There must be limits to that

Especially if what they want to say isn’t legally relevant to the charge they face. That’s the core point here, from my casual reading of the press - they wanted to say that they were doing what they did because of worries about the planet and the judge was of the view that that didn’t amount to a defence and so time shouldn’t be wasted on it, just as if they’d wanted to spend hours addressing the jury about their religious beliefs.

As for the sign, you aren’t supposed to communicate with members of a jury at all and she was clearly trying to influence their votes. Seems a bit heavy though.

Posted By: Old Git, Sep 19, 18:15:36