Wink And Nod Agreement
Date Posted: April 15, 2021 by admin
I suspected that “a nod and a wink” might be a British usage, and “a wink and a nod” american. Pretty sure, if I checked with Google`s ngram Viewer, “a nod and a wink” is more common in English; American English is the opposite. I was surprised to read the previous comments to see “a nod and a wink,” and I had never heard of a nod being as good as a wink,” but the phrase “a wink and a nod” was very familiar to me. If someone does something “under the table” – like bribes — with the other participant`s understanding, they could do it “with a wink and a nod,” which means everyone understands without saying. This chapter examines the practice and implications of race-neutral campaign strategies in America. Specifically, the origins of neutral racist campaign strategies among black politicians are examined in the early 1980s and how race-neutral black candidates, particularly Barack Obama, acted against racism or racial inequality during their election campaigns. It also takes into account the informal wink and nod agreement between race-neutral black candidates and the black voters who supported it, as well as its impact on black politics. Finally, the chapter talks about “deracialization” as an election campaign strategy adopted by race-neutral black candidates. A proverb from Martin Lomasney is linked: “Never write if you can speak; Never speak if you are able to agree; Never nod when you have winks. 2. Instead of the usual precautionary instruction for the benefits that might be given, asking the jury that “no promise” does mean that the informant will say what he thinks the prosecutor wants to hear.
Sivak v. Hardison, 658 F.3d 898, 916 (9. Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “the more uncertain an agreement is, the more the incentive to make the testimony pleasing to the prosecutor” (citation Bagley v. Lumpkin, 798 F.2d 1297, 1302 (9 cir. 1986)); People v. Coyer, 142 Cal. App.3d 839, 843 (1983) (“It is the subjective expectations of the witness” that are decisive for impeachment proceedings, not the actual benefit that is granted); people v. Phillips, 41 Cal.3d 29, 47-48 (1985) (not to indicate the benefits given prior to testimony, not only deprives jurors of information that allows them to be credible, but encourages witnesses to lie; Witnesses “may be influenced by his hopes and fears, that he promises to testify whatever the prosecutor wants” to get what he wants later).