I’m going to have to go with OBE here. The evidentiary rules are much lower in sentencing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:seeya:
I totally understand the "felony murder rule" etc ...
BUT you just can't rule out what the State's Star Witness - Jason Autry - stated UNDER OATH: that Zach was at the Bobo home that morning to teach Clint how to make meth.
So ... do you "cherry pick" what you want to believe about the Star Witness for the State - do you believe a percentage - do you accept all or nothing from Autry?
JMO but it does matter who the ACTUAL Kidnapper - "Camo Man" - was in it proves the State's case, and it will exonerate Clint.
:moo:
I’m going to have to go with OBE here. The evidentiary rules are much lower in sentencing.
One tag was found in the remains. Like a clothing tag, or I guess could be a blanket tag.
They had a close up of it in the pictures.
Something may have disintegrated in a few years. Seems like something of the blanket would be there if it was there, I agree.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For sure there is evidence that would be inadmissible at trial but admissible for sentencing. Prior bad conduct is usually a big part of sentencing, but it's usually inadmissible at trial.