sccoa.pdf
Link for appeal briefs, let me know if it doesn't work
Thanks Robbird...it's a fascinating read.
A couple of things stand out.
With regards to the witness testimony atesting to state of mind. Surely the reason that the co-worker testimony was admitted was because the State was able to present the witness to testify to a conversation they had partaken in, but they rejected the defense testimony because a) MM wasn't testifying herself to confirm that she had in fact stated 'Please don't hurt my Dad' ...and b) the 'Fitzpatrick Statement' was unreliable as Mr Fitzpatrick was unable to be called as a witness. (even if we ignore the fact he retracted his statement)
They refer to Stacey Blue (SB) as an 'uninterested witness' when we all know she was quite a vocal supporter of MM right the way through the trial on social media. That IMO makes her statement questionable, and given the fact she could not hear what they were discussing, makes me consider the relevance of her statement.
The statement from the alternate juror is worrying, however, their overarching argument regarding jury selection is a stretch. They have taken a simple statement from Aamland regarding 'private conversations' and taken a massive assumption that this referred to conversations outwith the deliberation room. Surely this is the first question he was asked when he was called before Judge Lee to explain himself?
The juror comments regarding MM's mental health were made in an ABC interview once the trial concluded - AFTER the jury had the opportunity to research the defendant's online and after some of them met the Corbett family. Surely this cannot be considered when assessing what evidence they took into consideration during the actual trial?
Did the overkill presented by the prosecution not rebut the fact that MM was not the aggressor? From what we understood here, the overkill negated the fact that the defendants could use a self defense defense, so therefore, by proving the overkill, the prosecution in essence proved that MM was the aggressor.
In regards to the 'Fitzpatrick Statement' what onus would have been on Judge Lee to understand the truthfulness of the statement by TM? Surely the fact that the prosecution would show that TM had lied as to when Mr Fitzpatrick apparently told him this information, and the fact that there was a legal document from Mr Fitzpatrick denying the statement would have to have been taken into consideration? Otherwise defendants could introduce anything they liked at trial to try to convince the jury as to their state of mind.
I would love to see the trial transcripts...were the defense not allowed to question James on his analysis in court? They could have used this information to discredit his entire testimony...or presented their own blood spatter expert to offer the jury another alternative?
WHAT ABOUT THE BRICK????? Does that not contradict MM's statement as to what happened??
Interested to read MM's Brief now!