girlhasnoname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 9,756
- Reaction score
- 123,894
Ballistic evidence is allowed by law to be presented in Indiana period. It's up to the JURY to decide if it's quasi science or not, and I have no doubt there will be dueling experts on this, which is how it should work.The fact that one fallible (like all of us) human being can decide that the third party evidence is false, based solely on opinion, and not let a jury of his peers consider it and decide it (like our justice system is supposed to be), makes me terrified. This is not only about this case and this is not just my take on it (myriad attorneys out there agree with me). JMO MOO IMO
Furthermore, the fact that geofence data (digital EVIDENCE) is being quashed on the DEFENSE side, and the quasi-science of bullet markings on an unspent round on the STATE side, is also terrifying. When one person has the power to decide the outcome of a trial before it even starts and not let a jury decide what THEY think is true....there just is no hope for our justice system, in my opinion. At least not in the state of Indiana.
This is verbiage taken directly from a jury charge, and I have looked at five others and they are very similar. JMO IMO MOO You are the exclusive judges of the facts proved, of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to their testimony.
RA's jury has had this power taken away from them before the trial has even started.
JMO MOO IMO
Even the Examiner from the ISP Lab who performed the exam here stated in her own report that the results are open to different interpretation based on the level of expertise of the individual examiner.
The jury should be the ones to make the determination of weight they place from the testimony offered and they will from both sides.
MOO