Are "Jury instructions" standard? for each trial?
Is there evidence that TM went for GZ's gun? I believe no traces of TM's DNA or fingerprints were ever found on GZ's holster or gun, so this is not factual, but conjecture based on GZ's own words. I will go with what is already known, ie. no GZ DNA at all on TM or TM's DNA/prints on GZ's gun, based on due process, IMO. I can only believe in what is already presented as clear evidence, IMO
Is there evidence that TM went for GZ's gun? I believe no traces of TM's DNA or fingerprints were ever found on GZ's holster or gun, so this is not factual, but conjecture based on GZ's own words. I will go with what is already known, ie. no GZ DNA at all on TM or TM's DNA/prints on GZ's gun, based on due process, IMO. I can only believe in what is already presented as clear evidence, IMO
There are very specific instances in which prior bad acts may be admitted, and I've cited the Federal Rules of Evidence here that list these exceptions. It does not seem to me, that calling this agent would be anywhere within the scope of these exceptions (the testimony must show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident). Did the State really think they could get away with this?
They have reached the point of pure desperation. JMO. OMO. MOO.
There is a guy in front row, looks like secret service, grey suit. Anyone know who he is?
I am going to concede that because right now I don't have the testimony in front of me.. But again, I still don't think it matters much the exact words. But that Rj puts TM speaking to Tm and not GZ storming up to TM and questioning him.
The state wants to call an ATF agent as a rebuttal witness and they don't even know where he is, much less have him on hand.
I will be VERY curious if anyone from WS...(that actually WATCHED the case) has changed their minds in the end of trial....
I started out...first few days....with manslaughter, and now I am firmly on side of self-defense.
Even if someone is following you this does not give you the right to attack them. Self-defense is self-defense.
I hope we get a poll at the end of this trial, and that WS can come together again with the next trial we watch.
The one chewing gum on defense side?
The state wants to call an ATF agent as a rebuttal witness and they don't even know where he is, much less have him on hand.
I'm not Rule 404 of the FRE.The defense witness, Mr Root, testified two times today to GZ's not being a violent person. He opened the door. The prosecution would be remiss not to challenge that experts testimony.