and yet lots of his prior bad acts sure came in...seems odd.NO, everything that could have helped DB was suppressed to protect AB's bad acts.JMO
good points....While we wait for the verdict I’m going to be a little bit picky about the state’s version of the motive….
So the prosecutor argued that the motive was that AB was worried Doug would get full custody bc he was more financially stable. However, later on she argued AB was free from the defendant financially. She had her own home and her own money (the pros specifically said something along these lines). Y’all recall that? That was when she was going through the “Power and Control” wheel presented by Ferris. I thought that portion of the closing was good but I wish she had explained AB finances better during the trial and closing. If that was the motive, it should’ve been explored more at trial. Did I miss something?
I think the prosecutor’s closing could’ve used some tightening up. She also said all the ways in which Doug never assaulted the defendant and forgot to mention the waving of the gun allegedly in the direction of AB. She never touched that, which makes it seem like she was hiding the ball.
JMO
She is the one on trial so we can't allow any prejudicial bad acts to taint her in jury's view. Isn't that how it usually works with defendants with lots of priors, they aren't allowed to be brought in most times.and yet lots of his prior bad acts sure came in...seems odd.
Unfortunately it is business as usual. As I have been saying, Doug has no voice in this trial.JMOOand yet lots of his prior bad acts sure came in...seems odd.
I think did about as much as they could without broaching the suppressed bad acts of ab.JMOODoug’s prior bad acts are relevant since this is a self-defense case and AB’s state of mind is highly probative. The defense game is to say that AB had reason to be fearful because Doug had done xyz scary thing in the past. That’s why all that came in. The defendant had no prior bad acts other than being a lying liar. The state didn’t spend enough time attacking her credibility imo.
What are AB’s bad acts that were suppressed?I think did about as much as they could without broaching the suppressed bad acts of ab.JMOO
For one, the lies she told to get the c section, we got no details during trial. Also no details on the accusations of sexual abuse by DB on his own daughter, just to name a few.What are AB’s bad acts that were suppressed?
My understanding is that it often comes down to the discretion of individual judges what is considered "fair" to have in and what isn't. I'm aware of a case where the defendant was claiming self-defense and the victim was someone who literally had a murder conviction. The murder conviction got suppressed.Doug’s prior bad acts are relevant since this is a self-defense case and AB’s state of mind is highly probative. The defense game is to say that AB had reason to be fearful because Doug had done xyz scary thing in the past. That’s why all that came in. The defendant had no prior bad acts other than being a lying liar. The state didn’t spend enough time attacking her credibility imo.
yes I guess it is business as usual...jury only gets an incomplete story. I often have thought that after delivering a verdict in a big case like this they may start watching and reading and wishing they had known so much more..might have voted differently. But just not how the justice system works.Unfortunately it is business as usual. As I have been saying, Doug has no voice in this trial.JMOO
Sad but trueyes I guess it is business as usual...jury only gets an incomplete story. I often have thought that after delivering a verdict in a big case like this they may start watching and reading and wishing they had known so much more..might have voted differently. But just not how the justice system works.
Hope so but I think they are going with manslaughter at this pointI still think she'll be found guilty on all charges.
I hope the jury can see through her lies and acting during her testimony.I still think she'll be found guilty on all charges.
It has to be relevant to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing. In AB’s case they are claiming she was a battered woman. So all the prior bad acts of Doug in relation to being arguably a domestic abuser comes in. I agree some of it is up to the judge’s discretion like the animal abuse. He could’ve said no to that but I think it could be argued that that is part of DV. It could instill fear. If Doug had a murder conviction that was 20 yo that may not be relevant. It’s too remote and it’s not necessarily DV. And it’s too prejudicial to Doug. Lots of nuances.My understanding is that it often comes down to the discretion of individual judges what is considered "fair" to have in and what isn't. I'm aware of a case where the defendant was claiming self-defense and the victim was someone who literally had a murder conviction. The murder conviction got suppressed.
I knew when they got in the lesser charge of manslaughter that any potential hung could probably turn into manslaughter. I think that is most likely although I am not convinced by either side.Hope so but I think they are going with manslaughter at this point
I said earlier if they come back quick she is acquitted if it takes more time they are deciding between 2nd degree and manslaughter