MR. McALLISTER: I agree it is, in a different form.
JUROR NO. 24: Reflecting on that, I can buy into that theorem that -- that you've just espoused, because I guess we could be in a situation where the accused was the only one that really knew whether they had done something or not, but if the -- and if the facts didn't demonstrate completely that that person had done that situation, then we can't accept that as a fact.
MR. McALLISTER: And what about if he didn't testify, or he or she didn't say anything?
JUROR NO. 24: Well, that's always their privilege. And it comes down to a real difficult situation, because in our federal -- in our court process, we go through the process of determining guilt or innocence, or guilt or not guilty. And in our process today, a person has that right but almost never will exercise that right, and that's what's going on here in this -- this trial that we're going to go into. Because Mr. Steele, I'm sure, would like to be able to say, "I don't have to prove anything." But in the system that -- where we are, since he has been accused, he doesn't have the luxury, really, of saying, "I'm not going to do anything about it. I'm not going to try to put my case forward." And so we may be far afield from what
your answer was, but a person has the right to not have to demonstrate their innocence; but in the real world, it becomes necessary.